FMJ for Self Defense?

[fastest45ever]

Certainly would be nice if effort was put into designing a TC or flat point FMJ that optimized for speed, less penetration, and tumbling.

I don't see why a FMJ of such design, similar to the 200 grain FMJ Browning originally designed for the .45 ACP, @ 950 fps, wouldn't work very well for SD. Likewise a neglected area of he 9mm is a TC lighter bullet, optimized for 18" of penetration, but that might tumble as well.

It might be hard to sell such a bullet for the very high prices that go with hollowpoints these days.

That said, something is to be said for a 255 grain .45 bullet at about 800 fps.

 

[Inebriated]

In addition to what flatlander said, I'd also like to see what truncated cone and SWC's do.

Same here.

 

[allaroundhunter]

So tell me what difference that .2-3" extra diameter makes in "the real world".

The .45 ACP does not have .2"-.3" more diameter than the 9mm...it actually has less than .1" (. 452"-.355"=.097" )

And it isn't just the added diameter that makes a difference in "the real world".

Sent from my HTC One X

 

[JShirley]

Except for lightweight, fragile rifle bullets that tumble and fragment, all FMJs are poor stoppers compared to decent expanding rounds.

Further, any methodology that only viewed single shots to the human torso is flawed from inception. Yes, I understand there was no other way to do it to make up their essentially bogus ratings, but professionals know to always fire at least two shots at a threat, if there's time. This means that a lower, badly off-center hit would be given just as much weight as a center spine hit, even though that spine hit with anything with sufficient penetration will cause an instantaneous stop. The ratings mean nothing.

Questioning which handgun round has better "stopping power" mean I'll give the poster almost as little credence as someone who writes about *HTF. I've seen deer take solid hits from rifles, and jump up and run 30 minutes later. Debating what underpowered non-expanding handgun round has more "stopping power" (sic) is about like arguing which color coat Ole Saint Nick should be wearing.

John

 

[fastest45ever]

At what caliber, bullet, bullet design, and velocity do you stop saying handgun rounds are under-powered?

Perhaps you should be more specific:
"service caliber handguns" etc.

John Candy has taken the big five using a 5 gun using the .475 and .500 Linebaugh cartridges.

Others have built 5 guns that are .45-70, .50 Alaskan, 500 Linebaugh Maximum.

For autos you have the .44 Automag. Lee Jurras took nearly everything on the planet using a .44 magnum, 185 grain bullet at 1900 fps, both expanding and non-expanding, depending upon the game. I think BFR still makes the .357 and .44 Magnum autos as well. Also the .50AE.

I've watched a LOT of hogs and deer die in their tracks from a 260 grain .45 Colt at 1150 fps.

So, once again:

At what point in your judgement do handguns stop being under powered?

 

[JShirley]

At what caliber, bullet, bullet design, and velocity do you stop saying handgun rounds are under-powered?

Perhaps you should be more specific:
"service caliber handguns" etc.

True enough. When "handguns" are firing rifle-power cartridges, they're no longer under-powered. Of course, those same rifle-level cartridges in handguns are poorly suited for self-defense due to the size of the platforms involved, and recovery time after each shot.

But you obviously know that, so you're really just here to argue, right?

John

 

[fastest45ever]

Let me rephrase:

NOT being able to run to your rifle, and having to pick a caliber, load, FMJ,
at what point would you pick for a combination of power, manageable recoil, and speed of second shots? What grain bullet, what caliber, and what bullet speed?

It's not a perfect world, and most of us are limited from using rifles for SD for CCW.

Depending on your level of proficiency, that point varies for each person.

While I admit the two headed demon we are skewered on with this question is not a good question, the underlying question of what combination is optimum for a non-expanding SD round is a valid question. It also raises
another question of where is the research on non-expanding FMJ type bullets in service calibers that are not in the most common sandbox?

A committee around 1900 decided that 230 grains and 800 fps was what they wanted for the average military shooter. In this day and age, are horses, and stopping them, that much of a concern?

I am not alone in thinking that a design that limits penetration by lighter bullet weight, but achieves wounding by velocity and wound channel is not an excellent alternative to expanding bullets:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=283
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=269

Jim Cirillo thought so as well.

Here is a .45 ACP round that duplicates the .45 Colt army load in an auto:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=295

It would seem that adopting something like this round for 9mm would be an excellent idea:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127
lighter bullet, flatter nose, higher velocity limits penetration and increases damage.

Seems like this would be an excellent choice for someone who isn't convinced that hollowpoints always work, and that their penetration is ideal.

There is no reason that the light, fast, tumbling bullet approach the military has used for so long can't be adapted for modern handguns.

 

[The Man With No Name]

True enough. When "handguns" are firing rifle-power cartridges, they're no longer under-powered. Of course, those same rifle-level cartridges in handguns are poorly suited for self-defense due to the size of the platforms involved, and recovery time after each shot.

But you obviously know that, so you're really just here to argue, right?

John

The example 45 LC is hardly what I would consider a rifle power cartridge. Deer do stop in their tracks when shot with that load with proper shot placement. It sounded like he asked a pretty simple question. You could have addressed it instead of accusing him of being here just to argue.

 

[jon_in_wv]

While I would never choose FMJs as my defensive bullet if its all you have available then FMJs it is. Practice, practice, practice. The more proficient you are with your firearm the less the bullet will matter to you. I've fired more than 10,000 rounds downrange with my M&P. My ability to put bullets where they count is much more important to me that the shape of the bullet.

 

[JShirley]

No Name,

The Colt bit was added as a quick edit, not part of the OP. And it's still true that it's getting powerful enough that many, if not most shooters would experience problems with shot recovery time.

Again, the poster in question knows this fully well, which is why he made the service caliber comment. Once past the .45 ACP/.357Mag power envelope, platforms are going to be too large, or recoil too excessive for defensive carry.

John

 

[fastest45ever]

"Once past the .45 ACP/.357Mag power envelope, platforms are going to be too large, or recoil too excessive for defensive carry."

I expect facts, numbers, and values to support this position. It's a pretty common mantra that needs numerical definition.

I don't find .45 Colt to be too large, or to excessive for defensive carry.
It's also a caliber that out of a single action can be fired so quickly two shots sound like one, and, it's VERY accurate.

My experience is I can get a non-expanding 9MM to hit at very high speed, with to me, NO recoil, or so little recoil a Sig Sauer 226 won't cycle, yet get great penetration, and a large wound channel, due to velocity. 80-115 grain bullets in 9MM are perfect for this.

Pretty much to support the mantra, you need to specify a platform, recoil level that the shooter does well with, and define and build a load for that combination.

Kind of a tell that knowledge, experience and research is considered a fault in this discussion.

Since my simple questions have been ignored, it's real clear there is no discussion here.

I often review, examine, and restructure my own writing to better bring discussion and facts to the table. I guess that's another vice.

 

[JShirley]

Well, good luck with what you expect.

The FBI went to a large, heavy 10mm, and then downloaded the ammunition used because many of its agents couldn't handle the recoil. In a 40 oz platform. So, for practical purposes,.45 ACP energy levels (what the 10mm was tamed down -to 180 grain at almost 1000 fps) can be considered the maximum recoil the average individual could be expected to handle in a duty/service caliber weapon.

Historical fact, used to bolster a common, but educated opinion.

John

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't see why the answer needs to be complicated. It's not like we haven't been looking for a 'best' solution for over a hundred years or anything.

No, the difference between 9mm and .45 FMJ wound channels isn't game-changing, but when you get good multiple hits, (which is what you should be trying to do with any defensive handgun,) the advantage multiplies with each hit. In a gunfight, I want every advantage I can get. And having tried many different guns in all service calibers, I find I shoot 1911s in .45 best. Do what works for you.

 

[fastest45ever]

40 oz gun, 180 grains 1000 fps equals Recoil Energy of 5 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 11 fps.

That's an absolutely pathetic level of recoil, a .22lr is pretty close, and most 9mm is at that level. If that is the level of recoil you consider acceptable, then EVERYONE should be shooting light, FMJ/TC type bullets. If recoil is so limited. No commercial hollowpoint ammunition is going to penetrate anywhere near the FBI optimum requirement of 18".

The current post brings up an interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers. They are designing wide, light, non-expanding ammunition that gets penetration and wound channel from diameter, not bullet weight.

Given the limitations on recoil for Jill/Joe Q. Public by JShirley, and the FBI findings with their agents, NO ONE should be shooting anything buy
non-expanding bullets.

That does not mean they should be shooting 130 grain ball in 9mm, or 230 grain ball in .45. Those were designed for war, over 100 years ago. The design requirements were/are different then that required for SD/CCW carry situations in present day.

I would suggest JM Browning was ahead of his time when he designed FMJ
at 200 grains, and 950 fps for the .45ACP.

 

[jon_in_wv]

40 oz gun, 180 grains 1000 fps equals Recoil Energy of 5 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 11 fps.

That's an absolutely pathetic level of recoil, a .22lr is pretty close, and most 9mm is at that level. If that is the level of recoil you consider acceptable, then EVERYONE should be shooting light, FMJ/TC type bullets. If recoil is so limited. No commercial hollowpoint ammunition is going to penetrate anywhere near the FBI optimum requirement of 18".

Are you honestly trying to claim a full power 40 S&W load and a 22lr have similar recoil? No, they don't. Not even close. Bullet weight and velocity effect recoil, bullet shape has nothing to do with it. Also, recoil has nothing to do with penetration. Additionally, the FBI report did not state people should carry FMJs nor did they choose FMJs as their preferred load. You can't use a report that doesn't come the same conclusion to support yours.

The current post brings up an interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers. They are designing wide, light, non-expanding ammunition that gets penetration and wound channel from diameter, not bullet weight.

Really? Like who? and what data do you have to back up the effectiveness of this ammo over conventional defensive ammunition?

Given the limitations on recoil for Jill/Joe Q. Public by JShirley, and the FBI findings with their agents, NO ONE should be shooting anything buy
non-expanding bullets.

Once again, bullet type has no bearing on recoil and, once again, the FBI chooses JHPs for its carry ammunition so your arguments contradict themselves. You are misquoting JShirleys post to try to bolster your point when the part you should have listened to was this one:

Historical fact, used to bolster a common, but educated opinion.

I believe he was politely telling you something. You should learn from guys like him, you don't have nearly the knowledge to challenge him or most people on this forum.

That does not mean they should be shooting 130 grain ball in 9mm, or 230 grain ball in .45. Those were designed for war, over 100 years ago. The design requirements were/are different then that required for SD/CCW carry situations in present day.

I would suggest JM Browning was ahead of his time when he designed FMJ
at 200 grains, and 950 fps for the .45ACP.

This is just silly. You made all the arguments stating people should carry FMJs then claim they shouldn't carry certain weights because only the 200gr 45 is the answer? Besides the 200gr FMJ and the 230gr FMJ for the 1911 were designed for the same purpose around the same time. The idea one works because it wasn't "designed for war" is just strange.

My experience is I can get a non-expanding 9MM to hit at very high speed, with to me, NO recoil, or so little recoil a Sig Sauer 226 won't cycle, yet get great penetration, and a large wound channel, due to velocity. 80-115 grain bullets in 9MM are perfect for this.

Since when will high velocity 80-115gr JHPs not cycle a P226? Also, I would love to see the "numbers" to back up your claim that a high velocity 80-115gr FMJ makes a "large" wound channel due to velocity. Oh, and throw in the no recoil part too. Honestly, the biggest problem I have will all the statements above is when you said, "My experience". None of these posts seem very knowledgeable or experienced but rather from someone who has read a lot and understood a little. This is a pretty knowledgeable forum and you would do well to sit back and try to learn more rather than spouting off and challenging other to prove their positions while you make all sorts of random claims that honestly don't make a lot of sense.

I applaud your enthusiasm but you can't wade into a group of people knowledgeable on a subject and blind them with BS. I suggest you chill out and ask questions about things you don't understand and try to learn from the wealth of knowledgeable people you can meet in this forum.

 

[fastest45ever]

In a duty weapon for 10MM the level of recoil is so low at the fbi light level power level that it equals what most 9mm guns recoil. MOST service 9mm's are lighter then the guns generally used for 10MM, Glocks being the exception.

What I am saying is that given my choice of calibers, and firearms, that level of recoil is similar to a 22lr to ME.

The FBI results wanted 18" of penetration, ideally. That being Urey Patricks'
writing. Dropping down to 180 grains, and 1000 fps you may get that, but not by a lot. Brassfetcher shows 14.6" for the Hornady.

You can't take a soft lead ball, put a copper jacket around it, and expect it
to penetrate and expand. Even the .45 Colt loads with 260 grain bullets at 800 fps I use don't penetrate that far, unless the alloy is hardened.

I would look at both Buffalobore and DoubleTap for large meplat, or caliber
meplat, lighter bullets, at relatively high velocity. I believe another poster linked to them above.

No contradiction. The FBI originally used ammunition in 10MM that was capable of both the 18" penetration, and expansion. However, the FBIlite
load does call for a much slower expanding bullet to retain the penetration depth. When you do this you give up much of the benefits of HP ammunition, that being explosive, large, expansion.

I reloaded a lot, around 40 years ago, even for people with 9MM guns.
Commercial enterprise. I loaded for a brand new Sig for a friend of mine.
Gave him maximum loads from the Speer manual, using lighter hollow points. With the springs Sig used at the time, the gun would not cycle.
I found I had to use at least 130 grain bullets to get a new Sig to cycle properly, along with maximum powder charges. Didn't have the same problem with Walthers, Browning Hi-Powers, etc. at that time.

I'll try and connect the dots. If you use a light for caliber FMJ, wadcutter, or truncated cone bullet, that gives you more room for powder. You have two factors then giving you more velocity, and a wider wound channel.

I have shot a LOT of things with .45 Colt, and as the bullet velocity increases, the wound channel increases as well. Any hunter would know this as fact, and would not require any proof. Ballistic gelatin supports this as well.

I do have friends that have shot a LOT of game animals with light, non-expanding bullets. Mr. Jurras uses non-expanding bullets for game that requires penetration, and expanding bullets for varmits, or lighter animals.
He also used 185 grain bullets, in both types.

While the common mantra is always use Hollow points for self-defense I suggest you examine the basis of that mantra, where it started, and who perpetuates it, the reasons for it's existence, and it if fits you, and your individual needs.

There is a solid place in self-defense for a non-expanding bullet, with a wide meplat. The advantages to non-expanding bullets are they tend to always work the same way, never failing to expand, never stopping short in the target. They are also much cheaper to shoot. One point that I do agree with is hitting where you aim is the number one priority in SD ammunition.
Logically it would be best to shoot your carry ammunition all the time when you practice, so it goes to the same point of aim, and you have confidence in it.

What non-expanding load you decide to use has a far wider range then the two loads posted here.

One issue that is very clear is the factory options for FMJ SD ammunition
is nearly an oxymoron.

 

[481]

The current post brings up an interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers. They are designing wide, light, non-expanding ammunition that gets penetration and wound channel from diameter, not bullet weight.

Really? Like who? and what data do you have to back up the effectiveness of this ammo over conventional defensive ammunition?

Like jon, I'd also like to know who "they" are and the specifications of "their" ammunition.

 

[fastest45ever]

Read post 107 in this thread. Click on the links.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Buffalo+Bore+ANTI-PERSONNEL+

 

[481]

Read post 107 in this thread. Click on the links.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jim+Carillo

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=283

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=269

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=295

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127

OK, so you've provided links to mid- and heavy-weight wadcutters and hardcast falt nose bullets in .380, .44, and .45 calibers at some fairly stout speeds. Nothing new to see there, it is not a new concept.

According to the Schwartz bullet penetration model, those mid- to heavy-weight WCs and HCFNs are guaranteed to produce lots of penetration-

-the .45 caliber 225 gr. WC @ 1050fps will penetrate to a depth of ~19.6 inches

-the .44 caliber 200 gr. WC @ 1300fps will penetrate to a depth of ~22.2 inches

-the .45 caliber 255 gr. HCFN @ 925fps will penetrate to a depth of ~31.0 inches

-the .380 ACP 100 gr. HCFN @ 1150fps will penetrate to a depth of ~23.7 inches

- and nominal expansion, and will likely exit a human at any imaginable angle.

Not very desirable characteristics for SD ammo.


So who is producing these "wide, light, non-expanding" designs that you refer to?

 

[fastest45ever]

Compared to standard loadings, the wadcutters BB picks are light for caliber for the .44 and .45 Colt.

If you require a bit less penetration, lighten the bullet a bit. It's all ready real close, penetration wise, to the 18" mark, at least according to Schwartz.

As far as these loads: your OPINION, situation and experience suggest these aren't ideal for Self-Defense. If you live in Texas, Alaska, etc. you might have a completely different opinion.

As for Schwartz: you enjoy a formula that gives you ballistic gelatin
penetration results by using water results

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/mythbusters_bulletproof_water.html

 

[jon_in_wv]

Dude makes no sense. Sorry.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[481]

Compared to standard loadings, the wadcutters BB picks are light for caliber for the .44 and .45 Colt.

That is not true. "Light" for the .44 would 180 grains or less, for the .45 "light" would be 185 grains or less.

If you require a bit less penetration, lighten the bullet a bit. It's all ready real close, penetration wise, to the 18" mark, at least according to Schwartz.

Really? Just whittle them down with a pen-knife or a dremel? No thanks. There are much better options than modifying SD ammo.

As far as these loads: your OPINION, situation and experience suggest these aren't ideal for Self-Defense. If you live in Texas, Alaska, etc. you might have a completely different opinion.

Not just my opinion- it is the opinion of those who've done massive research in the field and know better than you and me what they are talking about. In case you hadn't noticed, not everyone lives in Texas or Alaska. There are 48 other states that present widely variable environments as opposed to the remote regions that make up most of Texas and Alaska.

As for Schwartz: you enjoy a formula that gives you ballistic gelatin
penetration results by using water results

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/mythbusters_bulletproof_water.html

Lighten up, dude. If you can't provide a source for the "wide, light, non-expanding ammunition" that you've claimed fits an "interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers", just say so. It is not the first time that someone has made a claim on the 'net that they couldn't support and it probably won't be the last.

If you don't have it, you don't have it. No big deal.

I'd suggest that you take advantage as recommended above and "learn from the wealth of knowledgeable people you can meet in this forum". It's a good place to start learning about the field.

Dude makes no sense. Sorry.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[fastest45ever]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by fastest45ever View Post
Compared to standard loadings, the wadcutters BB picks are light for caliber for the .44 and .45 Colt.
That is not true. "Light" for the .44 would 180 grains or less, for the .45 "light" would be 185 grains or less."

I suggest you go ask Gary Reeder what his opinion of 'heavy for caliber bullets' is.

Gary Reeder, Jack Huntington, Hamilton Bowen, John Linebaugh, John Taffin,
Lee Jurras, Tim Sundles, Ross Seyfried, John Moses Browning, Bob Munden, Bob Baker would argue that for hours, each with their own opinion. I don't see any of them posting here, at least not from your end.

"Not just my opinion- it is the opinion of those who've done massive research in the field and know better than you and me what they are talking about. In case you hadn't noticed, not everyone lives in Texas or Alaska. There are 48 other states that present widely variable environments as opposed to the remote regions that make up most of Texas and Alaska."

Excellent point. So then you'll concede that one 'experts' solution to the SD/CCW solution might be different then another, depending upon their location in these United States, or Afganistan? Also that an 'expert' might have different recommendations for different places?

Opinions and experts have one thing in common, or maybe two. Please don't try and play some expert knows more then I do. Doesn't really work here.

If you want an example of two experts, have a look at Mas Ayoob and Shawn Dodson, then do a little research on their opinions of each others 'facts' and writings. Makes for fascinating reading. Suffice to say they don't see eye to eye. Many consider both of them to be 'experts'.

I might say I favor Shawn's writings, position, and recommendations on using FMJ for CCW. That might put me at odds with Mas' position.
Now I'm on the horns of an expert dilemma.

"Lighten up, dude."

"4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer."

I find your remarks condescending and insulting. Feel free to attack my arguments, not my person.

 

[sniper5]

.45 Federal EFMJ.

 

[481]

I suggest you go ask Gary Reeder what his opinion of 'heavy for caliber bullets' is.

I never asked for Reeder's opinion. I simply asked for the "wide, light, non-expanding ammunition" that you've claimed fits an "interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers". So far, I've yet to see anything in the way of an example.

If you want an example of two experts, have a look at Mas Ayoob and Shawn Dodson, then do a little research on their opinions of each others 'facts' and writings. Makes for fascinating reading. Suffice to say they don't see eye to eye. Many consider both of them to be 'experts'.

I might say I favor Shawn's writings, position, and recommendations on using FMJ for CCW. That might put me at odds with Mas' position.
Now I'm on the horns of an expert dilemma.

This tangent is purely diversionary. All I asked for was an example of the "wide, light, non-expanding ammunition" that you've claimed fits an "interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers". It is becoming ever clearer that you have none.

I find your remarks condescending and insulting. Feel free to attack my arguments, not my person.

I never attacked or insulted you. I asked for an example of the "wide, light, non-expanding ammunition" that you've claimed fits an "interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers". You failure to provide one, and my recognition of that fact, does not constitute an attack on you.

Opinions and experts have one thing in common, or maybe two. Please don't try and play some expert knows more then I do. Doesn't really work here.

Ah, I see. You're the expert here? Oh-kee-dokey then.

Given this comment and your conduct on this thread (re: JShirley and a host of other members), it is patently clear that you're really just here to argue. John nailed it and I can see that I should have left it alone. I am through feeding the troll.

Out.