I have a problem with "Shot placement is key" and "Overpenetration"

[jrdolall]

Two holes bleed better than one.

This is a valid statment for deer hunting but is not applicable to self defense. An exit wound will not allow the person shot to bleed out any quicker. Blood pouring from an organ or artery is leaving the area and the person will be just as bad off if the blood stays inside the body cavity or if it pours out an exit wound.
We all need a round that is guaranteed to inflict the maximum amount of damage and then stop before it exits. I like the idea of a J Frame with 8 rounds of 12 g. Let me know when they get that figured out

 

[Crusader103]

OP wrote:

Exactly what is this idea of 'overpenetration'? Where do we get this idea that there is such thing as a bullet that is too powerful? I want a bullet to be likely to completely traverse a human target, under most conditions. There is just penetration, and you want all you can get, particularly with pistol bullets, which are not great tools for the job to begin with.

I'm not sure you understand ballistics. Penetration does not equal power. Many rounds with vastly differing foot/pounds of energy, or "power," results will penetrate to nearly identical depths.

Penetration, whether too much or not enough, has very little to do with how "powerful" a particular round is. More "powerful" rounds may penetrate significantly less than less powerful ones. Weight, velocity, bullet design, expansion, and more all contribute to penetration and do not necessarily correlate to foot/pounds of energy or anything else for that matter.

You are unwise if you want a bullet to completely traverse a human target. This has little to do with the round striking an innocent beyond said target - a round passing through a threat and striking an innocent is extremely rare. Of greater concern is a miss striking an innocent which is much more common, especially when you consider that hit ratios of less than 50% are the norm. This is the reasoning behind the rule of being sure of what lies beyond your target even in a gunfight. Being that misses are more likely to strike innocents than overpenetrating rounds, overpenetration should only be a minor consideration in round selection in that regard only.

What you should be concerned with in terms of penetration is this. A round that passes completely through a target will retain much of its energy. That means that your bullet will have failed to transfer all of its energy into the threat. That is a bad thing. On the other hand, a round that under penetrates is less likely to disrupt or destroy vital organs, many of which lie deep within the body of even a front facing threat.

That's why you want optimal penetration - not too much and not too little.

 

[Skribs]

Of course shot placement is key. No one would say that they should get anything other than the very best hits they can in a given situation.

I like, whenever the subjects of caliber war, penetration depth, energy dump, HP vs. ball, etc. come up, someone says "placement." Like, the fact that you have to hit your target makes every other variable mean nothing. "Should I get HP or ball ammo for my .380?" "Placement." "Should I go with 9mm or .45 for HD?" "Placement." It doesn't answer the underlying question, and is often irrelevant to the question.

I can get the same placement in HP and ball. I can get the same placement in .45 and 9 (although 9 would be easier to use, and some people can't handle anything bigger). So..."placement" doesn't help differentiate between the options available.

Exactly what is this idea of 'overpenetration'?

There are several theories as to why OP is bad:
1) If you don't spend all your energy in the target, then there is something ineficient going on. You could have had it expand wider, or had less recoil, or dump more energy into the target. Personally, I'd rather risk overpenetration than underpenetration (didn't reach the vitals), but that's just me. With that said, I don't go for something that has 30" of penetration and doesn't expand, I just want a HP that penetrates 15-18" instead of 10-12".
2) The fear that the bullet will continue through the target and hit something else behind him. This is mostly irrational to me, because if you're going to miss (which you will with a pistol round), then it's going to hit stuff behind the target anyway.
3) The fear that if you miss and hit a wall, it will hit someone behind the wall. This is just plain illogical. If you want something that won't go through walls, you're pretty much limited to an airsoft gun or really fine birdshot.

 

[elrowe]

This is a valid statment for deer hunting but is not applicable to self defense. An exit wound will not allow the person shot to bleed out any quicker. Blood pouring from an organ or artery is leaving the area and the person will be just as bad off if the blood stays inside the body cavity or if it pours out an exit wound.
We all need a round that is guaranteed to inflict the maximum amount of damage and then stop before it exits. I like the idea of a J Frame with 8 rounds of 12 g. Let me know when they get that figured out

Same biology, deer don't bleed differently than humans. As pressure builds internally (with only one small hole or if the holes seal up - yes, they do that), bleeding slows down, delaying incapacitation.

Is there a doctor in the house?

 

[theautobahn]

What you should be concerned with in terms of penetration is this. A round that passes completely through a target will retain much of its energy. That means that your bullet will have failed to transfer all of its energy into the threat.

Why did it take 27 posts for this point to be made? A bullet only has so much "energy" - if the bullet stops within the target, then it has dumped all of its available energy into the target. If it exits, then not all of the energy is transferred to the target.

This is the main reason that you want your bullets to stop within the body. An over penetrating round injuring an innocent bystander is a valid reason as well, but is a close second (even with the quickest expanding bullets [Glaser, etc.], there is a chance (very small, but still exists) that it may pass through and hit a bystander.

 

[gbeecher]

Creating non-existing problems...

I agree, of course shot placement is crucial. A 'miss is as good as a mile', so the saying goes. On the subject of overpenetration, what about a razor sharp broadhead arrow fired from a modern compound bow? Oftentimes it passes clean thru a game animal! I understand the need to protect innocent bystanders, but eliminating the threat from the criminal or enemy is priority number 1! If the threat is not eliminated, the innocent bystanders may very well be harmed anyway.

 

[mljdeckard]

I very much agree. Two holes are betterr than one, and a bullet that only penetrates partway through the target and still has undamaged tissue in front of it has failed to do its job.

 

[Fremmer]

It certainly is applicable here. 2 hole penetration means your bullet destroyed as much tissue as possible, causing more bleeding and damage. That's just the way it works, Imho.

Edited to add, allow me to be more specific. A lot of times i don't get the perfect broadside shot at a deer. I have to take what I get, so I want a round that will plow through the shoulder, zip through the lungs or other innards, continue through to smash the opposite shoulder or a rib before exiting through. I don't want that round to stop in the animal, because i don't want lack of tissue damage allowing it to run for miles.
And the worst wounds are the gutshot deer without complete penetration, they can and do run a long time from those.
Plus it would seem bizare to select a bullet and caliber based on how well it under penetrates.

 

[valnar]

I just got finished with my CCW class (I'm a procrastinator) and the 41 years police veteran firearms instructor who taught the class only uses a .45 with 230gr hollow points for this reason. Well, that and the fact he says it easily stops people better than a 9mm. He says the faster bullets like a 9mm or .357Mag can go through multiple walls and may not stop someone any better.

 

[Skribs]

I just got finished with my CCW class (I'm a procrastinator) and the 41 years police veteran firearms instructor who taught the class only uses a .45 with 230gr hollow points for this reason. Well, that and the fact he says it easily stops people better than a 9mm. He says the faster bullets like a 9mm or .357Mag can go through multiple walls and may not stop someone any better.

A .45 230-grain will go through walls better than a 9mm will. Thing about pistol bullets is that hollowpoints don't prevent overpenetration through walls. They clog up with drywall and fail to expand, and work like a ball round.

 

[mljdeckard]

jscott, you can't depend on energy transference from pistol bullets to stop someone.

Here's how you determine how much energy stopping in your target helps you. Take a 50 lb bag of cement mix, and set it on a barrel and shoot it a few times. How much that bag reacts, is how much a pistol bullet is going to knock someone over.

The standard for any good defensive cartridge is that it will pass through at least 12" of ballistic gelatin. No one (except maybe Magsafe and Glaser) makes defensive ammunition intended to stop in the target.

 

[huntsman]

Why did it take 27 posts for this point to be made? A bullet only has so much "energy" - if the bullet stops within the target, then it has dumped all of its available energy into the target. If it exits, then not all of the energy is transferred to the target.

This is the main reason that you want your bullets to stop within the body. An over penetrating round injuring an innocent bystander is a valid reason as well, but is a close second (even with the quickest expanding bullets [Glaser, etc.], there is a chance (very small, but still exists) that it may pass through and hit a bystander.

So how is said energy measured? and if all its energy means a 30%-50% increase is it that noticeable? if it's your sole justification in using a specific bullet then there must be some hard facts to back up your decision.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Two holes are betterr than one, and a bullet that only penetrates partway through the target and still has undamaged tissue in front of it has failed to do its job.

Well, I've recovered a fair amount of bullets from under the far hide. The dead animal didn't seem to mind that the bullet "failed to do its job."

The fear that the bullet will continue through the target and hit something else behind him. This is mostly irrational to me, because if you're going to miss (which you will with a pistol round), then it's going to hit stuff behind the target anyway.

Posted many times before:

Well, it was a report in in the New York Times that publicized this NYPD report:

According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full-metal-jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects.

In that same period, officers in the Transit Bureau, who already used the hollow points, struck six bystanders. Four of them were hit directly, one was hit by a bullet that ricocheted and another was hit by a bullet that passed through an object.

In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by police gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed though other people. Of the four officers struck by hollow-point bullets, three were hit directly and one was hit by a bullet that passed through another person.

Massad Ayoob also had an article on (I believe) the same NYC statisitics.

By my count, that's 23 persons hit by bullets passing though other persons. Just the documented cases; just the ones involving police. In two years. One city.

Not sure we can disregard over-penetration as just a media myth. Of course, NYPD was at that time using 9mm hardball, one of the most penetrative rounds going.

You can't likely change a miss into a hit by selecting a particular load. But you can prevent an over-penetration by load selection. Odd that, because you might miss and endanger bystanders, you therefore think it's alright to endanger them even if you hit your attacker.

 

[mljdeckard]

But again, there is no such thing as a load that will reliably stop an attacker AND is guaranteed to not go the target. Even if you get a bullet somewhat less likely to go through a human target, you can't PLAN that it won't. YOU still have to ASSUME that it WILL. Misses and ricochets will continue to occur. One might also reflect that this report on New York is at least somewhat worsened by the fact that it is pretty much the most densely populated area in America.

 

[Skribs]

According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full-metal-jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects.

In that same period, officers in the Transit Bureau, who already used the hollow points, struck six bystanders. Four of them were hit directly, one was hit by a bullet that ricocheted and another was hit by a bullet that passed through an object.

In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by police gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed though other people. Of the four officers struck by hollow-point bullets, three were hit directly and one was hit by a bullet that passed through another person.

So of those 15 bystanders that were hit, only 5 were hit because the bullet had penetrated through. Those that were hit directly, the ammo choice wouldn't have made a difference (actually HP ammo would have been worse), and depending on the barrier, it might have turned the HP into a non-expanding round.

Of those officers that were hit, again, only 17 of the 44 were hit by bullets that had passed through. The ricochets or direct hits could have happened with hollowpoints. That quote also doesn't show how much HP rounds were used vs. ball ammo, so its hard to tell.

---

I should qualify my statement. Like I said above, I'm not looking for 30" of penetration. But the people who want the rounds that penetrate 6" or less because of the fear that it will go through and hit someone else is an irrational fear. The purpose of a self defense shooting is to stop the target, so why pick a round that will not stop the target on the off-chance it goes through him and hits someone else?

And, like I said - if you miss, then the target doesn't slow it down at all. More than half of the people hit in that study linked would have been hit with anything, because the officer missed their intended target. I'm more worried about hitting someone in that case than about a bullet that went through the target.

Multiple studies have found different numbers, somewhere between 12-18" or 13-16", and so on, for the penetration you should want in SD ammo. People who want 0-12" of penetration are the people I believe have that irrational fear of OP.

 

[rcmodel]

No gunfight was lost by over-penetration.

Not true.
There were a lot of dead cops years ago who emptied a cylinder full of .38 Spl LRN into a BG and still got killed before he went down.

There were a lot of WWII vets who came home full of 9mm FMJ holes and killed the German who shot them with an M1.

I knew one of them quite well.

rc

 

[Skribs]

Rc, would those BGs/soldiers have gone down first had the cops/germans used hollowpoints?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Death through bleed-out may end up making sure the bad guy can't hurt anyone else, but there's enough oxygenated blood already in the brain and limbs to let a bad guy with catastrophic chest wounds still squeeze of a round or lunge at you with a knife. Damaging the central nervous system is the only way to interrupt a bad guy's physical actions against you. And that means shot placement. Put as many rounds into the spinal area as you can.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Multiple studies have found different numbers, somewhere between 12-18" or 13-16", and so on, for the penetration you should want in SD ammo.

What are these "studies"? I'd like to know.

Perhaps we are all aware of the FBI Handgun Wounding and Effectiveness paper. It is not a study, but an "article"--a position paper that states the FBI's standards.

In the paper, we find this statement:

While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.

Only one reference is given for this statement:

Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.

This "workshop"--not study--seems to be the main reason for the penetration criteria. As far as I know, the theory that such penetration is what's "needed" for effectiveness has never been confirmed by an actual study of effectiveness. In fact, I often hear that the FBI's recommendations are valid specfically because they can't be scientifically checked.

again, only 17 of the 44 were hit by bullets that had passed through

Perhaps we should have asked those 17 officers if they would have preferred their fellow officers using the FMJs they did, or JHPs instead?

Like I said, it is strange logic to think that, because 27 were hit by errant shots, we should dismiss the 17 that were hit by pass-throughs as not worthy of consideration.

 

[Skribs]

LH, which is more important? Something that is likely to penetrate to the depth to stop an attack, or something that is not likely to penetrate through the target? If your priority isn't to stop the attack, why are you shooting?

I'm not arguing HP vs. FMJ. I am arguing that if your primary goal is to prevent overpenetration, and as such you choose light loads, weaker calibers, smaller pellets, or frangible rounds that will penetrate significantly less than what may be needed to reach the vitals, then you're less likely to stop the attack. Oh, and you can still injure passersby if you miss. So even though your goal is to not hurt anyone else, you still can.

If your primary goal is to stop the attack, and you choose an appropriate load with that goal in mind (something with enough penetration to do the job), then yes, on a direct hit where you hit a skinny target square in the chest without first going through his arms, you will have a much higher chance of a bullet passing through someone, but you also have a reduced chance of failure to stop the attack.

I'd also like to know how many shootings there were during that time frame. Yes 17 is a high number of people to get hit, but I'm pretty sure innocents or friendlies getting hit (either by a miss or a penetrator) is very unlikely.

 

[Loosedhorse]

LH, which is more important? Something that is likely to penetrate to the depth to stop an attack, or something that is not likely to penetrate through the target? If your priority isn't to stop the attack, why are you shooting?

I believe you are presenting me a false dichotomy: if I choose a round that won't overpenetrate in most circumstances, that does not mean it will not physiologically stop the threat in most circumstances.

Then there's the phenomenon of psychological stops, which I assume (based on the number of people who survive being shot by handguns) are more frequent than physiological stops. It would be a pity to perforate both the bad guy and grandma behind him when a non-vital hit would have stopped him. So, again, an FBI-level penetrative round may not be needed to stop your fight, just as an FBI-level round might not be enough to do that before your attacker "takes you with him."

If you are instead asking me on which side I would like to err, well, that's a more interesting question. As has already been mentioned, in some settings (like my home or hers) grandma might me on the other side of the bad guy; my kids might be, too.

I guess I shouldn't consider the possibility of their being struck by a pass-through differently than an innocent I don't know...but I do.

BTW--any luck on all those "multiple studies"?

I'm pretty sure innocents or friendlies getting hit (either by a miss or a penetrator) is very unlikely.

It is very unlikely I will need a gun, but I carry in spite of the low probability. So, if it is very unlikely I will need less penetrative rounds to prevent injuring an innocent who might be family...I shouldn't use them because of the low probability?

 

[rcmodel]

Rc, would those BGs/soldiers have gone down first had the cops/germans used hollowpoints?

Just judging by the number of game animals I have shot over the last 50 years with both types of bullets.

Yes, they would have.

I have seen coyotes & deer run over 1/2 mile with a FMJ though the body, leaving an ice-pick wound to slowly drop blood pressure & bleed out.

They most often don't go far, if go anywhere at all, when a JHP blows through them and leaves a gapping hole through the internal organs.

rc.

 

[Casefull]

Stopping power is a lot of bs. If you want to stop someone hit them with a bowling ball, masonry block, bat, etc. If on the other hand you want to kill them quickly and cause violent shock to their system(so as to incapacitate them) shoot them with as high a velocity and large of caliber you have on hand. Too many of the posters obvously do not have real world experience with blowing holes through living tissue. More velocity is always better. It wrecks more tissue going through...every time for any given bullet design. When you say the energy is wasted that is just a lot of theory. Shoot a squirrel with subsonic 22 round in the body. Minimal damage and may take more than 1 hit for said squirrel to fall from tree. Shoot same squirrel with speedier 22 long rifle and you get a wicked wound with instant shutdown on the squirrels part. This is true with elk, deer, etc. with the larger calibers. My 2 cents.

 

[Bubba613]

jscott, you can't depend on energy transference from pistol bullets to stop someone.

True. A pistol is not a rifle. Jack O'Connor in one of his rifle books has a terrific section on wounding. He states, iirc, that the energy transfer from a rifle round will cause the cells around the wound channel to die instantly, and this effect creates a chain reaction that kills the animal.
But he notes this effect only happens above 2000 fps. There aren't many pistol rounds that will do that kind of velocity.

 

[Old Fuff]

See post #21

The Old Fuff:
It is a given that big diameter bullets make bigger holes then smaller ones, and they aren’t dependent on expanding because the leave the bore expanded in the first place.

Bubba613:
I realize this was the lead in to a joke, but there really isn't that much difference in calibers using JHPs.

For various reasons hollow-point bullets don't always expand the way they are suppose to. In jelly they look good, but human beings are sometimes different. A large caliber bullet isn't dependent on expansion to do what it's supposed too. In terms of leaving a large primary channel they represent more of a sure thing rather then a probable maybe.

The problem is that the larger the cartridge the bigger and heavier the handgun that uses it has to be. Depending on circumstances a compromise may be necessary.