Defense ammo vs target ammo for handguns

[Spade5]

Not really on topic but I will share what I observed in Nam. I have seen the standard military M-16 round go right through a man and he kept fighting. I have also see that same round inflict massive damage and the man goes down. Same with AK rounds coming the other way.

 

[JDeere]

FMJ has been taking care of business for over a 100 years. I'm not knock HPs because they have have their place. People get all caught up in gel test and marketing. No one knows how a bullet will react in every situation.

 

[mmb617]

I'm going to have to say that I'm a little surprised to find there are others like me who actually have FMJ's in their carry gun. If I admitted that on some gun forums I'd be barraged with posts calling me an idiot if not worse.

Maybe I'm just cheap, or maybe it's that I'm lazy, but I shoot the same ammo at the range that I carry every day. Even worse to some, it's my reloads. I have thousands of rounds fired with this ammo and I'm confident of my shot placement with it. This topic is along similar lines to caliber wars or capacity wars. There will always be some who think you are underprepared it you don't carry the largest caliber, highest capacity defensive weapon available and load it with the most lethal ammo on the market. Oh, and carry multiple extra mags.

It is impossible to prepare for every possible scenario. I feel that if 15 rounds of 9mm ball ammo isn't enough to save my bacon, more or better probably wouldn't do it either.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I'm going to have to say that I'm a little surprised to find there are others like me who actually have FMJ's in their carry gun. If I admitted that on some gun forums I'd be barraged with posts calling me an idiot if not worse.

Maybe I'm just cheap, or maybe it's that I'm lazy, but I shoot the same ammo at the range that I carry every day. Even worse to some, it's my reloads. I have thousands of rounds fired with this ammo and I'm confident of my shot placement with it. This topic is along similar lines to caliber wars or capacity wars. There will always be some who think you are underprepared it you don't carry the largest caliber, highest capacity defensive weapon available and load it with the most lethal ammo on the market. Oh, and carry multiple extra mags.

It is impossible to prepare for every possible scenario. I feel that if 15 rounds of 9mm ball ammo isn't enough to save my bacon, more or better probably wouldn't do it either.

Maybe not, but more or better in an extra magazine would prove very useful if you have a magazine malfunction and you need to reload

 

[jmorris]

Some bullets are more destructive than others.

I’d rather have a firearm loaded with ammunition I am 100% sure will run than one with the most destructive ammunition money can buy but I don’t know will function.

So yes, I have carried firearms with “minor” RN loads.

That said, I have never fired a single round into an attacker. So my opinion and experience is pretty useless.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I go through 110 124 grain Speer Gold Dots every year I think it costs about 50 bucks*. That's not a huge price even for me.

I've heard Old Dog say people who have used their guns in self-defense tend not to carry low capacity guns.

I'll add to that that they don't skimp on ammunition either.

* I looked it up they're about 45 bucks a box now (another reason to have bought them a few years ago)

 

[hso]

Am I just an old fool to think i am ok using regular target ammo in my firearms for defense.

Not necessarily.

The objective to using a firearm is to stop a violent attacker from continuing the attack. It does seem foolish to intentionally select ammunition less capable of stopping such an attack as quickly as currently available ammunition with better performance for the purpose. It also seems foolish to intentionally select ammunition with over penetration issues that may harm innocents vs. selecting ammunition designed to deliver all the bullet's energy inside the attacker.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Ok. I know that defense ammo is made to do more damage and from all I have researched on it, I guess it does. Does that mean target ammo won't do serious damage to an attacker?

The short answer to your question is "no".

Anything a firearm puts out that pokes holes in the bad guy is exceedingly dangerous and deadly. How dangerous and deadly is a factor of what it's poking holes in along the way and how much damage it does in the process.

Which means that the number one factor in this endeavor isn't the ABILITY of a bullet to cause massive tissue damage, but YOUR ability to produce those holes in the first place.

In other words, you've gotta hit your target first before you can be effective at all.

Couple things about handguns and ballistics in general:

1. A handgun is the most limited firearm firearm out of all the firearms, simply due to physics. They're smaller than rifles, which necessarily means they are by nature less capable in a number of ways.

This is offset by the fact that handguns, being smaller, are far easier to carry and conceal than rifles. There gun you have on hand is infinately better than the one you do not.

2. It's not about "energy", per se, when it comes to terminal ballistics. Though energy is important, and is one measurable aspect of a bullet's performance, it's not "energy" which stops the bad guy. It's those holes the bullets make and what those holes appear in.

Bullet design is hugely important in increasing the potential effectiveness of any hit, relative to the same hit by another bullet.

"Potential" effectiveness, because because many factors can influence the terminal ballistics at the target. Bullet design, mass, velocity, intervening material the bullet passes through, the tissues/bones the bullet impacts, etc.

IN GENERAL (all other things being equal):

- Round nose bullets cause the least tissue damage because tissue is elastic. But they have excellent penetration characteristics.

- Flat nosed bullets cause more tissue damage than round nose, because the flat nose design acts more to "punch out" or "cut" a hole in the tissues they pass through. But they have slightly lower penetration characteristics.

- Hollow point bullets cause much greater tissue damage than either, but have even lower penetration characteristics AND performance may be heavily influenced by a number of factors such as bullet design, velocity, hitting soft tissue or bone, fouling of the hollow cavity by foreign material, etc.

Volumes can be written on this discussion, which is why I have the short answer when I opened my posting.

Target ammo IS plenty deadly. But ball ammo cycles most reliably in semi-auto firearms and it's cheaper (meaning you're more likely to have a lot of it).

All other factors equal, it's least damaging in soft tissue.

Given the choice, a quality hollow point is preferable. But pumping the bad guy full of non-hollow point induced holes will also ruin his day.

 

[Phillip Farney]

Before the advent of modern preventive medicine losing half your kids before the age of ten to common childhood illnesses was just fine.

While this sounds clever I don't really think it is apples to apples . I do get your point. And Maybe I am arguing just for the sake of argument here. But, medicine has improved significantly, while ballistics technologies has also improved, ammo was capable of nearly the same result back then as now. don reading on the subject, I have found surprisingly that Casualties as a result of being shot is relatively low, for lower tham expected. Maybe that is more representative of better medical treatmet. Maybe not . There are way too many factors to say a particular bullet is more effective in real life situations,not shooting into a static Gel ballistic block. after all we have not even touched on the role of caliber. Does it make much difference in smaller calibers? .22LR? 25ACP?Like d said I carry Hornaday and Sig defensive rounds but Am I being a sheep for doing it ? Is the advantage so much greater? Or, Maybe more importantly and as you have wisely stated, if there is an advantage, why would I not take it? Anyway, you make a lot of valid points and make sense.

 

[Jim Rau]

What I teach is 'something is better than nothing', that said some 'tools' are made specificly for a certain 'job' thus they will preform better at that task than others. This is the case with ammo. BUT, the most important aspect of winning a gun fight is HIT PROBABILITY! That is why I advise my NEW shooters, who are using 38sp revolvers, to carry the same 148 gr wad cutters they train with for defense as they are easier to 'handle' than the best SD +p rounds and thus they are more likely to HIT their assailant. And lets face it, that flat front surface of a wad cutter will cause some serious trauma and not over penetrate. . If you are an experienced, well trained shooter, then by all means, get the best SD ammo you can afford that is RELIABLE in your chosen PPD!

 

[Phillip Farney]

The short answer to your question is "no".

Anything a firearm puts out that pokes holes in the bad guy is exceedingly dangerous and deadly. How dangerous and deadly is a factor of what it's poking holes in along the way and how much damage it does in the process.

Which means that the number one factor in this endeavor isn't the ABILITY of a bullet to cause massive tissue damage, but YOUR ability to produce those holes in the first place.

In other words, you've gotta hit your target first before you can be effective at all.

Couple things about handguns and ballistics in general:

1. A handgun is the most limited firearm firearm out of all the firearms, simply due to physics. They're smaller than rifles, which necessarily means they are by nature less capable in a number of ways.

This is offset by the fact that handguns, being smaller, are far easier to carry and conceal than rifles. There gun you have on hand is infinately better than the one you do not.

2. It's not about "energy", per se, when it comes to terminal ballistics. Though energy is important, and is one measurable aspect of a bullet's performance, it's not "energy" which stops the bad guy. It's those holes the bullets make and what those holes appear in.

Bullet design is hugely important in increasing the potential effectiveness of any hit, relative to the same hit by another bullet.

"Potential" effectiveness, because because many factors can influence the terminal ballistics at the target. Bullet design, mass, velocity, intervening material the bullet passes through, the tissues/bones the bullet impacts, etc.

IN GENERAL (all other things being equal):

- Round nose bullets cause the least tissue damage because tissue is elastic. But they have excellent penetration characteristics.

- Flat nosed bullets cause more tissue damage than round nose, because the flat nose design acts more to "punch out" or "cut" a hole in the tissues they pass through. But they have slightly lower penetration characteristics.

- Hollow point bullets cause much greater tissue damage than either, but have even lower penetration characteristics AND performance may be heavily influenced by a number of factors such as bullet design, velocity, hitting soft tissue or bone, fouling of the hollow cavity by foreign material, etc.

Volumes can be written on this discussion, which is why I have the short answer when I opened my posting.

Target ammo IS plenty deadly. But ball ammo cycles most reliably in semi-auto firearms and it's cheaper (meaning you're more likely to have a lot of it).

All other factors equal, it's least damaging in soft tissue.

Given the choice, a quality hollow point is preferable. But pumping the bad guy full of non-hollow point induced holes will also ruin his day.

Excellent answer. Thank you for your service. I live in a town that I am sure you are familiar with, Jacksonville. Home of the World's largest Marine Corps Base and thank God for that.I think you have hit the nail on the head.

 

[WrongHanded]

No, not seeking confirmation. Of course, I will use what I choose. But, I seriously was interested in the community's viewpoint on this issue. It is pretty much what I expected. Before there were hollow points, ball ammo was just fine. I would contend that I could stop a threat with either ammo choice. I do load hollow point rounds in both my home defense and carry weapons. My thought was, am I doing so because of effective marketing or did I do so because I believe ball ammo to be ineffective? My conclusion is probably marketing. No doubt hollow points are more effective, but is it marginal? On the other hand, why not give myself every advantage possible?

I wouldn't say ball was "just fine" before hollow points were widely available. I'd say, they were what was available. Kind of like saying: black powder and lead balls were fine before metallic cartridges were invented. Sure, what came before worked okay. But new technology is adopted because it works better. Like high speed internet replaced dial-up, and fuel injection replaced carburetors.

Hollow points just do more damage to soft tissue (assuming they expand). Everyone likes to say accuracy is the most important thing, and that's true. But what happens when you're not as accurate as you expect to be, and you don't get solid hits on the central nervous system to immediately stop the threat? Then you need as much wounding damage from each shot as you can get.

So, if you're an expert marksman, who can keep cool under pressure and put your first round into the CNS every time, you'll be fine with whatever bullet design you like. One shot, threat down immediately. But if like most of us, you're not that amazing, more damage per shot is a very good idea.

Paul Harrell has some videos on YouTube of testing FMJs vs JHPs. I'm sure others have done similarly.

 

[buck460XVR]

My only gripe with "target" loads is that they're often inexpensive and not loaded to tight specs, when you spend $1+ each for defensive ammo I expect proper function and consistent tolerances.

While I agree, many folks expect tighter specs and tolerances when it comes to higher priced SD ammo, I wonder if that is always the case? Sure, some of the higher priced, limited supply boutique ammo may be made to tighter tolerances, do you really think that the major manufacturers have different machines and more experienced operators running their SD lines as opposed to their standard ammo? Why is it then when certain ammo runs out and that company claims it's because their have switched all their machines over to higher demand ammo for a while? I've been told when i asked about hard to find ammo that it will be available when they set up the machinery again for that "batch". That tells me the only difference is components. Primers are pretty much the same. Powders can be the same as what we reloaders can get or proprietary. Either tho are no less/no more reliable as the other. Bullets are probably the biggest difference, especially when it comes to cost. If the machines are the same and the operators the same........do the bullets themselves make all the difference?

 

[1942bull]

I am an avid researcher when it comes to ballistic information of any caliber I choose to carry or have at home. Dr. Joseph Di Maio is a renown forensic pathologist who has performed thousands of autopies of shooting victims and examined numbers autopsy reports as an expert witness. In his 400 page book he state that during an autopsy it is impossible to tell what type of bullet was used by the wounds, and that the only way to know what bullet(s) did the damage is to find the bullet in the body. So those that make claims about the effectiveness of different type bullets Have no proof other than non-forensic testing.

Some of the tests like seen on YouTube are unreliable because they are only comparative tests to evaluate ballistics. That do not replicate tissue, organ, or bone damage done in an actual shooting of a person or animal. Their value is only to compare bullet performance in the test media. I could write much more about the variances,of such testing, but I see no point in that in this post.

DiMaio also states what we have heard so many times: penetration and accuracy are the most important factors in wound damage. I always say that a 22 in the eye or mouth will do damage to the brain or spinal column while a 45 to arm will damage the,arm.

I carry 380 in an LCP 2 loaded with Extreme Penetrator ammo because It will penetrate 14 to 16 inches in gel through FBI specified barriers. Add to that I have become very accurate out to 20 yards with my Elsie Pea. In gel it makes larger sound channels that JHP but is not dependent upon expansion. A poor;y expanded JHP is like FMJ. It can over penetrate in 380. The Extreme Penetrator will not. I am speaking of 380. I am not speaking of 9mm and larger calibers. I have not researched them as thoroughly, and make accordingly make no comments on them.

What ammo is best for is the one that you can shoot most accurately and has the deepest penetration under 18 inches in gel. All the other ballistic parameters will depend upon factors of the target that you cannot predict. Ballistics I’d complicated science, and wound analysis is more,complicated. Pick wisely.

 

[Phillip Farney]

I am an avid researcher when it comes to ballistic information of any caliber I choose to carry or have at home. Dr. Joseph Di Maio is a renown forensic pathologist who has performed thousands of autopies of shooting victims and examined numbers autopsy reports as an expert witness. In his 400 page book he state that during an autopsy it is impossible to tell what type of bullet was used by the wounds, and that the only way to know what bullet(s) did the damage is to find the bullet in the body. So those that make claims about the effectiveness of different type bullets Have no proof other than non-forensic testing.

Some of the tests like seen on YouTube are unreliable because they are only comparative tests to evaluate ballistics. That do not replicate tissue, organ, or bone damage done in an actual shooting of a person or animal. Their value is only to compare bullet performance in the test media. I could write much more about the variances,of such testing, but I see no point in that in this post.

DiMaio also states what we have heard so many times: penetration and accuracy are the most important factors in wound damage. I always say that a 22 in the eye or mouth will do damage to the brain or spinal column while a 45 to arm will damage the,arm.

I carry 380 in an LCP 2 loaded with Extreme Penetrator ammo because It will penetrate 14 to 16 inches in gel through FBI specified barriers. Add to that I have become very accurate out to 20 yards with my Elsie Pea. In gel it makes larger sound channels that JHP but is not dependent upon expansion. A poor;y expanded JHP is like FMJ. It can over penetrate in 380. The Extreme Penetrator will not. I am speaking of 380. I am not speaking of 9mm and larger calibers. I have not researched them as thoroughly, and make accordingly make no comments on them.

What ammo is best for is the one that you can shoot most accurately and has the deepest penetration under 18 inches in gel. All the other ballistic parameters will depend upon factors of the target that you cannot predict. Ballistics I’d complicated science, and wound analysis is more,complicated. Pick wisely.

Excellent response. Thank you very much.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

On the subject of "over penetration":

Worrying about "over penetration" is, in my opinion, a bit of a red herring. Reliable self defense ammunition WILL "over penetrate" because part of the characteristics desired in any good self defense ammunition is, in fact, it's ability to penetrate.

First, statistics on vartios shootings show a significant number of missed shots, upwards of 70% or more. I submit that the worry some people place on "over penetration" is insignificant compared to the dangers of missed shots.

Second, any bullet which is to be considered reliably effective MUST have good penetration characteristics. A bullet which does not is not reliably capable of penetrating deeply enough to reach vital organs or cause significant damage/bleeding.

The FBI standard of 12 to 18 inches penetration in each of their tests is the most often cited penetration standard. Measure the thickness of these average human body in various places and you'll quickly find the this standard means that a large number of "hits" will necessarily involve bullets which will "over penetrate".

Being aware of what lies behind your intended target is therefore of far greater importance than "over penetration".

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

While I agree, many folks expect tighter specs and tolerances when it comes to higher priced SD ammo, I wonder if that is always the case?

This is an excellent question.

First of all, I'm of the opinion that when people get a firearm, they should run a variety of ammunition through it and see what works best in it.

Does it cycle reliably? Does it hit accurately? Does it produce good groupings?

If the gun does not "like" certain types, or combinations of factors, in ammunition, then quit trying to feed it that. Maybe your 9mm cycles well with 124 gr but not 115 gr. Maybe a certain brand of hollow point doesn't feed as well. Maybe this ammo shoots above (or below) point of aim.

Whatever.

Shoot enough to know what actually works in your gun.

Second, for quality ammo of any kind that meets these various criteria, most people are not going to tell the difference unless they're shooting matches at the range.

 

[azrocks]

IMO bullet / round selection within a caliber is by far the least important predictor of success in a self-defense scenario with a firearm.
Second least important would be the caliber itself, assuming the selection pool only includes common defensive handgun calibers.
Training, practice, experience, & mindset is what will or won't make you come up on top.
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to do that necessary to put the odds in your favor, but compared to the things that can make BIG differences in your ability to win a fight, bullet selection doesn't even rate. Once again, IMO.
Rifles - that's a different story.

 

[3Crows]

This is why I like 45 Auto RNFMJ (and .45 LC HCL). Same ammo for both, just makes big holes.

 

[.308 Norma]

First of all, I'm of the opinion that when people get a firearm, they should run a variety of ammunition through it and see what works best in it.

Yep, I'm of that opinion too. However, (and this may be a little off topic) I posted in another thread about buying myself a Glock 19 a few weeks ago. It runs with everything I've fed it so far. So far! The problem is, I haven't run enough different types and brands of ammo through my G19 yet to trust it for EDC. I can't, because even though we are not hurting for ammo (yet) I don't know when I'll be able to replace the ammo we have on hand. Besides, we already have EDC guns that we already know work well with the ammo we have on hand.
I don't like this having to reserve ammo in case we really need it. I want to take my new Glock 19 out and shoot the heck out of it - until I find out what works best. Ah, the good ol' days.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

It's your life. You make the decisions, you live (or not) with the consequences.

 

[Kevinq6]

A ball round may very well be better if extreme penetration is required. Depends where you hit the bad guy too, if you hit him in the pelvis a FMJ or hardcast would be better to break it... not that he's going to enjoy a 230gr hollowpoint either.

Sometimes a lot of penetration is needed. The terrorist who tried to attack the stupid draw Muhammad event in TX a few years ago was hit in the shoulder with a 230gr .45 ACP Gold Dot and it messed him up but the gold dot didn't expand (surprising out of a duty pistol) and still stopped right before the spine. If it had expanded would have still just messed up the shoulder bad though but it didn't need to expand and even a few more inches of penetration would have been nice (for that shot). I'm just mentioning this as an interesting example in case some of you didn't read about that in the news. The more important part of that story is the good guy hit him in a good place.

From what I've read an expanding bullet makes a bigger hole but also is more likely to give a psychological stop. And you know, if it does go deep enough I'd prefer a 1in diameter bullet!

I personally like a deep penetrating expanding bullet to increase the chance I can break the spine if the shot is not ideal. However I think as long as a bullet does the minimum 12in in ballistics gel you should be fine. Shot placement is king but it's fun to pick what ammo to use.

 

[Drail]

What type of bullet you put into a bad guy is not nearly as critical as people think. People should worry more about shot placement and not so much about "devastator" bullets. A lot of you guys are overthinking this IMO.

 

[CDW4ME]

As you stated why not give yourself every possible advantage?

It's your life.

Admirable effort, beyond what I quoted.

Guys satisfied with FMJ (not referring to OP) are unlikely to change, no matter the data or examples provided. "Good enough" mentality.
Same applies to being satisfied with pocket 380/38 snub in a "good area" but carry more where they perceive greater threat. Not likely to change.
I linked tests showing the difference between HP and FMJ - hollow point making 2x bigger hole, thats my effort.
If I post a video of a large man acting as if multiple bullet wounds are bee stings, some will invariably dismiss it applying to them. Oh well.
I assume there may be people that are a bit malleable reading my post, great my effort isn't for nothing.
However, I also realize that despite data, examples and even video that there is this:


As you said, its their life. I (we) tried. Oh well.

 

[C-grunt]

Being a cop in a major metro city, I have seen my fair share of handgun wounds over my 13+ years. Being a "gun nut" and firearms instructor, I actually seek out all the ballistic data I can from the scenes. I also get to hang out in the ER and sometimes OR to see the medical side too.

In my experience hollow points do more damage than FMJ and it is noticeable with duty caliber handguns. Exit wounds are far more pronounced and they seem to glance off of thick bone at a far lower rate. Handguns are already marginally effective weapons and adding a little bit of a performance boost is a good idea. Would I not carry a gun because all I had was ball ammo? No. Would I purposely carry ball ammo over hollow points? No.

The human body is amazingly resilient and horribly fragile at the same time. People can take huge amounts of damage, even fatal damage, and still be mobile depending on factors like intoxication and sheer will power.