Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by WoodchuckAssassin, Nov 8, 2020.
OK, lots of folks have also been stopped by FMJ and will continue to be stopped by FMJ.
Is that what makes it better ?
Yes. We are not asking if FMJ can kill people, or if it has stopped people. We are asking what, on a shot by shot basis is more effective in 40S&W pistols: FMJ or JHP? Got an answer for that?
This kind of statement is usually a kind of argument that using FMJ is just fine, because it has killed a lot of people dead, dead, dead. And sure, FMJ is not ineffective. For about 60 years or so, it was pretty much all there was for automatic pistols, except for stuff that didn't work any better, like soft-nosed or flat-nosed pistol bullets. And sure, nobody wants to get shot with anything.
But sometimes people are NOT deterred, and sometimes you need a pistol bullet to be effective, because one hit might be all you get if it doesn't stop who you are shooting at. If that's the case, what do you want to be shooting?
I'm not saying FMJ is better.
All I ever say in these FMJ vs HP debates is FMJ is not ineffective. Some folks seem to want to have you believe a FMJ round may hurt you a little.
It's a bullet, weighing X grains, traveling at Y feet per second, and it's most likely going to poke a hole in you. A hollow point .40 S&W will probably, in most cases, poke a bigger hole in you than full metal jacket .40 S&W. They are both still going to poke a hole in you.
Are you having a debate with me?
I am responding to a post you made. I did not reread this whole thread to see if you had said anything else. As far as I can see, no one in this thread has claimed that FMJ is ineffective. You seemed to be acting as if someone had. The question is if JHP is more effective than FMJ. If you think that implies people think FMJ is ineffective, well, you have made your point, and it has been conceded.
BTW, why do you ask if I am debating you? I can't say I understand that as a response to my post, unless I offended you somehow.
FMJ is fine for practice and for military use. After all, your enemy would have to get past the M-1 ABRAMS tank and all the other things the military will throw at a threat.
For an individual defending themselves, hollow points are really the only proven way to go. The exotic, non-expanding ammo has not yet been proven in the field.
As for 18 inches. Way too much penetration. My agency adopted the .357 magnum when we had failures to stop with the .38 Special +P+ in the late 1980's. They found from many actual gun fights that 9 inches was sufficient penetration. They also found the problem with the .38 was not penetration, but lack of velocity.
We were allowed to carry a 9m.m. or .45ACp as a private purchase, before we went to the .40 S&W. For the 9m.m., the velocity of our +P+ ammo was the same as our 110 grain .357 magnum ammo and the results were about the same. You hit the target in center mass and it went down!
"Lots"? Really? In .40 caliber?
I submit that most .40 caliber bullets that have been fired iin use-of-force situations have been JHP.
How do you define "ineffective"?
I think the data suggests exactly the opposite: Lucky Gunner .40S&W.
.40 Short'n'Weak is more than powerful enough to push an expanding hollowpoint to 18", if you choose competent ammo.
FMJ is for practice or for if you ran out of HP, an informed person does not intentionally choose FMJ for SD.
Increased diameter (increased wound) increases ASAP incapacitation potential, expanded bullet > FMJ.
If I remember right, I believe the FBI Miami shootout had one or more bullets that did not penetrate to the heart because it first went through the Ex-cons bicep from right to left (Platt, the primary shooter). The bullet (9mm Silvertips) went in and stopped an inch from his heart.
Had the bullet gone 12”, it would have hit the heart and hastened his death. (In theory, anyway. Sadly, Platt was a real animal who was on a mission. He took a lot of damage and still fired a lot of rounds from three guns.)
That's basically the 12”-18” FBI standard that applies to the majority of citizen situations; bullet expansion to cause maximum incapacitation potential with enough penetration to hit a vital from just about any possible angle encountered.
One thing to remember about the gel tests is X amount of penetration in gel does not equate to X amount of penetration in a person. The gel is a medium used to compare bullets in a scientific way. Through studying shootings the FBI was able to determine that 12 inches of penetration in gel should be enough for a bullet to hit the vitals after passing through the bad guy at an odd angle or through a limb. 18 inches of penetration and the bullet is likely to exit the bad guy with enough velocity to still be a very deadly threat.
I got in a gunfight in 2018 and my first round went through the bad guy's forearm before hitting him in the chest because he was pointing a handgun at me and his arms were obscuring much of the torso. Interesting fact, the rifle round I was/am issued is not on the "recommended list" because it fails to meet FBI standards, the the bullet has shown more than adequate penetration in real world shootings.
God I love the info on this site. Much of it, especially from individuals who have been-there-done-that, is information that I didn't already know. In truth, I kinda knew the FMJ wasn't going to be the underdog victory between the two, but it's real nice to hear testimony and reasons behind the penetration recommendations.
I also appreciate the ammo suggestions. I have been carrying 180 exclusively (my theory being more mass = more penetration = more damage), but the 165gr. JHP will be my next investment...if I can find any
As always, thanks.
When it comes to using a pistol to defend yourself, I would argue that it being utterly reliable is even more important than bullet penetration, expansion and even placement. And even though modern semi-autos have come a very long way in terms of handling hollow-points reliably, I would still make the argument that the configuration of hardball bullets (smooth, gently tapered with no edges to "snag") makes them the least likely to cause trouble when chambering the cartridge.
Arms have a pesky way of getting in the way and can present several inches of penetration resistance. 12-inches helps ensure your bullet has adequate penetration potential to reach and pass through vitals from any angular aspect.
Thanks, Shawn, and the others who answered my question. Apparently this was one of those things everybody knew but me.
What reliability standard would you want if your bullets are gong to miss?
Do you have anything to support that argument?
I am not concerned with reliability of feeding as a reason for sticking with FMJ in this particular case...just the penetration aspect of things. Not to be "that guy"...but it's a Sig P-series, so I sleep easy at night knowing that I could probably feed it half opened soup cans and it'd still cycle. Haha!
What 180 grain round are you using?
My department issued 40 round is the 180 HST and its been an outstanding performer for the last 15+ years. If that's what you use i wouldn't worry about switching.
Deleted because pointlessly argumentative. Sorry, it's been that kind of day.
Only my pistol is loaded with JHP. My reload mags are FMJ. I shoot my carry ammo often and can't budget to use that much JHP.
That's another reason why I prefer .40, it's FMJ isn't as bad as 9mm's can be.
But don't forget, JHP's are a nice chromed case that feeds better. And IMO sealed up better and more weather resistant.
Why do you shoot your carry ammo often?
I'm in the rainy, salty, snowbelt, and spend most of my time outdoors. So I shoot it to rotate in fresh ammo.
I do not think there's any reason to do that.
I hope so. 'Cause my current lot is starting to look awfully crusty.
Separate names with a comma.