Has defensive ammo changed a lot in the last 30 years?

[Zaydok Allen]

HK P30sks 9mm V3 DA/SA Ambi safety, Rear decocker, w/tritium night sights.

Corbon 115 DPX or Corbon JHP +P

Thank you all for the replies!!

Sounds like a great decision to me! I handled a P30sk with the LEM trigger and I really liked it. I want one, though I have no need for another carry gun.

I'd like to get it V0, meaning the LEM trigger, with a decocker, so the first trigger pull is heavier it so desired.

I've had a great experience with my HK45 and VP9.

 

[BSA1]

I talk a lot about Shootingthebull by Ammo Quest videos on youtube. They are very professionally done. He uses 10% ballistic gel calibrated to FBI standard using FBI test standard of not less than 12" and not more than 18" of penetration.

What I really like is he first shoots five rounds into plain gel. If they meet FBI standards he then covers the gel with four layers of denim and shoots five more rounds. This gives a much larger test sample than the ones where they fire one round and then carries on for several minutes about how great the particular bullet performance is.

The Ammo Quest videos caused me to change my carry ammunition.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I'm a little baffled by the people claiming .380 has improved in the last few decades. I'm not seeing it. Sure there is now ammo that will open up but they don't penetrate. Well, there is ammo that will expand from .380 to about .42 and get 12 inches of penetration for about a dollar a bullet. I still think ball is the way to go.

 

[Hondo 60]

Has defensive ammo changed a lot in the last 30 years?

Absolutely!
The major bullet manufacturers have done nothing but work on improving their products.
I recently bought some Serbian PPU hollow point ammo for a new Ruger LCP (.380).

When I recovered some of the bullets, even this under-powered round show excellent penetration & mushrooming.
And it was $15.99 for a box of 50.

Sorry JohnBiltz - not trying to flame or "one up" you.
This is just my experience.

 

[Edarnold]

The ' buck a shot premium ' is because the advertising runs up the price. If it really represented extra care we wouldn't have the Critical Defense batch that had to be recalled because some rounds had no powder. Compare the cost of new brass, primers, powder and bullets to the cost of the same makers ' premium ' loads and you see the cost of the hype. My hand loads have primers with anvils, the correct powder charge, a flash hole in the case, and the correct COAL. I'll carry my home-rolled rounds over the factory every time.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Hondo, I have shot the PPU both ball and JHP. In fact I put a hundred rounds through my Glock 42 yesterday of PPU, but there is video and testing that says JHP PPU performs no differently than the ball. Yes, ball and JHP is the same price. I plan to shoot more of it.

The math seems pretty inescapable. There is just not enough energy, with .380 ball you get penetration. If you get good expansion out of JHP in the area of .45 or above you only get around 8 inches of penetration. XTP bullets get 12 or 13 inches of penetration by limiting expansion to .42. If you look at it you have to ask yourself is expanding your bullet .07 inches worth getting minimal expansion and penetration or expanding it .10 worth getting inadequate penetration. I would say no. Its not like 9mm where you see expansion nearly doubling the caliber.

 

[RecoilRob]

30 years ago, the very latest 'science' was the RII (Relative Incapacitation Index) where they fired into gelatin and photographed the cavity then declared that the most effective bullet would be the ones that made the largest cavities. This was the agreed upon 'science' that 97% of all ballistic engineers believed and was what drove most agencies pick of weapons and ammo.

That was...until the Miami Shootout where one of the better RII rounds (115 Win Silvertip) failed miserably to penetrate far enough and contributed to some guys getting killed. Of course, that was just ONE of the many deficiencies that day...but agencies tend to focus on machinery and this led to a revolution in bullet design and adoption.

The FBI has set some (IMHO) decent standards for bullets these days and the ammo is actually pretty 'smart' in that it can expand well in fleshy tissue yet still punch through a door skin on a car or glass when needed. The big question is does this work any better? I'd offer that a properly placed shot with ball ammo does just fine...it's only the less than perfect placements that 'might' benefit from all the technology. And even then only by a little as the expanding elements might nick something important that a corresponding non-expanding bullet would have missed. But these situations are few and far between.

Back in 1970...if you carried a 44 Special with 240 SWC Keith bullets around 900 fps...you were pretty well armed. And still are today. Penetration in the right spot is the solution to almost any problem.

 

[2zulu1]

The Keith bullet in 44 Special/900s has cleanly taken down ~500# feral hogs.

A few carry, or a nightstand gun, the 357mag; while there are modern designed bullets, the exposed lead JHPs from Remington, Winchester, Nosler etc, are just as effective now as they were 45 years ago. Pistol bullet design is a compromise between reliable functioning and terminal performance, where as revolver bullets are designed for no compromise terminal effectiveness ..... typically at magnum velocities.

 

[Warp]

So what exactly are these new "improvements"?

Bonded? a little plastic thingy? What makes the $1.00 a round ammo superior to the old JHP sold in 50 round boxes?

Don't pay $1/round! There are better deals for the same ammo (9/40/45)

The JHP improvements mean less jacket/core separation, fewer hollow point cavities plugged by clothing, far more consistent expansion while still achieving adequate penetration.

 

[dickydalton]

I think the lives of my family and mine are worth a magazine full of $1 bullets.
In fact, I'd probably pay a little more if I have to.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I don't mind paying for performance. I carry Gold Dots in my 9mm. I'm getting good reliable expansion without the bullet breaking apart with decent penetration. They have been tested by just about everyone so I know this to be true. Just buying a JHP doesn't mean it performs. Does it break up? Does it penetrate? Does it expand reliably.

I think with .380 those expensive rounds are actually hurting performance because in return for some pretty marginal expansion you are losing penetration.

 

[Gordon]

Actually Supervel was 50 years ago RC
Jurras began handloading cartridges for profit at age 12. In the 1950s, he experimented with lathing rifle bullets to create jacketed handgun ammunition, inspired by Jim Harvey. In 1963, Jurras founded Super Vel ammunition company in Shelbyville, Indiana. Jurras' ammo utilized lightweight bullets pushed at high velocities to cause bullet expansion, but at low enough pressure for typical firearms. The Super Vel line was an outstanding success, selling massive amounts of hollow-point ammunition to law enforcement and civilian buyers. However, the rapid growth of the company and its reliance on outsourcing of cartridge cases left it vulnerable, and it was overtaken by competitors and closed its doors in 1974.

But yes since 1986 (30 years ago) the bullet performance has increased the terminal effects greatly.

 

[huntsman]

Don't pay $1/round! There are better deals for the same ammo (9/40/45)

The JHP improvements mean less jacket/core separation, fewer hollow point cavities plugged by clothing, far more consistent expansion while still achieving adequate penetration.

Well maybe the $1.00 a round is a misnomer(at least in 9mm) but I'm hesitant to use the word "premium", it's the ammo that gets packaged in 20 -25 round boxes.

 

[Warp]

Well maybe the $1.00 a round is a misnomer(at least in 9mm) but I'm hesitant to use the word "premium", it's the ammo that gets packaged in 20 -25 round boxes.

You can get HST, Gold Dots, and Ranger in 50 round boxes online for $0.50-$0.60 per round. The 20-25 round boxes are overpriced.

 

[huntsman]

^I'm going to try Fiocchi JHP, it's about what I can afford but I'll keep those other in mind also.

http://www.luckygunner.com/40-sw-180-gr-jhp-fiocchi-50-rounds

 

[HexHead]

Another leap in 9mm performance is it now comes in standard velocity, 9mm NATO, +P, and +P+.

 

[Captain O]

Gordon is right. Lee Jurras began in 1963. Hell, I remember reading daddy's American Rifleman. As a 8-9 year old boy I recall seeing the Super Vel yellow box with a thin red stripe in .38 S&W Special dad carried in his "N" frame 38/44 "Heavy-Duty" with a 2" barrel. In 1965, dad bought a Charter Arms Undercover .38. Dad liked it because he had to carry for the Corvallis, Oregon Post Office when he acted as a courier, carrying Gold Bonds to the Corvallis Municipal Airport.

Yes, I remember when Jurras' first hollow point ammunition hit the market 53 years ago.

There have been steady improvements over the years. The "hydrostatic shock" theory, the Relative Incapacitative Index, "electronic man", ballistic gelatin (both 10% and 20%). The primary trouble I have with the "ballistic gelatin and denim" tests, is they ignore the differences in tendons, joints and bone!

Incidentally, this is why I don't trust any hollow point with the "modern" .380 loads. If any hollow point strikes a heavy bone or joint, the "ideal" penetration will not be achieved. IMHO, anything smaller/slower than the 9mm Luger will still be best served by "ball" ammunition. this will ensure sufficient penetration to disrupt vital organs. Ballistic gelatin tests can go hang. If I'm using the .380, I demand penetration! But that's just me.

 

[1911 guy]

Bullet technology, especially handgun bullets, has grown by leaps and bounds in the last twenty years. Comparing the effectiveness of most common defensive calibers today with the same chamberings thirty years ago is like comparing apples and wheelbarrows. The most stark example is the 9mm. Today, it is a completely viable defensive caliber with well performing bullets designed to expand at velocity. A few decades ago, such a bullet for 9mm was merely a pipe dream.

 

[RecoilRob]

I just remembered a situation where the infamous Black Talon's were used in a mass shooting. Some guy went into his office building and shot up the place and killed a mess of people...with Black Talons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting

So they got to autopsy 8 people and treat the wounded, and IIRC only ONE person was more badly killed with the Talon than they would have been if ball had been used. One of the talons nicked an artery as it went past, so that would make it more effective...just to not the measure that I fear many people believe.

You are NOT unarmed with ball! Keep a cool head and place your shots well and nobody ventilated in the right place is going to argue with you very much afterwards. Believing that you're using the very BEST ammo available only gives you a tiny advantage over the ball, so if you shoot poorly you're still going to have a long day.

I'd even go so far as to request that all LEO's be forced to carry ball. Yes..some of you reading this have no doubt recoiled in horror, but there is logic in my beliefs. Seeing as around 80% of all rounds fired by LEO's will be clean misses, I'm a LOT more worried about being harmed by one of those than one of the few that actually manage to ventilate the perp. Using ball would actually harm the public a lot less than the magic expanding bullets as they'd make clean holes when you catch one. Those HP's make a gory wound and I'd take a ball any day of the week. So if you believe in statistics at all...I can't see where this argument is faulty and it only marginally makes the LEO's job harder. After all...they're going to be doing a mag dump anyhow.

 

[Warp]

I'd even go so far as to request that all LEO's be forced to carry ball.

That is...beyond silly.

Seeing as around 80% of all rounds fired by LEO's will be clean misses, I'm a LOT more worried about being harmed by one of those than one of the few that actually manage to ventilate the perp.

Do you actually think LEO's shot more innocent bystanders than they do perps?

ETA: Thought I also had mentioned...concealed carriers (and OC I suppose?) have about the same hit % as LEO in OIS. Should we ban everybody from carrying anything but ball ammo since everybody misses more than they hit?

 

[huntsman]

Funny thing: I happened onto a copy of Handguns Feb/March 2016 in the Ammo Shelf article there's this:

In the rush to seek out the "best" bullets and the most "effective" design, we sometimes forget that not everything "old" is bad.

The article then goes on to extol the virtues of Remington HTP ammo, a JHP that preforms like a "bonded" at a cheaper price.

 

[Gordon]

Black Talon was excellent ammo is is very good at severing blood vessels. The Ranger Talon might be better as it has better penetration . I used to slaughter farm animals in the early 90s using Black Talon .45acp and it is indeed devastating for a pistol round. Ranger Talon does not ruin as much meat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgxyTndj50s

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Believing that you're using the very BEST ammo available only gives you a tiny advantage over the ball,...

Sigh! One more person who hasn't done the research.

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. But we keep getting into these "ring-around-the-rosie" discussions because, I guess, a lot of people are dissatisfied that there really is no definitive answer.

Perhaps the real conclusion(s) with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

I've posted the following before and might as well post it again here:

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  
  • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
    
    
  • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
    
    
  • breaking major skeletal support structures
    
    
  • damaging the central nervous system.
  
  Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
  
  So as a rule of thumb --
  
  
  • More holes are better than fewer holes.
    
    
  • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
    
    
  • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
    
    
  • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
    
    
  • There are no magic bullets.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  
  • this study by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates:
    
    
    
    ​
    
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    
    
    1. There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
       
       
       • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
         
         
       • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
         
         
       • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
         
         
       • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
         
         
       • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
    2. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
       • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
         
         
       • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
       
       
    3. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
       
       
    4. From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  
  
• Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

  ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
  
  The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

• And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
  
  
  • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

    In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

    The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

    Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  
• And sometimes even a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

 

[Robert]

As a LEO I find your post ignorant, lacking in knowledge and understanding of the topic, and somewhat offensive. And please explain to us how

ONE person was more badly killed

. Silly me, and here I thought killed was killed.

If you want to carry ball ammo, go for it. For my personal, and professional, protection I will continue to carry jhp ammo.

After all...they're going to be doing a mag dump anyhow.

This just further proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Branko_D]

You can also see the effect of using ball, because the 9mm Luger data was -over half of it - recorded from military shootings, which use ball due to conventions.

So you see a slightly higher number of average rounds per incapacitation and slightly less "one stop shots". Estimating from the data - using ball instead of, say, two hits, you'd need three.

If (by now) 110 years of continous military use of the cartridge doesn't refute the silly myth that 9mm was useless before modern ammo, that should. Of course, modern expanding ammo makes it more effective.