C-grunt
Member
A reliable gun is better than an unreliable gun, regardless of ammo choice.
I shot a dude in Iraq that had me dead to rights but couldn't get his Ak to run properly.
Defense ammo vs target ammo for handguns
- Thread starter Phillip Farney
- Start date
- Status
A reliable gun is better than an unreliable gun, regardless of ammo choice.
I shot a dude in Iraq that had me dead to rights but couldn't get his Ak to run properly.
OP
OP
Phillip Farney
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2020
- Messages
- 33
Thank you for your service. You are very right. when looking at this further it is important to understand that while budget guns may go bang everytime,there bang may not be the same as a more quality gun. When you study the velocities of projectiles fired from to guns of similar length and measure their muzzle energy at 10 feet you will see that almost every time the more expensive Gun wins . Their is a good study that you can find with a simple google search where they compared a SCCY and a Ruger testing the ballistic performance of a 380 ACP vS. 9mm. They found the lower cost budget gun was outperformed each time. as a side note, the 380 was significantly less powerful despite its similar size. Budget guns have their place for sure,but in the context of this debate over defensive rounds, if the popular opinion is get what gives you the best advantage, then that would certainly apply to the Gun as well. So, for those saying use the JHP and are Carrying a Taurus G2C or similar, aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Oh, I am very glad his AK failed and you can tell that story!
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Doesn't change the fact that hardball doesn't work worth a crap. We're not talking a minor, incremental increase in terminal effect here. No amount of mental gymnastics can get around that. Regardless of what cartridge you choose, or whether you're carrying a HiPoint or a Korth, you can easily afford something more effective than hardball. It doesn't have to be the latest and greatest but it should be something that gives you the best chance of ending a violent confrontation as quickly as possible.
C-grunt
Member
What???
OP
OP
Phillip Farney
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2020
- Messages
- 33
Nevermind.
C-grunt
Member
If Im reading the reply right you are saying that if you believe buying the better ammo is worth it than you should spend the money on a better gun?
If that's the argument then I agree. I dont carry budget guns. Ive seen budget guns fail to much for me to purchase one to use.
That doesnt mean they dont have their place or that Ive never relied on one. When I was making that CEO level pay as a Army PFC I used budget guns. Because I didn't have much money. I also didn't shoot handguns enough at that time in my life to really see the difference. And shooting 100 rounds a session once or twice a month at the air conditioned indoor range really didn't point out the differences either. Well except for the couple of Taurus guns my roommate had that would malfunction in the best of conditions.
Even with a cheap gun, as long as it works, running hollow points is a better choice. Again Ill reiterate... handguns are not good manstoppers. Duty caliber handguns are marginally effective at best. Hollow points aren't magic but they do give you a boost in terminal performance that from my experience investigating and treating gunshot wounds, is a noticeable difference.
If that's the argument then I agree. I dont carry budget guns. Ive seen budget guns fail to much for me to purchase one to use.
That doesnt mean they dont have their place or that Ive never relied on one. When I was making that CEO level pay as a Army PFC I used budget guns. Because I didn't have much money. I also didn't shoot handguns enough at that time in my life to really see the difference. And shooting 100 rounds a session once or twice a month at the air conditioned indoor range really didn't point out the differences either. Well except for the couple of Taurus guns my roommate had that would malfunction in the best of conditions.
Even with a cheap gun, as long as it works, running hollow points is a better choice. Again Ill reiterate... handguns are not good manstoppers. Duty caliber handguns are marginally effective at best. Hollow points aren't magic but they do give you a boost in terminal performance that from my experience investigating and treating gunshot wounds, is a noticeable difference.
luzyfuerza
Member
About the only time I carry non-JHP ammo is when I forget to put factory carry ammo back in my carry piece after a range session.
Which is VERY seldom.
I want every advantage possible should I be forced to use it for real.
Which is VERY seldom.
I want every advantage possible should I be forced to use it for real.
Philip,
I will call you on this. I would much rather have my issue GLOCK 19 or my personally purchased BERETTA M9A3 loaded with FEDERAL 124 grain HST 9m.m. than a WILSON EDC9 firing ball in a gunfight. ANYDAY!
I do not doubt the qualities of the WILSON, but whatever advantages it has, I do not believe that reliability or magazine capacity are among those advantages. I have shot BERETTA'S long enough to know that a well set up one is very accurate. I am not a "COCKED and LOCKED" fan either, so that is a HUGE DISAVANTAGE compared to the above listed guns. I would also prefer my SIG 229, BERETTA 92Compact or SPRINGFIELD ARMORY XD9 Sub Compact over the WILSON. Yes it is a very nice gun, but you are mistaking price and hype for real, useful features.
I would still prefer the BERETTA, GLOCK or SIG, even if they and the WILSON had the same ammo.
I know that this is heresy to 1911 fans, but they are not me.
Jim
I will call you on this. I would much rather have my issue GLOCK 19 or my personally purchased BERETTA M9A3 loaded with FEDERAL 124 grain HST 9m.m. than a WILSON EDC9 firing ball in a gunfight. ANYDAY!
I do not doubt the qualities of the WILSON, but whatever advantages it has, I do not believe that reliability or magazine capacity are among those advantages. I have shot BERETTA'S long enough to know that a well set up one is very accurate. I am not a "COCKED and LOCKED" fan either, so that is a HUGE DISAVANTAGE compared to the above listed guns. I would also prefer my SIG 229, BERETTA 92Compact or SPRINGFIELD ARMORY XD9 Sub Compact over the WILSON. Yes it is a very nice gun, but you are mistaking price and hype for real, useful features.
I would still prefer the BERETTA, GLOCK or SIG, even if they and the WILSON had the same ammo.
I know that this is heresy to 1911 fans, but they are not me.
Jim
OP
OP
Phillip Farney
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2020
- Messages
- 33
The Wilson brand was just used as an example of a high priced gun and certainly not for being a hammer fired weapon. As you know the customize many brands, Glock, Sig Sauer and others, in all calibers. I carry a G19 as well. My point was, we all seem to be of the same mindset when it comes to ammo, get the best. But when it comes to guns, not so much. Even if I go with your premise, which I believe, why not run components on your gun that improve it? On your service glock, did you upgrade the barrel? Upgrade the sights? If not, why not? If your ammo is the best why did you choose not to make improvements to your gun. I understand reliability, but if you tell me the high end Kimbers and Dan Wesson or Wilson combats are not reliable, I have to disagree, because they are. Conversely if reliability is your main concern why not Canik,when their reliability record is second to none. Where does brand name come into play. I also realize your duty weapon is restricted by your agency but your personal carry is not. Barettas are good guns, real good, but there are others that are just as if not more reliable. Of course, it comes down to personal preference and choice and economics. While most can afford a few extra dollars for better ammo we cannot all justify more spent when less will do. I would love a Kimber all decked out, but my Glock with a match grade barrel and night sights with a Holosun will do just fine. Thanks for calling me out.
Philip,
While I will agree that the high end 1911's you listed are very reliable, I am not sure that they are equal to my GLOCK, SIG or BERETTA. I know they are not better. I have found the GLOCK and BERETTA to be as reliable as you can find. When I was transitioned to the BERETTA 96D Brigadier, they had us fire 600 rounds of high velocity .40 S&W 155 grain ammo. We fired it holding the gun up normally. Then fired it held sideways and then fired it upside down. When I went to advanced training, we were laying down in the dirt and firing it upside down. Never a problem. Also, it was accurate under poor conditions. We were shooting in a quarry with a 114 degree ambient temperature. A lot of sweating there.
Also, no modifications on the service issue gun are allowed.
That is fine, our GLOCK 19's came well equipped and proved accurate enough for me to qualify on a new drill on my first time out. It is fine with me. I used to add a rubber grip to my first generation GLOCK 19, but my new one does not need it. Also, my issue gun has ambidextrous slide releases. Nice, but I was trained to slingshot it. Still, I am impressed with it enough, that I intend to buy one for myself.
As far as a CANIK, it is a clone of the WALTHER P-99, which is a very nice gun. I shot a CANIK once, but I have seen nothing to convince me it is MORE RELIABLE than my GLOCK 19 or BERETTA. By the way, I liked the WALTHER P-99 with the AQ trigger more than the later model with the GLOCK style trigger that the CANIK also has.
When I first started buying handguns, everyone modified their guns. If you bought a 1911, it was a COLT and it was pretty much the only choice back in the 1970's. Then you went to a gunsmith and got a ramp job, then an extended slide release, of course, new sights, usually a BOMAR (but night sights were in the future) and tried out your chosen ammo to see if it worked. Some did, some did not. Then an enlarged safety and may a trigger job.
If you bought a revolver, unless it was a PYTHON, you took it to a gunsmith to smooth the actions. I had Smith & Wesson's bought new that did not have as smooth a trigger as my CHARTER ARMS Undercover after it had been worked on.
Now, I can buy a gun with all the features already included and not have to overpay for it. Time marches on. If you want a 1911 and have the money, great. I see nothing there for me but a flashy gun to brag about with no advantages over the ones I now use.
As far as brand names, I have bought several of the STOEGER 8040 pistols. I paid less than $300.00 dollars for them and have not modified them. I bought them because my other .40's were full sized BERETTA 96's and were hard to conceal. I have owned a SIG 229 and GLOCK 22 in .40 S&W, but did not find them satisfactory. I bought the STOEGER'S to have a concealable .40 S&W and found them to work very well. They are reliable, hit hard with FEDERAL 180 grain HST (my former issued ammo) and are more concealable. It is possible that they are less reliable than the GLOCK or a CANIK, but I have not found that to be true, so far. I prefer a 9m.m., but now have a concealable .40 S&W, in case there is a 9m.m. ammo shortage. Also, my agency found this load works very well in the field. I use one for a car gun.
Also, modifying a gun to get the best gun you can have and then using less than the best ammo, is not reasonable to me.
Jim
While I will agree that the high end 1911's you listed are very reliable, I am not sure that they are equal to my GLOCK, SIG or BERETTA. I know they are not better. I have found the GLOCK and BERETTA to be as reliable as you can find. When I was transitioned to the BERETTA 96D Brigadier, they had us fire 600 rounds of high velocity .40 S&W 155 grain ammo. We fired it holding the gun up normally. Then fired it held sideways and then fired it upside down. When I went to advanced training, we were laying down in the dirt and firing it upside down. Never a problem. Also, it was accurate under poor conditions. We were shooting in a quarry with a 114 degree ambient temperature. A lot of sweating there.
Also, no modifications on the service issue gun are allowed.
That is fine, our GLOCK 19's came well equipped and proved accurate enough for me to qualify on a new drill on my first time out. It is fine with me. I used to add a rubber grip to my first generation GLOCK 19, but my new one does not need it. Also, my issue gun has ambidextrous slide releases. Nice, but I was trained to slingshot it. Still, I am impressed with it enough, that I intend to buy one for myself.
As far as a CANIK, it is a clone of the WALTHER P-99, which is a very nice gun. I shot a CANIK once, but I have seen nothing to convince me it is MORE RELIABLE than my GLOCK 19 or BERETTA. By the way, I liked the WALTHER P-99 with the AQ trigger more than the later model with the GLOCK style trigger that the CANIK also has.
When I first started buying handguns, everyone modified their guns. If you bought a 1911, it was a COLT and it was pretty much the only choice back in the 1970's. Then you went to a gunsmith and got a ramp job, then an extended slide release, of course, new sights, usually a BOMAR (but night sights were in the future) and tried out your chosen ammo to see if it worked. Some did, some did not. Then an enlarged safety and may a trigger job.
If you bought a revolver, unless it was a PYTHON, you took it to a gunsmith to smooth the actions. I had Smith & Wesson's bought new that did not have as smooth a trigger as my CHARTER ARMS Undercover after it had been worked on.
Now, I can buy a gun with all the features already included and not have to overpay for it. Time marches on. If you want a 1911 and have the money, great. I see nothing there for me but a flashy gun to brag about with no advantages over the ones I now use.
As far as brand names, I have bought several of the STOEGER 8040 pistols. I paid less than $300.00 dollars for them and have not modified them. I bought them because my other .40's were full sized BERETTA 96's and were hard to conceal. I have owned a SIG 229 and GLOCK 22 in .40 S&W, but did not find them satisfactory. I bought the STOEGER'S to have a concealable .40 S&W and found them to work very well. They are reliable, hit hard with FEDERAL 180 grain HST (my former issued ammo) and are more concealable. It is possible that they are less reliable than the GLOCK or a CANIK, but I have not found that to be true, so far. I prefer a 9m.m., but now have a concealable .40 S&W, in case there is a 9m.m. ammo shortage. Also, my agency found this load works very well in the field. I use one for a car gun.
Also, modifying a gun to get the best gun you can have and then using less than the best ammo, is not reasonable to me.
Jim
OP
OP
Phillip Farney
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2020
- Messages
- 33
Philip,
On the GLOCK, what makes them a success is the combination of polymer and metal in the configuration they use. I like metal framed guns. I also like plastic framed guns. It is just about impossible to get a metal gun as light as a plastic one. Plastic does not rust. Do you oil your 1911 frequently? I live in Florida and it is very humid now. I took out some of my metal guns and used a CLENZOIL cleaning pad on them, although they were clean. I did this with my BERETTA 82, which I had handled and my S&W model 24, which I had not. I never have to do this with a GLOCK or SPRINGFIELD XD9. I know some shooters who do not like plastic guns. OK, but you cannot dislike them for not working well or not rusting or being too heavy. It is just something different and you can either accept it for what it is or not.
Way back, I used to be a big 1911 fan and only wanted .45ACP, because Col. COOPER said it was much more effective than the 9m.m. I still know people who say that. I just do not believe it. A .45ACP may be more effective, but not with fmj ammo. With the right ammo, my 9m.m. is effective enough, recoils less so that I can fire more rounds in less time which is really important if you miss or you have more than one opponent. and I have 16 rounds in my GLOCK 19 or 18 rounds in my M9A3, instead of 8 or 9 in my 1911.
Is it 9 or 10 rounds in the WILSON EDC9?
I also have a COLT Officer's model .45ACP and it just pales in comparison to my SPRINGFIELD ARMORY XD9 Sub Compact for concealed carry. Yet, the COLT is supposed to be better made, carries half as much ammo, has a metal frame and more recoil, too!
Last, I can draw the XD9 and it is ready to go. Not so the COLT which still requires me to flip off the safety. Not liking something like a plastic frame does not mean it is inferior or poorly made.
GLOCK'S have also established very impressive records for shooting large amounts of ammo. As a matter of fact, the STAR M-28, was recorded having fired at least 28,000 rounds and it was hardly expensive.
In the end, what you need is GOOD ENOUGH, not fancy or expensive. Same with ammo. M9A3 loaded with FEDRAL HST and my rail light, perfection for my home gun.
Jim
On the GLOCK, what makes them a success is the combination of polymer and metal in the configuration they use. I like metal framed guns. I also like plastic framed guns. It is just about impossible to get a metal gun as light as a plastic one. Plastic does not rust. Do you oil your 1911 frequently? I live in Florida and it is very humid now. I took out some of my metal guns and used a CLENZOIL cleaning pad on them, although they were clean. I did this with my BERETTA 82, which I had handled and my S&W model 24, which I had not. I never have to do this with a GLOCK or SPRINGFIELD XD9. I know some shooters who do not like plastic guns. OK, but you cannot dislike them for not working well or not rusting or being too heavy. It is just something different and you can either accept it for what it is or not.
Way back, I used to be a big 1911 fan and only wanted .45ACP, because Col. COOPER said it was much more effective than the 9m.m. I still know people who say that. I just do not believe it. A .45ACP may be more effective, but not with fmj ammo. With the right ammo, my 9m.m. is effective enough, recoils less so that I can fire more rounds in less time which is really important if you miss or you have more than one opponent. and I have 16 rounds in my GLOCK 19 or 18 rounds in my M9A3, instead of 8 or 9 in my 1911.
Is it 9 or 10 rounds in the WILSON EDC9?
I also have a COLT Officer's model .45ACP and it just pales in comparison to my SPRINGFIELD ARMORY XD9 Sub Compact for concealed carry. Yet, the COLT is supposed to be better made, carries half as much ammo, has a metal frame and more recoil, too!
Last, I can draw the XD9 and it is ready to go. Not so the COLT which still requires me to flip off the safety. Not liking something like a plastic frame does not mean it is inferior or poorly made.
GLOCK'S have also established very impressive records for shooting large amounts of ammo. As a matter of fact, the STAR M-28, was recorded having fired at least 28,000 rounds and it was hardly expensive.
In the end, what you need is GOOD ENOUGH, not fancy or expensive. Same with ammo. M9A3 loaded with FEDRAL HST and my rail light, perfection for my home gun.
Jim
OP
OP
Phillip Farney
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2020
- Messages
- 33
Yes, I oil all of my firearms each month. But, I only have three, much more to keep peace than by desire. Don't misread, I love all guns. They are like pizza, it's all good some is better than others. I like polymer guns very well. I like all metal guns, i just like guns. Big ones, small ones, any color, every color. Rifles, handguns, shotguns, like them all. In fact I am constantly looking for the next deal. But alas, that's not the question. Ultimately it is a question for which there is no proper or correct answer.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
"Also, modifying a gun to get the best gun you can have and then using less than the best ammo, is not reasonable to me."
That's a good point.
However, the issue with modifying guns, or with buying guns which are custom modified, has lead many people astray.
Not every modification necessarily makes a gun suitable for a defensive carry weapon. Modifying a semi-auto for tight groupings suitable for exceptionally accurate range firing, for example, may include physical modifications that make the gun both less comfortable/easy to carry and more prone to mechanical problems in a self-defense scenario.
Tight fits, for example, are great...when the gun is clean and isn't subject to pocket/holster lint, dirt, rain, etc.
I'm not a big fan of modifications in general, outside of things like improved sight visibility, better grips, ambidextrous safeties...things which are intended to make the gun better from a self-defensive carry perspective, as opposed to optimal performance in a clean range environment.
Weapons in the military aren't allowed to be modified because they're specifically built to a Mil-Spec with respect to performance, endurance, ammo, etc. Unauthorized modifications which deviate from the Mil-Spec may adversely affect performance in a variety of ways.
And handguns aren't the primary weapon for the servicemember anyway, as a rule. They lack the inherent power, accuracy, and range that rifles do and just don't make an effective primary weapon outside of very specific instances.
That's a good point.
However, the issue with modifying guns, or with buying guns which are custom modified, has lead many people astray.
Not every modification necessarily makes a gun suitable for a defensive carry weapon. Modifying a semi-auto for tight groupings suitable for exceptionally accurate range firing, for example, may include physical modifications that make the gun both less comfortable/easy to carry and more prone to mechanical problems in a self-defense scenario.
Tight fits, for example, are great...when the gun is clean and isn't subject to pocket/holster lint, dirt, rain, etc.
I'm not a big fan of modifications in general, outside of things like improved sight visibility, better grips, ambidextrous safeties...things which are intended to make the gun better from a self-defensive carry perspective, as opposed to optimal performance in a clean range environment.
Weapons in the military aren't allowed to be modified because they're specifically built to a Mil-Spec with respect to performance, endurance, ammo, etc. Unauthorized modifications which deviate from the Mil-Spec may adversely affect performance in a variety of ways.
And handguns aren't the primary weapon for the servicemember anyway, as a rule. They lack the inherent power, accuracy, and range that rifles do and just don't make an effective primary weapon outside of very specific instances.
OP
OP
Phillip Farney
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2020
- Messages
- 33
Completely agree on modifications. Every modification, especially internals on a Glock is one step further away from reliability. That's not to say they can't be as reliable, but Glock has built their entire package to work together. A change in springs, no matter the function of that particular spring, affects the overall gun. Even something as simple as a Compensator can cause the slide to not cycle properly if you don't match the recoil spring. Arms manufacturers have spent millions on research to perfect their product and somehow gun owners think they know better. I think this desire to tinker with machines is inherent in males. Couple that with our severe vulnerability to advertising and you see some people have guns that are simply the original frame and slide, many times the slide is changed as well. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense if your intent is to carry the gun for self defense. If it's a range toy, sure go ahead do what you like.
When a hollow point gets plugged by clothing or intermediate barriers, expansion is inhibited, but that tends to mean that the bullet holds together and penetrates deeply; I.O.W., it penetrates about like a round-nosed bullet.
As for “target” ammo, I remember when that term meant cartridges loaded with premium, expensive bullets designed for maximum accuracy. Some of these, such as Winchester’s original 147-grain sub-sonic 9mm load, were/are hollow-points. The cheap stuff was called “the cheap stuff,” or, “training ammo.”
The better duty/carry/defensive ammo is loaded with flash-retardant in the powder, to preserve the shooter’s night vision, and be less likely to betray one’s position, and, is more likely to be better-sealed around the primer and case mouth.
Rounded-shoulder bullets may be more likely to be diverted by something hard, such as a skull, in a situation where a sharp-shouldered bullet will “bite,” and stay on-course.
The better JHPs are designed for controlled expansion, and to hold together, better, inside the intended target, and while penetrating intermediate barriers. A cheaper round-nosed FMJ bullet, or a cheap JHP, may shed its entire jacket, squirting a quite soft lead core away from the jacket. Further fragmentation may occur. These pieces may or may not diverge from each others’ paths, inside an intermediate barrier or intended target. This may or may not lessen the bullet’s effectiveness inside a living target.
I load .38 Special 148-grain Target Wadcutters in some lightweight, alloy-frame revolvers. Such weapons, when loaded with +P, batter my aging, ailing hands too much. This is not inexpensive ammo; I choose it for the cutting effect of the flat-nosed bullets.
Project355
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 672
I'm glad that old age has permitted me to grow beyond magnum mania. Cast lead at moderate velocity for me thanks.
There are JHP rounds for which that is not true.
Yes. So did the Secret Service.
True.
With what I know about forensic investigation, the judicial process, and certain specialized aspects of the rules of evidence, I would not recommend that.
There are factory practice rounds that are calibrated to give the same POI as defensive ammunition.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
About reloads and self-defense:
This has gone the rounds in many places...reliability, how it looks in the courts, forensics, etc.
If you're ever involved in a shooting, by far the most important aspect is the evidence which points to whether or not the shooting was justifiable in accordance with the jurisdictional laws.
"Evidence" covers a lot...but let's just say that it includes statements (from any witnesses as well as the people involved), photographs/video, and physical evidence at the scene.
For the details of any given story put forth, there's very likely a bit of physical evidence which would tend to confirm or refute it. For instance, if a person claimed to have been physically attacked up close and the assailant was shot in close proximity, there should be physical evidence on the bodies of both people to support this. If the person was some distance away, the physical evidence wouldn't support this.
Factory ammunition is manufactured with standards and records that are detailed enough to provide both consistent results with respect to forensics AND be documented well enough to be readily admissible in a court.
Your reloads? Not so much.
Which means important details with respect to physical evidence not only may not be available for accurate forensics, but may not be admissible in court either.
By far, the BEST outcome of any shooting is that it clearly be a "good shoot" with respect to the jurisdictional laws. However, this rarely such a "clear cut" event...which means forensics is of prime importance.
This has gone the rounds in many places...reliability, how it looks in the courts, forensics, etc.
If you're ever involved in a shooting, by far the most important aspect is the evidence which points to whether or not the shooting was justifiable in accordance with the jurisdictional laws.
"Evidence" covers a lot...but let's just say that it includes statements (from any witnesses as well as the people involved), photographs/video, and physical evidence at the scene.
For the details of any given story put forth, there's very likely a bit of physical evidence which would tend to confirm or refute it. For instance, if a person claimed to have been physically attacked up close and the assailant was shot in close proximity, there should be physical evidence on the bodies of both people to support this. If the person was some distance away, the physical evidence wouldn't support this.
Factory ammunition is manufactured with standards and records that are detailed enough to provide both consistent results with respect to forensics AND be documented well enough to be readily admissible in a court.
Your reloads? Not so much.
Which means important details with respect to physical evidence not only may not be available for accurate forensics, but may not be admissible in court either.
By far, the BEST outcome of any shooting is that it clearly be a "good shoot" with respect to the jurisdictional laws. However, this rarely such a "clear cut" event...which means forensics is of prime importance.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,284
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I greatly respect the man, but I'm not in total agreement with this at all.
"On the street, the only safe backstop for the defensive handgun’s bullets is the body of the offender. Therefore, it is not exactly responsible to be firing bullets that are likely to shoot through the assailant."
(In his defense, he goes on to say "This is one of the main reasons law enforcement in its virtual entirety has gone to expanding bullet handgun ammunition in this country.")
This is a blatantly incorrect statement when taken by itself, if only because of the following two factors:
- The vast majority of shots never hit their intended target.
- To be effective, a bullet MUST be capable of penetrating deeply enough to reach vital organs reliably. Simplifying, the accepted guidelines come from FBI testing criteria, which is a minimum of 12" and a maximum of 18". (Layered barriers, ballistics gel, blah, blah, blah).
I challenge readers here to pull out a 24" ruler and take some measurements on random people, including yourself:
Place your back against a wall and measure how deep your chest and stomach area are.
I'm 69" tall, currently about 175 pounds. My chest and stomach are NOT 12 inches deep.
This means if I'm shot in the chest or stomach with a pistol round which meets the FBI guidelines for recommended penetration, very likely that bullet is going to pass entirely through my torso.
And very likely this means it's going to have no problems passing through any of my limbs, as well.
Yeah...it's going to have lost some energy.
But the plain fact of the matter is that a human body is NOT a "safe backstop" at all, much less "the only safe backstop".
THAT SAID:
Yes...JHP ammunition is far more likely to dump more of its energy in the body of the person it's passing through than jacketed ball along the same path. Which means it'll be a wee bit LESS dangerous coming out the other side.
But if you're intentionally shooting at someone without taking into consideration who and what is on the other side of the person you're shooting at, then any person on the other side has FAR more problems coming at them to worry about than any over penetrating bullets.
The key in what Massad Ayoob said really lies with his follow-on statement I posted above which starts "This is one of the main reasons...".
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
All it takes is a little logic and common sense: Did LE agencies - who were all using round nosed lead, WCs, SWCs, or FMJ ammo - suddenly decide "Wow! We've got too much over penetration, which is a danger to innocent people. Let's have ammo manufacturers come up with a new design of bullet that doesn't do that."???
I seriously doubt it. Over penetration might now be considered a factor, but at the time agencies first began to adopt hollow point ammunition, I doubt it was a major concern.
- Status
Similar threads
