Is 9mm FMJ really that ineffective against bad guys?

[SteveChuck]

I'm well aware that for self defense purposes, a good modern jacketed hollowpoint load is the overwhelming preference for dealing with a threat, for reasons which I already know and understand, so I need no explanation there. However, I've been wondering about it, and I'm curious to know exactly how effective (or ineffective) 9mm ball ammo really is, and has been historically, at incapacitating human targets based on existing scientific and/or anecdotal information. So far, I haven't been able to find anything conclusive about this after searching online; only a general acceptance of the demonstrable fact that jhp rounds are superior to fmjs for self defense, especially where overpenetration is a concern.

But to what extent the 9mm fmj round is lacking by comparison seems to me like something that could still be open to debate, and therein lies my curiosity.

Consider the reputation and widespread use of the cartridge. It has been putting people in the ground for over a century, in crime, self-defense, and in warfare, and has pretty much only been available as ball ammo for the majority of that time. Isn't there something to be said about the widespread adoption and apparent effectiveness of 9mm Luger, even only in fmj form?

People talk about the lackluster performance of 9mm fmj in real world defensive shootings, which is not something that I would necessarily argue with, but what about the use and effectiveness of the cartridge during combat in the world wars? Wasn't fmj the only flavor that it came in back then? What about all those pistols and submachine guns that were mass produced by the thousands or millions during the wars and were apparently used to great effect in combat with ball ammo? What about all those MP-40s that German NCOs carried and fought with as primary arms? What about all those Sten guns that were supposedly used so effectively by Allied troops and underground resistance fighters? Am I missing something here?

Since this question might be more focused on bullet configuration than caliber, I might also mention the even smaller caliber PPSH-41, which the Russians used in urban fighting with such great success that I've read they even had entire infantry divisions armed with them. Weren't those 7.62x25 rounds their weapons fired all fmj?

So, what are your thoughts and opinions on this? Is 9mm ball really that terrible as a manstopping round, even with proper shot placement? Or is it simply a matter of the bullet giving less than ideal, but still generally good enough performance to get the job done?

I'm well aware that for self defense purposes, a good modern jacketed hollowpoint load is the overwhelming preference for dealing with a threat, for reasons which I already know and understand, so I need no explanation there. However, I've been wondering about it, and I'm curious to know exactly how effective (or ineffective) 9mm ball ammo really is, and has been historically, at incapacitating human targets based on existing scientific and/or anecdotal information. So far, I haven't been able to find anything conclusive about this after searching online; only a general acceptance of the demonstrable fact that jhp rounds are superior to fmjs for self defense, especially where overpenetration is a concern.

But to what extent the 9mm fmj round is lacking by comparison seems to me like something that could still be open to debate, and therein lies my curiosity.

Consider the reputation and widespread use of the cartridge. It has been putting people in the ground for over a century, in crime, self-defense, and in warfare, and has pretty much only been available as ball ammo for the majority of that time. Isn't there something to be said about the widespread adoption and apparent effectiveness of 9mm Luger, even only in fmj form?

People talk about the lackluster performance of 9mm fmj in real world defensive shootings, which is not something that I would necessarily argue with, but what about the use and effectiveness of the cartridge during combat in the world wars? Wasn't fmj the only flavor that it came in back then? What about all those pistols and submachine guns that were mass produced by the thousands or millions during the wars and were apparently used to great effect in combat with ball ammo? What about all those MP-40s that German NCOs carried and fought with as primary arms? What about all those Sten guns that were supposedly used so effectively by Allied troops and underground resistance fighters? Am I missing something here?

Since this question might be more focused on bullet configuration than caliber, I might also mention the even smaller caliber PPSH-41, which the Russians used in urban fighting with such great success that I've read they even had entire infantry divisions armed with them. Weren't those 7.62x25 rounds their weapons fired all fmj?

So, what are your thoughts and opinions on this? Is 9mm ball really that terrible as a manstopping round, even with proper shot placement? Or is it simply a matter of the bullet giving less than ideal, but still generally good enough performance to get the job done?[/Q

Lethal and quickly incapacitating are two different concepts.
22lr, 32, 380/9mm FMJ are all lethal, but the goal of self defense is stop (incapacitate) the threat ASAP.
.355 diameter hole has less stop the threat ASAP potential than a .6x hole (expanded 9mm HP)

Well stated. Incapacitating the attacker(s) as quickly as possible - irregardless of causing "expiration" is the objective. Efficiency is using the fewest rounds, in the shortest time frame, to quickly incapacitate the attacker(s). Several factors play into the innumerable scenarios. Size and fitness of the attacker, what are they wearing? Protective gear or thick winter clothing? Big beefy person or small frame, even "average" size? Are they hyper aggressive or on drugs? So many factors come into play. Finally, there is something called "Shot placement" which all of the folks reading/replying here are probably very familiar with. Depending on where the bullet strikes your attacker - THAT, combined with some of the factors I listed above will decide "efficiency, effectiveness and lethality". By the way, trying to compare Sub-guns firing 9mm ball rounds in a combat scenario - to a civilian firing a Glock handgun - that is the proverbial Apples versus Oranges. Rate of fire, barrel length etc. cannot be compared and used as a determining factor.

 

[SteveChuck]

I'm well aware that for self defense purposes, a good modern jacketed hollowpoint load is the overwhelming preference for dealing with a threat, for reasons which I already know and understand, so I need no explanation there. However, I've been wondering about it, and I'm curious to know exactly how effective (or ineffective) 9mm ball ammo really is, and has been historically, at incapacitating human targets based on existing scientific and/or anecdotal information. So far, I haven't been able to find anything conclusive about this after searching online; only a general acceptance of the demonstrable fact that jhp rounds are superior to fmjs for self defense, especially where overpenetration is a concern.

But to what extent the 9mm fmj round is lacking by comparison seems to me like something that could still be open to debate, and therein lies my curiosity.

Consider the reputation and widespread use of the cartridge. It has been putting people in the ground for over a century, in crime, self-defense, and in warfare, and has pretty much only been available as ball ammo for the majority of that time. Isn't there something to be said about the widespread adoption and apparent effectiveness of 9mm Luger, even only in fmj form?

People talk about the lackluster performance of 9mm fmj in real world defensive shootings, which is not something that I would necessarily argue with, but what about the use and effectiveness of the cartridge during combat in the world wars? Wasn't fmj the only flavor that it came in back then? What about all those pistols and submachine guns that were mass produced by the thousands or millions during the wars and were apparently used to great effect in combat with ball ammo? What about all those MP-40s that German NCOs carried and fought with as primary arms? What about all those Sten guns that were supposedly used so effectively by Allied troops and underground resistance fighters? Am I missing something here?

Since this question might be more focused on bullet configuration than caliber, I might also mention the even smaller caliber PPSH-41, which the Russians used in urban fighting with such great success that I've read they even had entire infantry divisions armed with them. Weren't those 7.62x25 rounds their weapons fired all fmj?

So, what are your thoughts and opinions on this? Is 9mm ball really that terrible as a manstopping round, even with proper shot placement? Or is it simply a matter of the bullet giving less than ideal, but still generally good enough performance to get the job done?

 

[SteveChuck]

Well, where to begin..hmmm. First off, let's all agree that trying to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of a Sub-Gun like a Sten, Steyr or MP5, Uzi etc..firing 9mm ball rounds in combat scenarios to an individual firing a Glock or Sig or whatever type of handgun is NOT the best way to analyze the 9mm fmj round in terms of effectiveness or lethality. So many factors go into this discussion - in terms of self defense scenarios and ballistics, the attacker versus the person being attacked in terms of skill set etc..One premise is, all things being set aside for now except - a 9mm fmj round, standard load, will indeed kill a human being IF that fired round penetrates the skull, the heart or severs a major artery and the "recipient" of that 9mm round is not seconds away from top quality trauma medical treatment. Now, in terms of how "efficiently" the 9mm fmj round is, in compared to other calibers and types of rounds, well, there are a number of things to consider. "Efficiency" as I know it, in terms of firearms in self defense, is pretty much defined as the least number of rounds needed to incapacitate or stop attacker(s) from continuing their attack on me. Shot placement, clothing or protective gear worn by the attacker, the attacker(s) physical size and/or condition, the intensity of the attack by the attacker(s), the distance to the target (velocity on impact and bullet design will determine penetration, along with other factors listed above) and the rate of fire (that's why there's no comparison of handguns to sub-guns). So, with all these things to consider, is the 9mm fmj the "optimum" round to use for self defense? Not if you have a choice of say, a larger caliber OR a Hollow Point round which expands, creates a larger wound channel, does more damage to those vital areas and more efficiently slows or stops an attacker(s). Other factors such as over-penetration, cost per round, etc etc...well, maybe that needs to be set aside to discuss on another day.

 

[MCMXIautomatic]

Basically what you're asking is if our military is at a disadvantage since they are currently confined to FMJ? I used to assume so, along with everyone else, but I no longer do. If I were in a combat zone where civilian bystanders weren't a consideration, then I would choose FMJ over hollow points without a doubt.

What made you change your thinking on that?

 

[grampajack]

What made you change your thinking on that?

A whole bunch of things. Basically, pistol calibers don't have the energy required to cause remote wounds, so bullet shape is somewhat irrelevant in terms of what kinds of wounds the bullet inflicts on living tissue. Bigger bullets don't really make bigger holes because living tissue acts like water; it gets out of the way, then collapses back in on itself. A number of medically trained researchers have stated that they can't tell the difference between common calibers or bullet types simply from examining a wound channel. This has gotten somewhat better with hollow points that open up into petals, as opposed to the old ones that just "mushroom," but it's still a pretty small gain.

The main thing is that modern hollow points are misunderstood. The purpose is not to inflict larger wounds, but to limit penetration in living tissue, while maximizing penetration through hard materials like bone, window glass, etc. The ideal hollow point would penetrate as far as FMJ in non hydraulic mediums, yet only penetrate 18'' in gel. We're not there yet, but we're close enough. You gotta be careful though. Even the best performing HPs don't always open up in the real world. The HST pretty much passes the FBI protocols 100% of the time, but from what I've seen of actual autopsies, it's maybe 50/50 in real life. So regardless of what your bullet does in testing, always be aware of what's behind the target.

You can see from ballistics gel that FMJ and JHP do pretty much the same thing, except the FMJ penetrates further. That's why I say I would prefer FMJ if in an environment where bystanders weren't a consideration. In that kind of environment, there's no such thing as too much penetration. So, no, I do not believe soldiers were ever at any disadvantage due to not having hollow points. Food for thought: the Germans especially in WWII gave zero regard for the rules of war, and they had the absolute best small arms industry in the world. If they thought hollow points would have made their weapons deadlier, or even lengthened recovery times for wounded soldiers, they absolutely would have issued them without any further thought for what the referees would say about it.




Note that the dye in the first block exaggerates the wound cavity. Essentially, both blocks are showing very similar permanent wound channels. Also notice how both blocks are showing wound channels smaller than the diameter of the bullet; that's what I'm referring to when I say that bullet diameter is kind of irrelevant (as far as wounding is concerned, not in terms of sectional density and whatnot).

 

[Dr.Rob]

During WW2 all nations using the 9mm were interested in making millions of rounds as fast as they could for as cheap as they could. No one was making hollow point ammo. A lot of WW2 ammo was steel cased, as copper and tin were in high demand. Pretty sure some wartime ammo even used mild steel in their bullets.

There is an old manual I have about the Luger that explains the 'velocity and stopping power' when comparing .30 Luger and 9mm. Guess what? .30 Luger penetrated better, 9mm had more 'stopping power.' This manual is a reprint of text 100 years old.

What was pointed out if that an FMJ bullet is designed to hold its shape during semiautomatic (or automatic) firing. Exposed lead bullets get boogered up pretty easily. FMJ's also shoot through stuff like leather belts and metal buttons and wooden doors and steel helmets pretty effectively, which you'd find pretty useful in a war zone.

We can buy better bullets now, but for over 100 years 9mm FMJ was 'good enough' for what it was designed to do. Modern bullet design has made all pistols more effective 'stoppers'.

 

[grampajack]

During WW2 all nations using the 9mm were interested in making millions of rounds as fast as they could for as cheap as they could. No one was making hollow point ammo. A lot of WW2 ammo was steel cased, as copper and tin were in high demand. Pretty sure some wartime ammo even used mild steel in their bullets.

During the war, yea, but during the buildup to the war during the early thirties they weren't so concerned with such things. The Germans especially spared no expense on their armaments.

FMJ's also shoot through stuff like leather belts and metal buttons and wooden doors and steel helmets pretty effectively, which you'd find pretty useful in a war zone.

That we can agree on.

We can buy better bullets now, but for over 100 years 9mm FMJ was 'good enough' for what it was designed to do. Modern bullet design has made all pistols more effective 'stoppers'.

You have to define more effective. I agree they're more effective in terms of barrier blindness as it relates to barrier penetration and safety, but if we're delving into the realm of "stopping power" I see no evidence for that. I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert, but I've studied a lot of medical reports and I've yet to see a stop that wouldn't have still been a stop had the JHP been an FMJ. However, I have seen failures that would have been stops had the JHP been an FMJ.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT advocating that civilians or LE carry FMJ! I repeat, I am NOT advocating that anyone start CCing FMJ. I want to make that perfectly clear, as the last time we had this discussion certain individuals jumped all over the chance to take things out of context. All I'm saying is that our military is not at a disadvantage for being issued ball ammo, and neither was anyone else historically speaking.

 

[SteveChuck]

There has been a mountain of data, testing and statistical research done on the effectiveness of Hollow Point ammunition versus Full Metal Jacket (Ball) rounds SINCE the good old WWII days. So, since there has been dozens of conflicts, a couple of wars and countless "engagements" fought by US Military all around the globe, to quote or refer to historical data as it applies to the topic of 9mm FMJ effectiveness - well, that's just kind of irrelevant in my opinion. Besides, the Law of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions still dictate what type of ammunition signatories are "required" to use in war.
Also, there is a huge difference between utilizing different weapons (submachine guns versus pistols) loaded with the same caliber of round in terms of their effectiveness against human beings. The velocity of the round exiting a 10" barrel versus a 5" barrel is enough to significantly alter the data in terms of penetration, ft lbs of energy and the size of the wound channel in a human being. If ANYONE doubts the importance of the diameter of a wound channel in stopping an attacker, they need to go back to reading up on WHY hollow point or "expanding" ammunition was developed to begin with. All it takes is approximately 2"-6" of penetration into the human chest cavity, on average, to pierce the heart (depending on where the bullet enters). Anywhere else the bullet penetrates (except the skull) you hope you get deeper penetration combined with a large wound channel..why? A larger wound channel from an expanding bullet does much more soft tissue damage - it causes rapid compression and a "bursting" effect on all those fluid filled cells - billions of them - just like little exploding milk jugs when you are out shooting at water filled ones with your buddies. Those exploding cells in turn tear apart items in your body - like veins, arteries, muscle, nerves, organs etc. and, in many cases, depending on where the wound occurred, the shock effect alone could and has in the past, stopped the human heart. The bigger the wound channel and or exit wound, the more damage and shock to the body. I don't think that's debatable is it?
Put in much simpler terms - which would drop a running deer or any game animal quicker - if all things being equal (shot placement, distance, animal size etc..) - a .22 LR lead nosed ball round - or, a .45-70 lead nosed ball round? I know that's an extreme comparison however, my point is, the larger the diameter the bullet, the larger the wound channel, the more severe the damage to a living organism, thereby the expanding round is more effective and incapacitating or "stopping" that person or critter. So, since we are no longer in the military (I retired after 20 plus years- many years ago) and we now have a choice as to what kind of ammo to select for our own personal defense - I elect to choose, based on those factors above, a good high velocity JHP in .45 ACP caliber fired through my Kimber 1911 - to greet any potential attacker wishing to do me or my loved ones harm. Will the 9mm FMJ still kill someone? Of course - depending on shot placement etc..All things being equal, does the 9mm FMJ kill or incapacitate someone as efficiently as a 9mm JHP? Nah, I don't think so and neither do millions of LE Officers, Soldiers and civilians world wide. Or maybe, just maybe, it's ALL been a giant scam to get more money from us ignorant rubes that pay higher costs for JHP ammo huh? Whoa....what a vast ammunition conspiracy....arghhh

 

[grampajack]

There has been a mountain of data, testing and statistical research done on the effectiveness of Hollow Point ammunition versus Full Metal Jacket (Ball) rounds SINCE the good old WWII days. So, since there has been dozens of conflicts, a couple of wars and countless "engagements" fought by US Military all around the globe, to quote or refer to historical data as it applies to the topic of 9mm FMJ effectiveness - well, that's just kind of irrelevant in my opinion. Besides, the Law of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions still dictate what type of ammunition signatories are "required" to use in war.
Also, there is a huge difference between utilizing different weapons (submachine guns versus pistols) loaded with the same caliber of round in terms of their effectiveness against human beings. The velocity of the round exiting a 10" barrel versus a 5" barrel is enough to significantly alter the data in terms of penetration, ft lbs of energy and the size of the wound channel in a human being. If ANYONE doubts the importance of the diameter of a wound channel in stopping an attacker, they need to go back to reading up on WHY hollow point or "expanding" ammunition was developed to begin with. All it takes is approximately 2"-6" of penetration into the human chest cavity, on average, to pierce the heart (depending on where the bullet enters). Anywhere else the bullet penetrates (except the skull) you hope you get deeper penetration combined with a large wound channel..why? A larger wound channel from an expanding bullet does much more soft tissue damage - it causes rapid compression and a "bursting" effect on all those fluid filled cells - billions of them - just like little exploding milk jugs when you are out shooting at water filled ones with your buddies. Those exploding cells in turn tear apart items in your body - like veins, arteries, muscle, nerves, organs etc. and, in many cases, depending on where the wound occurred, the shock effect alone could and has in the past, stopped the human heart. The bigger the wound channel and or exit wound, the more damage and shock to the body. I don't think that's debatable is it?
Put in much simpler terms - which would drop a running deer or any game animal quicker - if all things being equal (shot placement, distance, animal size etc..) - a .22 LR lead nosed ball round - or, a .45-70 lead nosed ball round? I know that's an extreme comparison however, my point is, the larger the diameter the bullet, the larger the wound channel, the more severe the damage to a living organism, thereby the expanding round is more effective and incapacitating or "stopping" that person or critter. So, since we are no longer in the military (I retired after 20 plus years- many years ago) and we now have a choice as to what kind of ammo to select for our own personal defense - I elect to choose, based on those factors above, a good high velocity JHP in .45 ACP caliber fired through my Kimber 1911 - to greet any potential attacker wishing to do me or my loved ones harm. Will the 9mm FMJ still kill someone? Of course - depending on shot placement etc..All things being equal, does the 9mm FMJ kill or incapacitate someone as efficiently as a 9mm JHP? Nah, I don't think so and neither do millions of LE Officers, Soldiers and civilians world wide. Or maybe, just maybe, it's ALL been a giant scam to get more money from us ignorant rubes that pay higher costs for JHP ammo huh? Whoa....what a vast ammunition conspiracy....arghhh

What you're describing is only applicable to rifle cartridges, and even then much of what you're describing simply isn't within the realm of possibility for human portable weapons period. Handgun cartridges don't have the energy needed to produce significant remote wounds. Effects on the central nervous system can begin to be detected at around 500 ft-lbs, but that's not going to drop anyone unless it directly destroys something vital. As far as stopping someone's heart, I've never seen a medical report where that's happened. I've seen plenty of cases where the bullet came very close to the heart and failed to stop the threat, though. Even in successful stops, where the bullet directly enters the heart, the person's heart did not stop. They continued to be conscious and even ambulatory for around 10 seconds. What can happen is the person goes down because a major blood vessel is severed, and the sudden drop in blood pressure causes them to black out. They tend to come to pretty quickly though, plus the bullet has to directly sever the blood vessel (i.e. the blood vessel has to be in the permanent wound channel).

 

[481]

You have to define more effective.

For the purposes of this topic/thread, that has already been done: 'Effectiveness' is defined by the time required by a certain caliber/projectile to incapacitate an adversary such that he/she can no longer behave dynamically--that is, that they are no longer capable of carrying out an assault.

 

[jimeast]

I strongly suspect Mr Harrell's test is a reasonable test to demonstrate real world shooting of a human body. Ballistic gel is a medium used to simulate the human body, but is consistent throughout. Ballistic gel also provides medium to compare ballistics with, which in extremely valuable in ballistics testing, but, not necessarily representative of the inconsistent nature of shooting a living creature with skin, bones, soft tissue and organs, where deflections and odd things can happen during the bullets contact and penetration

Ah, I think that you are just having fun with me. But, if you are not, and you are being completely serious...

If you wish to discard ballistics gelatin out-of-hand, a soft tissue simulant that has been correlated (through research at both the US Army BRL and the FBI) to both porcine and human tissue, then there is little that I can, or wish to, do about that.

The process of testing with calibrated 10% concentration ordnance gelatin is anything but cheap and if that is the criterion by which you judge terminal ballistic test mediums, ''bags full of groceries'' don't make a very good choice for a representative test medium either. I had to chuckle as this guy (Paul Harrell) explained with a straight face that his 'meat target', which includes, according to Mr. Harrell, "this bag of oranges to simulate lung tissue", that serves as his test medium. I don't think that I could have done what he did without laughing out loud and I certainly don't believe that anyone will find much in the way of research supporting it as being a valid test medium. If it was, I suppose that we would find the military, law-enforcement agencies and the ammunition manufacturers eschewing calibrated 10% concentration ordnance gelatin in favor of these 'meat targets'.

There are two physical test mediums that calibrate to human soft tissue: "Bags full of groceries" are not one of them.

 

[SteveChuck]

What you're describing is only applicable to rifle cartridges, and even then much of what you're describing simply isn't within the realm of possibility for human portable weapons period. Handgun cartridges don't have the energy needed to produce significant remote wounds. Effects on the central nervous system can begin to be detected at around 500 ft-lbs, but that's not going to drop anyone unless it directly destroys something vital. As far as stopping someone's heart, I've never seen a medical report where that's happened. I've seen plenty of cases where the bullet came very close to the heart and failed to stop the threat, though. Even in successful stops, where the bullet directly enters the heart, the person's heart did not stop. They continued to be conscious and even ambulatory for around 10 seconds. What can happen is the person goes down because a major blood vessel is severed, and the sudden drop in blood pressure causes them to black out. They tend to come to pretty quickly though, plus the bullet has to directly sever the blood vessel (i.e. the blood vessel has to be in the permanent wound channel).

So you aren't going to address the issue of wound channel, the destruction of soft tissue based on the expansion of a bullet, and the effect it has on the human body? Why are virtually ALL Law Enforcement agencies, large and small, employing 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 acp caliber JHP rounds instead of FMJ rounds in their sidearms when on duty? Gotta be something to it - don't ya think? And I have my doubts about how many medical reports of shootings you've read in great detail that involved specific causation of death from different types and calibers of rounds - but, if you have reviewed that many, then my hat is off to you.

 

[481]

I strongly suspect Mr Harrell's test is a reasonable test to demonstrate real world shooting of a human body. Ballistic gel is a medium used to simulate the human body, but is consistent throughout. Ballistic gel also provides medium to compare ballistics with, which in extremely valuable in ballistics testing, but, not necessarily representative of the inconsistent nature of shooting a living creature with skin, bones, soft tissue and organs, where deflections and odd things can happen during the bullets contact and penetration

Once humans' lung tissues are composed of oranges, I might accept that line of thought, but not until then. Testing in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin provides a valid, repeatable test medium that represents the average density of the human body which also includes that of bones, tendons, ligaments, allowing for an ''apples-to-apples'' comparison of how bullets behave in a medium that approximates the general physical density of the human body. Bullets taken from ordnance gelatin tests, especially those fired through four layers of 16-ounce denim into 10% ordnance gelatin, look very much like those recovered from real shootings. Anyone including bones (or anything else) in a block of ordnance gelatin demonstrates their ignorance of the model by doing so. Ballistic tests using meat (or fruits and produce) are also worthless as it has been documented that dead tissue, drained of its blood does not accurately reflect performance in living tissue. Fruits and veggies are even moreso a poor surrogate for such testing.

I have yet to see any ammunition manufacturer, military of law-enforcement agency or research organization (like the US ARMY BRL at Aberdeen Proving Grounds) use anything other than calibrated ordnance gelatin (in 10% or 20% concentrations) to T&E ammunition; these folks are responsible for making the leaps and bounds that we've seen in JHP ammunition performance over the last two or three decades and the research community that supports them has established that only two mediums are valid human tissue analogues: calibrated gelatin and water.

 

[grampajack]

For the purposes of this topic/thread, that has already been done: 'Effectiveness' is defined by the time required by a certain caliber/projectile to incapacitate an adversary such that he/she can no longer behave dynamically--that is, that they are no longer capable of carrying out an assault.

That's not a very useful definition. I measure effectiveness by how likely a bullet is to make it to the vitals in any given scenario. Basically, if I do my job, will bullet X do its job?

So you aren't going to address the issue of wound channel, the destruction of soft tissue based on the expansion of a bullet, and the effect it has on the human body? Why are virtually ALL Law Enforcement agencies, large and small, employing 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 acp caliber JHP rounds instead of FMJ rounds in their sidearms when on duty? Gotta be something to it - don't ya think? And I have my doubts about how many medical reports of shootings you've read in great detail that involved specific causation of death from different types and calibers of rounds - but, if you have reviewed that many, then my hat is off to you.

See post #55.

 

[481]

That's not a very useful definition. I measure effectiveness by how likely a bullet is to make it to the vitals in any given scenario. Basically, if I do my job, will bullet X do its job?

Incorrect. It is an excellent definition.

The amount of time that a bullet takes to bring hostilities to a stop (time to incapacitation) is very important and is the metric by which a bullet's effectiveness in self-defense is judged.

A bullet can ''make it to the vitals'', but that does not necessarily mean that the violence is stopped. A bullet can ''make it to the vitals'', but if hostilities still continue, it is not very 'effective'.

 

[Danoobie]

That vid does make a decent point though. Sometimes .45 fails to penetrate odd things. When .45 fails, it fails pretty spectacularly. But when it doesn't fail, it tends to perform better than most. I've seen wood and truck doors stop .45 a few times. Where .40 and .357 zip through. Just like the rare 9mm failure to pen a windshield.

45ACP is a large slow round, and despite it's reputation, doesn't get pushed by much powder. The same propane tanks a 44 will push right thru 3 of,
the 45 just makes a large dent on the outside of the first. It was designed to penetrate human tissue a few inches, and that's it. A little distance, and
even a light barrier can stop a 45, in some instances.

 

[grampajack]

Incorrect. It is an excellent definition.

The amount of time that a bullet takes to bring hostilities to a stop (time to incapacitation) is very important and is the metric by which a bullet's effectiveness in self-defense is judged.

A bullet can ''make it to the vitals'', but that does not necessarily mean that the violence is stopped. A bullet can ''make it to the vitals'', but if hostilities still continue, it is not very 'effective'.

The time a bullet takes to put someone out of commission is 100% dependent on shot placement. A .22 will instantaneously drop someone if you hit them in the head, assuming it penetrates. Yet a 9mm will take 10-15 seconds if you hit the person square in the heart, same as any other cartridge.

I don't know what statistics you're using to determine how long a particular caliber takes to incapacitate someone, but they're going to be completely useless. There are just too many variables, namely the skill of the shooter. The only way to determine a winner by your standards would be to take a bunch of identical people, line them up, and shoot them in the chest with different calibers. Assuming they were bare chested, though, everything from .32 to .45 would yield the same results. 10-15 seconds and lights out. It's not until you start throwing variables like range and barriers into the mix that you're going to see any difference in the end result.

I would also submit that it either happens really fast or really slow, as in too slow to matter to you if you're in a gunfight with someone. So it's not so much a matter of time as it is a matter of whether it happens or not period. The person is either incapacitated or they're not.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Grampajack writes:

Basically, pistol calibers don't have the energy required to cause remote wounds, so bullet shape is somewhat irrelevant in terms of what kinds of wounds the bullet inflicts on living tissue.

The temporary cavity produced when a handgun bullet expands can indeed produce greater permanent disruption IF the temporary cavity is located in non-elastic soft tissues (liver, spleen, kidney, pancreas). It important to keep in mind that while the temporary cavity has the potential to cause non-elastic soft tissues to split and rupture these additional wounding effects cannot be relied upon due to the uncontrolled and chaotic nature of shooting events. The only wounding effect that can be relied upon is the hole that is poked in soft tissues, i.e., the tissues the bullet comes into direct contact with and crushes.

Grampajack writes:

Bigger bullets don't really make bigger holes because living tissue acts like water; it gets out of the way, then collapses back in on itself.

Bigger bullets do, in fact, make bigger holes. However bullet shape plays an important role in the size of the hole produced. Soft tissues “flow” around the smooth, streamlined contours of an FMJ-RN bullet whereas they do not easily “flow” around the flattened nose of an expanded JHP bullet. This is why an expanded JHP bullet crushes a larger diameter hole than an FMJ-RN bullet.

Grampajack writes:

The main thing is that modern hollow points are misunderstood. The purpose is not to inflict larger wounds, but to limit penetration in living tissue, while maximizing penetration through hard materials like bone, window glass, etc. The ideal hollow point would penetrate as far as FMJ in non hydraulic mediums, yet only penetrate 18'' in gel.

Bullets that expand do indeed crush larger diameter holes. The primary purpose of a bullet that is fired to stop an attacker is to damage as much tissue as possible. The amount of damage that a bullet can produce is THE METRIC that is used to determine its wounding effectiveness.

In the context of common combative handgun cartridges, the best performing bullets usually penetrate between 13”-16” in properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin. The MOST important factor is that the bullet dependably penetrates greater than 12” so it can reliably reach and damage vitals critical to immediate survival. The parameters of common combative handgun cartridges define the physics involved, and the physics dictate terminal performance (expansion and penetration). Thus a bullet that is designed to reliably expand in both bare gelatin AND gelatin covered by heavy clothing/four layers of denim cloth AND penetrate greater than 12” tends to penetrate between 13”-15” in bare gelatin and 14”-16” in “heavily clothed” gelatin. The IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification reflects this reality, and it can be found in Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 3, Number 3 (see - https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE ).

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I don’t have time to address all the misinformation in this thread. For those who are interested I suggest reading the following:

“Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” (See - http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf ). Although it was written almost 3 decades ago the only thing that has changed is bullet design.

To understand the validity of properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin as a realistic soft tissue simulant that accurately models the wounding effects of bullets in soft tissues, see Dr. Fackler’s article “The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlations”, in Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 1, Number 4, at - https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

Ordnance gelatin models what is referred to as a “simple” wound, i.e., wounds involving soft tissues only. When bones are involved the wound is considered a “complex” wound. Fackler’s paper (above) addresses several cases in which real-world wounds didn’t match the simple wounds observed in ordnance gelatin, however when Fackler reproduced the same conditions for each shooting event in the laboratory the results in ordnance gelatin matched the real-world wound.

Duncan MacPherson’s article “Wound Ballistics Misconceptions”, which addresses criticisms concerning “homogenous” ordnance gelatin, is available in Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 2, Number 3, at https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

 

[Odd Job]

With regards to ballistic gel:

1) It is the established method of comparing projectiles in a reproducible way.
2) It does not emulate a trajectory involving different types of tissues and their interfaces.

In a live gunshot case (and I've seen more than 3000 of these in the civilian setting) the bullet can take an unexpected deflection even in soft tissues. It usually happens in the second half of the trajectory where the bullet has slowed down sufficiently to be subject to the influence of tissue planes.
It has resulted in many a case of a missing bullet which is subsequently found between two tissue planes in another body part.

 

[grampajack]

The temporary cavity produced when a handgun bullet expands can indeed produce greater permanent disruption IF the temporary cavity is located in non-elastic soft tissues (liver, spleen, kidney, pancreas). It important to keep in mind that while the temporary cavity has the potential to cause non-elastic soft tissues to split and rupture these additional wounding effects cannot be relied upon due to the uncontrolled and chaotic nature of shooting events. The only wounding effect that can be relied upon is the hole that is poked in soft tissues, i.e., the tissues the bullet comes into direct contact with and crushes.

From what I've seen, the temporary cavity is not significantly larger with JHP, assuming you're comparing apples to apples. I've seen a lot of "tests" where the person will compare a fast JHP to a slow FMJ. I've also seen many, many "tests" where the person will shoot a chicken or something with each, or even a watermelon, and then go on a tangent that assumes these things are simulating actual living tissue.

Another thing to consider is that the JHP's temporary cavity is largest at the start of the block, whereas FMJ has a pretty even one throughout the block. This means the results are going to look very different in a real person, as you've got ribs and muscle involved in those first few inches.

And most importantly, gel isn't human tissue. Just because something happens in gel or looks a certain way in gel doesn't mean that's how it's going to be in a person. For that we have medical reports, and the studies are conclusive. Medical professionals can't tell the difference in caliber or bullet type just from examining the wound channel. You would think after the hundredth time people would stop and think about it, but they simply ignore this and keep trying to read the tea leaves in their little gel tests.

Also a consideration, JHPs don't always work the way they're supposed to. They look great in gel, but bullets recovered from real people don't look nearly as pretty. Most get half expansion. So all of this is assuming that your JHP performs in a live human exactly as it did in gel, and that's just wishful thinking.

Bigger bullets do, in fact, make bigger holes. However bullet shape plays an important role in the size of the hole produced. Soft tissues “flow” around the smooth, streamlined contours of an FMJ-RN bullet whereas they do not easily “flow” around the flattened nose of an expanded JHP bullet. This is why an expanded JHP bullet crushes a larger diameter hole than an FMJ-RN bullet.

On the surface, yes, but not past the first few inches. Even then, it's not like in the movies where you can just look at an entrance wound and say, oh that's a .45 ACP. You might be able to tell the difference between .22 and .45, but 9mm, .40, and .45 are all going to look pretty darn similar.

A person would think so, but look at the gel blocks in post #55.

Bullets that expand do indeed crush larger diameter holes. The primary purpose of a bullet that is fired to stop an attacker is to damage as much tissue as possible. The amount of damage that a bullet can produce is THE METRIC that is used to determine its wounding effectiveness.

At this point, I see no evidence of that. The gel testing doesn't indicate that, and the medical reports don't indicate it either.

In the context of common combative handgun cartridges, the best performing bullets usually penetrate between 13”-16” in properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin. The MOST important factor is that the bullet dependably penetrates greater than 12” so it can reliably reach and damage vitals critical to immediate survival. The parameters of common combative handgun cartridges define the physics involved, and the physics dictate terminal performance (expansion and penetration). Thus a bullet that is designed to reliably expand in both bare gelatin AND gelatin covered by heavy clothing/four layers of denim cloth AND penetrate greater than 12” tends to penetrate between 13”-15” in bare gelatin and 14”-16” in “heavily clothed” gelatin. The IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification reflects this reality, and it can be found in Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 3, Number 3 (see - https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE ).

Where are you getting that? According to the FBI testing protocols, 18'' is the ideal amount of penetration, and many people think a few inches more is ideal.

We can argue this in circles all day long, especially if we're basing those arguments off of gel, which again is about as useful as reading tea leaves. As far as I'm concerned, the argument is made moot by the conclusions of the medical examiners. Their findings trump everything else.

I challenge anyone to find a case where FMJ failed to stop the threat, in which you can make the argument that a JHP would have succeeded in its place.

 

[481]

From what I've seen, the temporary cavity is not significantly larger with JHP, assuming you're comparing apples to apples. I've seen a lot of "tests" where the person will compare a fast JHP to a slow FMJ. I've also seen many, many "tests" where the person will shoot a chicken or something with each, or even a watermelon, and then go on a tangent that assumes these things are simulating actual living tissue.

Undocumented personal experiences (aka: anecdotal accounts) which can be spotted easily because they usually start with language like, "From what I've seen,...." or "One time, this guy I knew,...", do not invalidate several decades of research (conducted in the field by such entities as LAIR, US ARMY BRL at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, etc...).

You may insist that they do, but they do not.

I challenge anyone to find a case where FMJ failed to stop the threat, in which you can make the argument that a JHP would have succeeded in its place.

Nonsense.

Unless you can ''unshoot'' the person shot in such an incident and then ''reshoot'' that same person in exactly the same place with the other bullet, that is simply not possible.

 

[grampajack]

Undocumented personal experiences (aka: anecdotal accounts) which can be spotted easily because they usually start with language like, "From what I've seen,...." or "One time, this guy I knew,...", do not invalidate several decades of research (conducted in the field by such entities as LAIR, US ARMY BRL at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, etc...).

Right, so let's base our opinions on the research done by medical examiners instead of arguing gel tests all day long. And the research says velocity and mass (with a big emphasis on velocity) are the overwhelming factors that determine wound channel characteristics, not bullet diameter or shape.

Nonsense.

Unless you can ''unshoot'' the person shot in such an incident and then ''reshoot'' that same person in exactly the same place with the other bullet, that is simply not possible.

That's not true. Whenever there's a failed stop there's an investigation to find out why, namely to find out whether it was the officer's fault or if the bullet failed to hold up its end of the bargain. The 1986 Miami incident is the most well known example. It was clear from the autopsy that the officer was on target, and the bullet failed to penetrate.

Never have I ever seen one after action report that concluded that a failed stop was due to a bullet failing to expand, despite the fact that it happens often in the real world. However, I have seen many that concluded that the bullet failed because it didn't penetrate far enough. More often than not, the conclusion is that the bullet simply didn't hit anything vital, meaning it wasn't the bullet's fault. One such incident was a guy shot 30 times with a mixture of .40 and .223, and until round number 30 he was still shooting back. The conclusion was simply that none of the previous 29 had hit anything vital, whereas the 30th got him in the heart. Also keep in mind that he had multiple bullets that passed within an inch of his heart, and they didn't seem to slow him down. Those being .40 caliber hollow points mind you.

So yea, show me one scenario where a JHP could succeed where an FMJ failed and I'll change my mind. That scenario just doesn't exist in real life.

Or better yet, show me one scenario where a JHP succeeded where it would have failed had it been an FMJ.

 

[481]

Right, so let's base our opinions on the research done by medical examiners instead of arguing gel tests all day long. And the research says velocity and mass (with a big emphasis on velocity) are the overwhelming factors that determine wound channel characteristics, not bullet diameter or shape.



That's not true. Whenever there's a failed stop there's an investigation to find out why, namely to find out whether it was the officer's fault or if the bullet failed to hold up its end of the bargain. The 1986 Miami incident is the most well known example. It was clear from the autopsy that the officer was on target, and the bullet failed to penetrate.

Never have I ever seen one after action report that concluded that a failed stop was due to a bullet failing to expand, despite the fact that it happens often in the real world. However, I have seen many that concluded that the bullet failed because it didn't penetrate far enough. More often than not, the conclusion is that the bullet simply didn't hit anything vital, meaning it wasn't the bullet's fault. One such incident was a guy shot 30 times with a mixture of .40 and .223, and until round number 30 he was still shooting back. The conclusion was simply that none of the previous 29 had hit anything vital, whereas the 30th got him in the heart. Also keep in mind that he had multiple bullets that passed within an inch of his heart, and they didn't seem to slow him down. Those being .40 caliber hollow points mind you.

So yea, show me one scenario where a JHP could succeed where an FMJ failed and I'll change my mind. That scenario just doesn't exist in real life.

Or better yet, show me one scenario where a JHP succeeded where it would have failed had it been an FMJ.

I simply haven't the desire to argue against the nonsensical conditions that you wish to adhere to.

You win, not because you are correct, but because you have established an unreasonable position from which you will not move and against which no one can argue without engaging in similar nonsense.

You would do well for yourself to become familiar with the material provided in the links so generously provided by Shawn Dodson, as above in posts #68 and #69.

 

[481]

I don’t have time to address all the misinformation in this thread. For those who are interested I suggest reading the following:

“Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” (See - http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf ). Although it was written almost 3 decades ago the only thing that has changed is bullet design.

To understand the validity of properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin as a realistic soft tissue simulant that accurately models the wounding effects of bullets in soft tissues, see Dr. Fackler’s article “The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlations”, in Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 1, Number 4, at - https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

Ordnance gelatin models what is referred to as a “simple” wound, i.e., wounds involving soft tissues only. When bones are involved the wound is considered a “complex” wound. Fackler’s paper (above) addresses several cases in which real-world wounds didn’t match the simple wounds observed in ordnance gelatin, however when Fackler reproduced the same conditions for each shooting event in the laboratory the results in ordnance gelatin matched the real-world wound.

Duncan MacPherson’s article “Wound Ballistics Misconceptions”, which addresses criticisms concerning “homogenous” ordnance gelatin, is available in Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 2, Number 3, at https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

Shawn,

Thanks for the tremendous generosity shown in this post (and the other, too) with the link provided.

Having only a few bits and pieces of the IWBA journals, I have been looking for a comprehensive collection of these journals for a very long time.

Thank you so much.