FMJ ammo - anyone with real numbers on this?

[goon]

Everything I have read and even my own common sense tell me that the 9mm FMJ would shoot right through whatever and keep right on going until it hit a tri-axle or a brick wall. I would expect that other FMJ ammo that I have seen for the more acceptable defense rounds (9mm, .357, .40 S&W, .45 ACP) would behave similarly. What I am wondering is are the other FMJ rounds really that much better than 9mm FMJ winds up being?
I remember reading something years ago that inferred that even the legendary .45ACP sucks with FMJ ammo, barely edging the 9mm in performance. Does anyone have any real world sources of numbers on this?

 

[thatguy]

My research (which is extensive) indicates that there is very little difference in effectiveness between .38 Special, 9MM, .357 Magnum and 45 ACP rounds in defensive shootings. Some people swear by one caliber or another but after 20+ years of looking into the matter, including interviewing surgical personnel for their observations on wounded people, my finding is that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference what caliber is used the results wind up being very similar. I have had surgeons tell me that they cannot tell the difference in wound size between a .38 Special and a .45 ACP. I know this sounds wrong but that's what they say.

As I said, many people reject this notion, but this is what I have learned.

As for bullet type, I would always use JHPs for defensive ammo, but again, I'm not sure if there's really all that much difference. I am told the problem is that no handgun generates enough muzzle velocity to really deliver a powerful blow. Even the .30-30 Winchester, not considered a real powerhouse by rifle standards, makes the .44 Magnum from a handgun look pale in comparison.

There's just "something" about getting that projectile up over 2,000 FPS that makes a world of difference in the damage inflicted.

I know many replies will now follow calling me an idiot and insisting that the .45 ACP (or whatever big-bore handgun the writer favors) is the be-all and end-all for defensive performance. I used to think that, too, until I saw a guy weighing no more than 140 pounds absorb four solid hits to the chest from a .45 ACP and still run nearly 100 yards before collapsing.

I now realize that there is no defensive handgun capable of true "man-stopping" performance. That takes a rifle or shotgun.

Everyone is free to carry what makes them comfortable. If you prefer a .45 then by all means you should carry one. My usual carry piece is a 9MM (115 JHP +P+) and I am fine with that.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I seem to recall a .45 FMJ won't go through a German helmet but a 9mm FMJ would go through GI Steel helmet at the same range.

I wouldn't wanna get hit with either.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As for bullet type, I would always use JHPs for defensive ammo, but again, I'm not sure if there's really all that much difference.

That's my point on the one-shot stop thread.

We can't tell that a larger caliber makes a difference -- but if we look at extremes it should. The difference, if any is less than the margin of error of our measuring instrument.

If, however, we stack things that should make a difference together -- larger caliber, +P loading, longer barrel, hollowpoint bullet, and compare it to the alternative (smaller caliber, ordinary load, short barrel and FMJ) we may begin to see a detectable difference.

 

[goon]

What I am really asking though is pretty much a comparison of say 9x19mm FMJ and .45 ACP FMJ, only using real data rather than opinions. Maybe some kind of study from WWII or something. I seem to remember reading somewhere that both were somewhere around the low 60% in one shot stops, with the .45 only having an edge of a point or two, assuming both were using FMJ ammo.

thatguy - thanks for the insight (even second hand is better than what I had) of the doctors. If a hole looks like a hole to them, maybe it is that simple. Hmmm...

Although not a person, I have seen deer run 100 yards or even a little more with their heart blown to peices from a high power rifle. I was taught to wait until you see their breath to fire because they can run as long as they have a breath of air. Makes sense if you think about it and if the adrenaline is pouring through your veins, are you really that much different than an animal?

As for my uses, 9mm 115gr JHP, sometimes in +P loading (depending on the gun) does OK for me too.

I'm not trying to start a "my gun is better than your gun" thread. Just academic study.

 

[goon]

Maybe some men are more prone to give up. Some men aren't.
Do you have a dog, a male dog? I bet if you kick him in the jewels he would still feel it eventhough he isn't a person.

Anyhow, I don't want to get sidetracked and hijack my own thread.
FMJ effectiveness - 9mm, 45 ACP, even .40 S&W if anyone knows anything. I just sort of want to get an idea of how well they would work if they were what you had.

 

[The Drew]

Performance depends on your target... I believe that a 9mm will penetrate a hard target better, but a .45acp would have better wounding capability due to the larger caliber and greater energy. (230@850fps vs 115@1190)

personally I wouldn't carry either in ball ammo... JHP's for me...

 

[ulflyer]

Nothing scientific and no conclusions can be drawn as there are too many diff factors involved, but awhile back I had a large 275 gal steel oil tank to be discarded and began using it for a target; after all, it made a nice sound. FMJ 9mm would go right through the tank, whereas the 45 acp would penetrate one side only and dent (sometimes) the back side.

Similarly, I've shot an enamel washer drum with some lightly loaded lead 45acp and they only dent it; shot with a 22 and it penetrated!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have had surgeons tell me that they cannot tell the difference in wound size between a .38 Special and a .45 ACP.

This is obviously a soft tissue observation and not a hard tissue observation.

Surgeons cannot tell the difference between a .38 spl and .45 acp holes in soft tissue for a variety of reasons, the first of which is that they have no need to assess the exact hole size and compare the hole with the projectile. That is completely immaterial as they are more interested in patching up the shot person.

For similar comparison, try shooting various rounds through 5" or so thick furniture foam like you find in couch cushions. Stand back a few feet so that the muzzle blast does not burn the foam and shoot a variety of calibers through the foam. You won't visually see much difference in size of the entry holes of calibers relatively close together in size if not for the staining around the entry where material on the surface of the slug is wiped off on entry. Foam, like human soft tissue, has the ability to stretch and then shrink back and so the entry holes aren't going to look all that different.

Similar appearance of the entry hole, however, does not necessarily indicate that the actual damage created will be similar.

 

[thatguy]

Like I said, there SHOULD be a diffrence in effect with a bigger bullet, but in the real world this difference usuallly fails to materialize. I suspect it's due to the lack of velocity with handgun rounds. A 45 at 900 FPS or a 9MM at 1100 FPS just isn't different enough to make a significant difference in effect.

I suspect that there is no real hard evidence since such testing is difficult. Do you shoot live targets? Been done (Strassbourg goats) but it's gruesome and controversial. But how does any animal correlate to humans? Human targets? No way. It's all speculation and theory based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[Kurush]

A larger wound channel definitely makes a difference. A .45 ACP expanded out to .75 caliber crushes 4x as much tissue as a 9mm (.355) FMJ, so it has a better chance of hitting an artery. Also, heavier bullets are better at breaking bones.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Like I said, there SHOULD be a diffrence in effect with a bigger bullet, but in the real world this difference usuallly fails to materialize. I suspect it's due to the lack of velocity with handgun rounds. A 45 at 900 FPS or a 9MM at 1100 FPS just isn't different enough to make a significant difference in effect.

I agree. My point is if we look at extreme cases (say a .22 short versus a .458 Magnum) we can see that some things should make a difference -- but not one we can measure in comparing, say .40 S&W with .45 ACP.

However if we stack those things -- a .45 ACP +P hollowpoint from a 5" barrel, versus a .40 S&W standard pressure FMJ from a 3" barrel, we begin to see a difference.

I suspect that there is no real hard evidence since such testing is difficult. Do you shoot live targets? Been done (Strassbourg goats) but it's gruesome and controversial. But how does any animal correlate to humans? Human targets? No way. It's all speculation and theory based on anecdotal evidence.

Very little has been done -- the Strassbourg tests were a hoax. The Thompson-Lagarde tests in the early 1900s were less that exhaustive.

 

[Lucky]

What about the Pig-Board and Pig-Board 2 tests? And before that, at the turn of the century, the cavalry handgun tests?

They used livestock.

IIRC the main, main factor they theorized was momentum, thus penetration. As has been said, pistols are low-velocity firearms. The trick is for deep penetration and large surface area.

 

[goon]

However if we stack those things -- a .45 ACP +P hollowpoint from a 5" barrel, versus a .40 S&W standard pressure FMJ from a 3" barrel, we begin to see a difference.


But do we really? Would both work the same, meaning would the guy end up dead either way?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What about the Pig-Board and Pig-Board 2 tests? And before that, at the turn of the century, the cavalry handgun tests?

They used livestock.

IIRC the main, main factor they theorized was momentum, thus penetration. As has been said, pistols are low-velocity firearms. The trick is for deep penetration and large surface area.

If you look at those tests (the turn of the century test is called the Thompson-Lagarde Board) you see that in both focus and methodology they leave a lot to be desired.

The Tompson-Lagarde board shot at cadavers, borrowed from the New York City Morgue and hung by the neck. Thompson did the shooting, and Lagarde did the necropsies. Their main finding was that large calibers produced spiral fractures in long bones (which tells you they economized by shooting the cadavers in the arms and legs), while smaller, faster bullets (like the 9mm) simply punched through.

When they shot livestock, Lagarde examined the animals (beeves and one horse at the Chicago stockyards) and drew a chalk line along the diaphram. Thompson placed all his shots behind this line -- he gut-shot them -- and they counted the number of rounds each animal absorbed before collapsing.

The pig boards looked at wounding factors -- not stopping factors -- and also at treatment of gunshot wounds. Earlier the Army used beagles for research like that, but public sentiment stopped them.

There really isn't any good data addressing our question.