Is 40 S&W FMJ better than JHP?

Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by WoodchuckAssassin, Nov 8, 2020.

  1. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    wichita
    Only that the "bare minimum is acceptable" is prevalent here on THR and that it's been repeated enough that people here will actually argue that there's no advantage to be in the preferred range because 12" is acceptable.
    Not that it originated here or that it's not prevalent elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2021
    Pudge likes this.
  2. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,793
    Location:
    DFW Area
    Well, 12" (the "bare minimum" if you prefer) is, quite obviously, acceptable, otherwise the threshold would have been set higher. That's how thresholds work. So it makes perfect sense that the concept would be "prevalent" anywhere the topic is discussed. That's why it was odd that you seemed to be making a point of the fact that it was common on THR--of course it is.

    As far as people arguing that there's no advantage to being higher in the range, obviously there is, to at least some extent--but that's quite a bit more of a gray area than talking about whether or not a simple threshold of acceptability is met or not.
     
  3. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    wichita
    There we go 12" is now the threshold anything above that will work anything below will fail.
     
  4. C-grunt

    C-grunt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,234
    Location:
    Phoenix Az
    If you are talking about FBI testing, then yes.
     
  5. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,793
    Location:
    DFW Area
    How can someone take such a simple statement, reply with a single sentence and get it so wrong?

    1. "...12" is now the threshold..." There is no "now" about it. 12" has been the minimum threshold of acceptability since the FBI set up their selection process, decades ago.

    2. "...above that will work anything below will fail." That's not what I said and that's not what the FBI standard says. The FBI standard is a standard of acceptability, a set of selection criteria. It is not an endorsement/guarantee of success or failure. They're not saying: "Do what we do and you will succeed, do differently and you will fail." That's obviously pure nonsense. Ammunition which penetrates in the range of 12" to 18" is acceptable for FBI selection/issue. Ammunition which does not, is not acceptable for selection/issue.

    Therefore, it is obviously and incontrovertibly true that, per the FBI standard, 12" of penetration (the bare minimum) is acceptable to the FBI. If it were not true, the FBI would have set their threshold for acceptability higher. That is how thresholds work.
     
    481 and C-grunt like this.
  6. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    wichita
    That's just it the FBI doesn't accept 12" they demand more.
    The 12" minimum while well reasoned is arbitrary and is in no way a threshold for "the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result, or condition to occur or be manifested."
     
  7. C-grunt

    C-grunt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,234
    Location:
    Phoenix Az
    Any round that passes testing is considered good. One round dorsn't pass the testing better than another that passed.
     
  8. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    wichita
    ^^^^see the problem here John?^^^^^^^^
     
  9. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    12,585
    That is a contradiction of terms.
     
    481 likes this.
  10. 481

    481 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,205
    Actually, the F.B.I. specifies a range of 12'' - 18'' of penetration as being an acceptable standard of performance. It's a reasonable and well-designed standard because bullets fired in self-defense situations often—but not always—have to traverse barriers before striking a human body sometimes at odd angles that require the ability to penetrate deeper to reach vital anatomy.
     
  11. Driftertank

    Driftertank Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    779
    Location:
    Yakima WA
    So, what is the point of this arguing over semantics?

    The FBI decided that a round which penetrates between 12-18" IN 10% BALLISTICS GELATIN has the best chance to penetrate to vitals when fired from any aspect, be it front-to-back, side-on, or where limbs may be encountered before entering COM, and without exiting the target with lethal energy remaining. This conclusion was drawn from a comparison of tested gel penetration, against post shooting reports, autopsies, hospital records.

    Does that render any round with less than 12" or more than 18" useless? Of course not. You would be hard pressed to find a .380 or .32ACP that expands yet consistently falls within that range. I'd still rather have either of them, than nothing.

    I just wonder how this turned into an argument.
     
  12. C-grunt

    C-grunt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,234
    Location:
    Phoenix Az
    I dont, please explain.
     
  13. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,793
    Location:
    DFW Area
    You have evidence that the FBI says that their minimum acceptable threshold is not acceptable? Ok, I'd like to see it. And PLEASE, don't quote Urey Patrick's paper saying that more is preferred. We've already been through the difference between 'acceptable' and 'preferred'.
    I understand what you see as being a problem, but the real problem, as far as I can tell, is that you are reading more into the FBI standards than is really there.
    The 12" minimum certainly is a threshold.

    A threshold is just a boundary. In this case, it is the boundary that the FBI set decades ago between ammo that won't penetrate enough to meet their standard and ammo that will penetrate enough to meet their standard.
     
  14. JCooperfan1911

    JCooperfan1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2020
    Messages:
    528
    .45 hardball hits like a ton of bricks and will knock a man over with a well placed shot.

    Not sure about the .40 Short and Weak but I doubt it, but undoubtedly superior to the 9 mm wimpymeter.
     
  15. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,793
    Location:
    DFW Area
    A .308 round from a couple of yards away won't knock over a guy standing on one leg. The link below has a post with a link to a demonstration video. And that's with twice the momentum of a 230gr .45 ACP bullet.

    Mythbusters did a test with a 150lb crash test dummy with a steel armor plate welded into its chest (to make sure the bullet was stopped and all the momentum was dumped into the dummy) being shot with a 50BMG to see how far it would be knocked backwards by the impact. It wasn't knocked backwards.

    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/44-may-be-special-but-it-aint-for-defense.822960/page-7#post-10649796
     
  16. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    wichita
    You mean other than the ammo that they actually accept/reject?
    Because I read the whole thing and didn't stop at 12" minimum????
    So you think if Patrick worked for Scotland Yard the threshold would be 30.48 CM and not rounded to 30 ?
     
  17. C-grunt

    C-grunt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,234
    Location:
    Phoenix Az
    What ammo has met the standards and was rejected?
     
  18. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    12,585
    Ammunition that does meet that standard may not be purchased for other reasons involving the procurement process, such as price, schedule, other terms and conditions.

    I do not know whether the source selection people could properly select an offeror's product over another simply because it penetrated more than that of another offeror. That would depend on what is stated in the solicitation instrument.

    They do not want to get bogged down in having a contract award appealed by a loser.
     
    C-grunt likes this.
  19. C-grunt

    C-grunt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,234
    Location:
    Phoenix Az
    From what I've read and from talking with a few FBI agents, ammo that meets the standard of testing goes in the "good for duty use" list and ammo that doesn't pass testing goes in the "not for duty use" list. Every few years when more ammunition is purchased the ammunition makers from the good list submit their bids and one is chosen based on cost and ability to fill the order in the requested time. That's why the FBI changes bullets every few years.

    And just like what S&W did with the M&P with police departments nationwide, and Sig did with the M17 contract..... newer designs trying to prove themselves might purposely undercut the competition on price to get the free publicity of being the "chosen duty round/weapon of XYZ" ****cough Hornady Critical Duty cough****
     
  20. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,793
    Location:
    DFW Area
    Yes, of course. If they issue one loading of 9mm but don't issue another, that doesn't automatically imply that the round they chose is acceptable and the other one isn't.

    The idea that the select one particular loading (or a set of loadings) doesn't mean that all other ammunition is unacceptable. If they're like other government organizations, they figure out which offerings will meet their specs and then go out to see who will make them the best deals and buy those loadings.
    Because you can't seem to separate the idea of acceptability from the idea of preference. By the way, as nearly as I can tell, according to the scoring system, it appears that the highest preference is not for ammunition that penetrates up to 18", it's for ammunition that penetrates in the 14" to 16" range.
    Maybe 30cm, maybe 30.5cm, maybe 31cm. Who knows. The bottom line is that whatever they set it to would become their threshold of acceptability and things over it would be acceptable while things under it wouldn't be. That's how thresholds work.

    Does the FBI prefer ammo that only penetrates 12"? No, they like it better if it penetrates 14" to 16", but ammo that only penetrates 12" is acceptable--because that's how they set up their testing protocol/standard.
     
  21. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    wichita
    Actions speak louder then words. it's an arbitrary threshold could be 11.6 or 12.4,
    because it's really 14-16".

    The protocol is to measure the actual depth not pass/fail right?
     
  22. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    5,016
    Location:
    Illinois
    John Hall later said:

    It should be noted that no maximum penetration standard was established. This reflects the judgment that underpenetration of a handgun bullet presents a far greater risk to the law enforcement officer than overpenetration does to an innocent bystander. Considering that approximately 80% of the rounds fired by law enforcement officers engaged in violent encounters do not strike the intended targets, it was deemed somewhat unrealistic to attach too much significance to the potential risks of overpenetration on the part of those that do. Nevertheless, in assessing the potential volume of wounds created by the test bullets, greater attention was given to the potential tissue displaced up to a depth of 18". For practical purposes , penetration beyond that range would most likely carry the bullet outside the body.
     
  23. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,793
    Location:
    DFW Area
    You can dance around this all you want but it's not going to change the FBI's standard. Actual penetration is measured. Rounds that penetrate less than 12" are penalized since penetration of 12" or more is required.

    Under 12" is unacceptable. Over 12" is acceptable. That's the bottom line. Yes, there's a lot more to it than that--as I said earlier any statement about the protocol that is less than a few pages in length is leaving something out--but none of it changes the fact that 12" of penetration is considered acceptable and anything under 12" is not.
    It is true that penetration over 18" is not penalized nearly as much as penetration under 12", but the protocol does penalize rounds that penetrate over 18" on average. Under 12" penetration is penalized 2 ways, with a very low penetration score and also with a special penalty that applies only to under 12" penetration. Over 18" is penalized only via penetration score, and not by as much even in that respect.
     
  24. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    wichita
    Yes anything under 12" is unacceptable and if you ignore the rest of the protocol everything above 12" is acceptable and they're all equal because
    I find it even more amusing that other than recognize that your 12-18" is all acceptable has morphed into 12-18" is all equal you'll spend 3 pages arguing that it takes 3 pages to explain the protocol.
     
  25. WisBorn

    WisBorn Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2020
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    South Carolina
    After a 120+ responses. Mine is simple.
    40 s&w hollow points is the way to go, they are designed for defense.
    If you need to use your 40 to defend yourself it will get the job done. When you go to court and you will have to go to court you want to have been using defense loads. Any lawyer will eat you up and spit you out for using FMJ'S.
    For hiking in areas where you may come across a bear and need to defend yourself. Carry FMJs for that.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice