This thread and the discussion seems really familiar for some reason?
Thanks OP....got a lot of answers I was looking for as well and enjoyed the read.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/9mm-vs-40.881027/
This thread and the discussion seems really familiar for some reason?
Thanks OP....got a lot of answers I was looking for as well and enjoyed the read.
At the risk of starting a 9mm vs. 40cal debate (which I'm really hoping to avoid), is there enough data to suggest that 40cal FMJ is a better defensive round than JHP?
This can also be spun as an expansion vs. penetration question. FMJ has the penetration of 18+ inches, but lacks the expansion and subsequent wound-channel of a JHP. The JHP obviously has the expansion, but from the majority of ballistic tests I've seen, penetration is around the 10-12" mark...well short of the accepted 18". With cold weather and thick clothing being the norm this time of year...
is FMJ better than JHP?
As always, my thanks to for THR! And please...don't turn tell me to sell my 40 and buy a 9
I'm in the rainy, salty, snowbelt, and spend most of my time outdoors. So I shoot it to rotate in fresh ammo.
That's fine , if it is supported by empirical evidence.just go with what makes sense for you.
No.Can you think of any agency, aside from the military and organizations controlled by the military that use ball?
So do i.I think the fact that no one, including the military has adopted a fmj .40 caliber load speaks for itself as far as data
Can you think of any agency, aside from the military and organizations controlled by the military that use ball?
From the early ’90s adoption of 16-shot 9mm pistols (Glock 19, SIG-SAUER P226 DAO, and Smith & Wesson Model 5946) through 1999, NYPD issued a full metal jacket “hardball” round, comprising a round-nose 115 grain bullet in the mid-1100 fps velocity range.
The New York Times exposed the following facts in its startling report on the matter: “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,” stated the Times. In other words, in rough numbers, 53 percent of these tragic occurrences were apparently missed shots, while 33 percent were “shoot-throughs” of violent felony suspects.
Counting bullets that went through objects to hit presumably unseen innocent victims (13 percent), that tells us that roughly 46 percent of these innocent bystanders were shot by over-penetrating bullets that “pierced their backstops.” The Times continued, “In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed through other people.”
In round numbers, 52 percent of those “friendly fire” casualties were hit by bullets that apparently missed their intended targets. Forty-two percent passed through the bodies of the intended targets after the bullets struck the people they were aimed at.
Could someone explain to me why this is the case? I am not muscular, but I am heavy (about 225 lbs) and using a ruler, I can't seem to find any place on me where I am 12 inches thick back to front. I am wider than that side to side. Is that the concern here? Or is it penetrating barriers first?
TL;DR so apologies if this information has already been offered earlier in this thread, but NYPD is a good case-study of why the use of FMJ is best avoided for the purpose of self-defense.
From Mas Ayoob's article here: https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/reloading/massad-ayoob-the-dangers-of-over-penetrating-bullets
NYPD's documentation of at least 17 FMJs striking other (innocent) people after passing through a human body is pretty conclusive evidence that FMJs pose more incidental risk than the use of JHPs since they've seen lessened occurrence after the adoption of JHPs.
Just for comparisons sake, what are the numbers of bystanders and officers hit by hollowpoints that have penetrated a human target?
Just for comparisons sake, what are the numbers of bystanders and officers hit by hollowpoints that have penetrated a human target?
It's funny how it's morphed into that even though HWFE states 12" minimum and up to 18" is preferred.The FBI penetration requirements are 12" to 18". Anything inside that range is considered acceptable.
How can you hit anything if your gun doesn'tWhat reliability standard would you want if your bullets are gong to miss?
Well the definition is to "NOT" have the desired effect.How do you define "ineffective"?
If you are interested in the number of bystanders struck by JHPs that have passed through suspects (there have been very few), since NYPD began using JHPs, NYPD publishes annual analyses of their OISs for public review.
Here—
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/reports-analysis/use-of-force.page
—you can find several.
"Acceptable" and "preferred" are two different concepts.It's funny how it's morphed into that even though HWFE states 12" minimum and up to 18" is preferred.
Sure and you're more than welcome to prefer to just be acceptable. But it would seem that the FBI still prefers the upper end choosing heavy for caliber Winchester 147 9mm and 180 40 S&W."Acceptable" and "preferred" are two different concepts.
1. You will not find any statements about what about what I prefer in anything I've stated on this thread.Sure and you're more than welcome to prefer to just be acceptable.
Yes I am absolutely trying to put words in your mouth so to speak. Only stating the acceptable 12-18" and leaving out what is preferred puts a premium on the 12" minimum as gets thrown about here.So, you start by trying to pretend that 'preference' and 'acceptable' are the same thing and progress to trying to put words in my mouth. Do you have a goal in mind or are you just trying to be obnoxious?
It's unacceptable to put words in other people's mouths. It is impolite, tends to stir up trouble, and when the incorrectly stated position is answered as if it is accurately stated it creates a logical fallacy called the strawman fallacy.Yes I am absolutely trying to put words in your mouth so to speak.
Stating the acceptable penetration range is accurate.Only stating the acceptable 12-18" and leaving out what is preferred puts a premium on the 12" minimum as gets thrown about here.
1. That's not what I did. I provided the full range.There are literally 100s of posts on THR that only reference the 12" minimum.
Sure and you're more than welcome to prefer to just be acceptable. But it would seem that the FBI still prefers the upper end choosing heavy for caliber Winchester 147 9mm and 180 40 S&W.
Now who's putting words in someones mouth?3. "...posts on THR..." and "...as gets thrown about here..." imply that the 12" minimum is something unique or original to THR. It is neither. It is the minimum acceptable penetration figure from the highly publicized FBI standard that has been in place for decades.
It would appear both may have a contract. Either way the FBI DEMANDS more than the minimum of 12".Current 9mm duty ammo for FBI is 135 grain Critical Duty +p, not 147 grain ammo.
I did use the word "imply", but fair enough. What did you actually mean?Now who's putting words in someones mouth?
It is essential to bear in mind that the single most critical factor remains penetration. 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.
.