FBI test not relevant in militaries new side arm.

Status
Not open for further replies.

SVTOhio

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
380
I seem to be seeing a lot of references to the FBIs testing for 9mm when talking about the new military sidearm choice. But isn't a big reasoning behind the FBI's choice due to the advancements in ammunition? Isn't this fact irrelevant for the military because they are going to limited to using 9mm ball ammunition which obviously is not going to be as effective as the defensive ammo the FBI tested. Just a though that came to my head this morning. Thoughts from the high road? Thankyou.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The military ISN'T limited to ball ammo. We choose to use ball ammo as a show of good faith toward some old treaties we never signed, but more importantly because the military application needs more penetration. The enemy is wearing all sorts of field gear, sometimes body armor, and even more importantly, hides behind cover. Since that round must pass thru dirt, sandbags, car doors, windshields, adobe, light construction, or other barriers using a hollow point would be counterproductive. It would flatten out in full expansion before it even got thru.

The military IS using open tip bullets in selected situations and does issue it. On the whole, tho, in combat it's not preferred and penetration is needed more.

Military needs are entirely different - they have a handle on it and it's been working just fine for over 100 years.
 
Last edited:
Several years ago Charles Kelsey invented his radially dynamic bullet, which he sold thru his company Devel. It was a solid bullet with flutes and ridges that were intended to increase wounding effects. The ribs cut slices in soft tissures and the flutes propelled the soft tissues radially away from the wound track tearing open the slices. The bullets he designed at the time were limited by manufacturing process (and cost) and they weren't as efficient as they could have been. More info can be found here about the Devel Radially Dynamic bullet - http://www.thegunzone.com/people/charlie_kelsey2.html

Since his death I've seen similar bullet designs that would seem to violate his patent. But his design is one way the military can increase wounding effects of handgun bullets without violating international laws of war.
 
The military ISN'T limited to ball ammo. We choose to use ball asmmo as a show of good faith

Also because it's cheap. Actually, almost entirely because it's cheap, and because you don't win wars or even secure facilities all that well with handguns ;)

TCB
 
The handgun is the most insignificant weapon in the military, and proposals for new handguns are based mainly on the fact that the current inventory of Beretta M9s are worn-out and in need of replacement, not because they don't work.

I'm sure there are select groups of people who are allowed to carry something "other than FMJ".

I also don't believe that bullet type would have any impact on the outcome of a firefight so I honestly wouldn't have cared either way if I was issued FMJ or hollowpoints.
 
Last edited:
I seem to be seeing a lot of references to the FBIs testing for 9mm when talking about the new military sidearm choice. But isn't a big reasoning behind the FBI's choice due to the advancements in ammunition? Isn't this fact irrelevant for the military because they are going to limited to using 9mm ball ammunition which obviously is not going to be as effective as the defensive ammo the FBI tested. Just a though that came to my head this morning. Thoughts from the high road? Thankyou.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I honestly haven't seen any discussion relating the FBI's ammo tests to the military. I have seen references to the FBI's new handgun being considered.
 
Also keep in mind the military's needs are much different than the FBI's or anybody else's. An example of this is that military body armor like SAPI or E-SAPI plates are not tested or rated in accordance with NIJ levels like civilian or LEO armor.
 
Oops. misspelled ammo.

A large gaping wound caused by a hollow point bullet isn't the goal. A hit is - and the bullet has to pass thru cover often as not to get a hit. Full metal jacket does that, HP flattens out with half the penetration - or less.

As for open tip ammo use, that dates back to the 1980's when JAG studied the issue and declared bullets designed for aerodynamic stability weren't designed for maximum expansion, if at all. The intent was to jacket the core from the base to tip, leaving the nose lighter for stability. And it had been working since 1954 when the Matchking took Olympic Gold. Since that was the world standard long distance bullet and it wasn't considered a "dum dum" then we could use it. And that opened the legal door for our snipers to do so. It's been done for decades, the Mk 262 in 5.56 is a 70grn OTM meant for SPR use and also highly preferred by MK18 SBR shooters.

Here's the point - for personal protection or LEO use, the intent of HP bullets is to stop someone and the sooner the better. You don't want to have to shoot them repeatedly. In war, the use of FMJ or steel penetrator ammo is to get to the target. Since a lot of it is high density gunfire someone will likely get hit more than once. A thru and thru is a hit - and hits create difficulty with the soldier continuing the fight. He isn't fully capable of returning fire, it's much harder to manuever, and with more soldiers hit, the unit is less capable of returning fire or holding ground.

Pollce on a crowded urban sidewalk isn't soldiers in defensive positions with mortar and artillery support. Two completely different situations - the first has a goal of ZERO collateral casualties, the second enhances and improves them. And in combat, a lot of soldiers are hit by rounds never aimed at them. The high volume and their continued movements to gain tactical fire superiority put them into a line of fire they didn't even know existed.

Take a look at what the FBI are testing for - 12 to 18 inches of penetration, and the major obstacles are denim, t shirts, auto glass and thin sheet metal. Take those FBI approved rounds and then try shooting solid core wood office doors, sandbags, logs, body armor, two AK mags in series fully loaded, etc. HP performs poorly at those, FMJ is better, steel cored penetrator rounds beat them both, and armor piercing? It's a known fact it bounces around inside helmets, motor vehicles, and small confined masonry buildings to produce multiple hits. That isn't something we need when arresting a mentally unstable homeless man on a public street - and why its not legal to possess in some jurisdictions either. A few people misused it and that's why we can't have nice things.

Just like there are differences between handguns and rifles, there are differences in what kind of bullet and why it's purposefully chosen for the job.
 
One should also look to what the Russians are doing with over-pressure 9x19 rounds for their MP-443 Grach pistol (and other 9mm guns).

Their 7N21 round is pushing a 147gr bullet with a steel penetrator core at over 1,500+ fps, specifically designed to penetrate body armor.

Hopefully someone over here is looking at these hot rod chamberings as well.

.
 
Here's the point - for personal protection or LEO use, the intent of HP bullets is to stop someone and the sooner the better. You don't want to have to shoot them repeatedly. In war, the use of FMJ or steel penetrator ammo is to get to the target. Since a lot of it is high density gunfire someone will likely get hit more than once. A thru and thru is a hit - and hits create difficulty with the soldier continuing the fight. He isn't fully capable of returning fire, it's much harder to manuever, and with more soldiers hit, the unit is less capable of returning fire or holding ground.

In this context a handgun is often a last ditch weapon and the idea of simply shooting an enemy combatant to "create difficulty" is absurd. The idea is to take that person out of the fight so he/she doesn't remain a deadly threat.

US military issues handguns for many reasons - to pilots of they're shot down, to sentries and security personnel, special forces operators, medical personnel for self-defense, etc. The requirements to quickly stop a determined attacker is no different from what the FBI has already identified. Problem with the military is, "It wasn't invented here".
 
FBI test not relevant in militaries new side arm.

Yes and no. The tests that should have ended the debate happened in 1946 after WW-2 ended. The military at the time was not pleased with either the 1911 or 45's performance and wanted something better. Their testing at the time found FMJ performance between 9mm and 45 to be virtually identical making one stop stops roughly 2/3 of the time with either round. Since follow up shots were a very real possibility with either; having more ammo, with less recoil was highly desirable.

They were also disappointed in 45's ability to defeat barriers and found that 9mm was vastly superior. One of the tests was to determine the range that a steel GI helmet could be penetrated. At ranges over about 10 yards 45's were bouncing off while 9mm continued to penetrate out past 100 yards.

But in 1946 there was no perceived need for a new handgun and the test results were filed away and forgotten.

By the 1960's the legend and myth of the 1911 and 45 had grown to epic proportions with influential gun writers making claims that 45 hardball would stop a man 19 times out of 20 and 9mm was at best 10/20. People bought into the legend and many still believe it. But that is not all bad. Having confidence in your weapon is a huge part of using it effectively. If someone has more confidence in 45, or even 40 I think it better to carry that caliber than a 9mm they don't trust. But most people are now beginning to buy into the facts rather than the legend.

With modern HP ammo test results now show a very slight edge to 45. With the best HP loads it is now considered to be effective about 90% of the time while the best 9mm HP loads are in the 85% range. The best 40 S&W loads slightly best 45. But the FBI has determined that the very small edge to 40 and 45 are more than offset by 9mm's capacity and lower recoil.
 
Personally I don't think the FBI's test are relevant period. They have played politics for way to long.

Deaf
 
I'd offer a slightly different take on this discussion:

In military confrontations, can last a while -- and waiting for your attacker to bleed out (if you're not badly hit yourself) might be an unintended alternative, but I'd argue that it's never a desired outcome. Well-placed shots are important and the objective.

If you're a civilian trying to stay alive, a central nervous system hit is what you need, and related tissue damage is largely inconsequential: too many bad guys (those who are determined to do you harm, or those those who have chemical boosters) will often continue their attack after multiple hits.

With a handgun, secondary wound damage (due to temporary wound cavities) plays almost no role in stopping the attack. Rounds have to move at greater than 2,000 fps to start having that effect, and most handgun ammo doesn't come close. If you're counting on your opponent to bleed out, he or she may still kill you as he or she bleeds out!

Please note: I'm not advocating hardball in the place of self-defense ammo. But I would argue that shot placement and penetration deep enough to hit something important is more important than bullet design in most handgun battles.

If your self-defense ammo penetrates as well as hardball, and you shoot it as well, then that's the clearly way to go. But realize that a bigger hole anywhere but the CNS or a critical organ (heart, lungs, a key artery) may not do enough, quickly enough, to matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top