Subsonic vs Supersonic 9mm FMJ for self-defense

[Tallball]

Whatever shoots best in your pistol. Tightest groups, closest to point of aim. That's what matters most.

 

[RadekSkylark]

As I think about it, maybe FMJ is a good choice right now in Latvia. Never know if your assailant could have armor on. Stay safe.

Thanks! Yeah, I also thought about armor, but then again good armor will stop 9mm either way. To that end, what I really need to train for is good shot placement, headshots in the former case is the way to go with 9mm, probably.

See what functions and shoots to the sights the closest. Factor in recoil and the choose the best shooting bullet with the flattest least rounded nose profile. Hope this helps.

Good recommendation, thanks!

Given your choices, I wouldnt get too concerned what the bullet was and would just shoot focus on knowing what to shoot and being able to hit what you were shooting at, quickly and on demand.

People get way too wound up in what the bullet is supposed to do, and think it will make up for their lack of skills. Turn that around 180* and you'll do better with anything. If you cant quickly, accurately, and repetitively place your shots, the bullet isnt going to make a whole lot of difference.

That said, if you have the choice between FMJ and a true SWC, Id choose the SWC, as long as they function reliably in your gun. The SWC is the better choice for what you want it for, but reliability is more important than bullet choice.

You seem to be right on, thanks for helping to once again re-concentrate on what is actually important!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The 140gr bullet has a flatter nose and sharper shoulder, which means it has greater potential to crush & cut a larger diameter permanent cavity. However the flat nose will cause the bullet to penetrate deeper than a round nose bullet of the same weight and velocity. The reason is because the flat nose will propel soft tissues radially away from the bullet. Less soft tissue comes into direct contact with the bullet, which means it experiences less drag, allowing it to penetrate deeper than a round nose bullet in which soft tissues contact and flow against the smooth contours of the ogive. Regardless, I'd choose the 140gr truncated cone load over the 150gr.

 

[Buzznrose]

Thanks for the replies, guys. Just to say it once more - I'm talking ONLY about FMJ rounds (in Latvia expansive loads, either soft point, jacketed or usual hollow point or any other round that is designed to expand at impact is not allowed).

The particular S&B subsonic rounds are 140gr for semi-wadcutter (https://www.sellier-bellot.cz/en/pr...on/pistol-and-revolver-cartridges/detail/284/) and 150gr for the round nose (with the relatively flat nose - https://www.sellier-bellot.cz/en/pr...on/pistol-and-revolver-cartridges/detail/283/)

Please, teach me a thing or two (if possible) about terminal ballistics.
1) If, for example, we have two rounds with the same bullet weight and the same initial speed (thus same energy), the one with the higher ballistic coefficient (that is, the one which has worse "aerodynamic" probably because a "flatter" or in other way "bulkier" front end) will penetrate less than the one with a lower coefficient (thus, more aerodynamic shape)?
2) If, for example, we have two rounds with the same energy, but different bullet weights (which I presume influences their ballistic coefficient), but the same exact bullet shape (thus, the one which is lighter has higher velocity), then both should penetrate the same, shouldn't they (I presume the one that is heavier would be more stable in its trajectory if it would hit a hard object, but in an ideal GEL, they'd perform the same, wouldn't they)?
3) if, for example, we have two rounds, one with 100% relative energy, but the other with 80% energy, and this one is with a higher ballistic coefficient (thus, less "aerodynamic" shape), this one should penetrate less, shouldn't it?

Anyways, maybe all this even on such a "principal" basis is not as simple as I'm trying to make it just to figure out the "relative" performance between FMJ rounds.

Just to add, when I'm talking about over-penetration I'm not only concerned about my backstop, but also the amount of energy dumped into the target (I'm aware of the fact that with rifle rounds even with overpenetration the higher the velocity the more damage, but if I'm not mistaken the same does not apply to relatively low velocities of handgun rounds, correct me if I'm wrong, of course).

When looking at subsonic 9 mm rounds I'm not hoping that they'll eliminate the overpenetration problem, but hopefully will reduce it.

Using FMJ for defense, I suggest going with a flat nose bullet for straight line penetration. Round nose tend to deflect and wander more

 

[golden]

RADEK,

I think the flat nosed bullet will offer nothing at all besides the possible increase in misfeeds and jams. The flat tipped bullets that get all the hype for hunting, are ones that have a sharp shoulder and wide meplat (the flat area at the front of the bullet). I believe this is the cutting part of the bullet. On semi-automatic ammo, the flat tip is usually a truncated cone often with a rounded edge.

The NYPD (New York Police Department) tried flat tipped semi-wadcutter bullets to avoid having to issue hollow points and found them no more effective that round nose bullets

The heavy, flat tipped bullet offers nothing, except less velocity and possibly lower recoil. The price you pay is that flat tipped bullet may cause the round to hang up on the feed ramp. In the past, I tried a flat tipped .32ACP round from WINCHESTER and found it jammed or hung up in every single gun I tried. I do not see the 9m.m. doing much better

You are really in a no good option situation.

I would suggest that you consider one of the NON-EXPANDING, high velocity rounds that were all the rage about 2 years ago or go with my choice. Try several different 115 and 124 grain loads and use the most accurate and controllable round to get the most effective shooting.

Good luck,

Jim

 

[RadekSkylark]

The NYPD (New York Police Department) tried flat tipped semi-wadcutter bullets to avoid having to issue hollow points and found them no more effective that round nose bullets

You are really in a no good option situation.

I would suggest that you consider one of the NON-EXPANDING, high velocity rounds that were all the rage about 2 years ago or go with my choice. Try several different 115 and 124 grain loads and use the most accurate and controllable round to get the most effective shooting.

Thanks for the input, really interesting about NYPD, do you know which caliber were they using?
What are those "high-velocity" rounds you're talking about?

 

[RealGun]

Hello, everyone!

I'm about to buy myself a 9mm pistol for self-defense. I'm from Latvia (Europe) and we're not allowed to use any type of expanding bullets for self-defense (Geneva convention, probably), so I'll need to carry an FMJ round.

One of the brands readily available locally is Sellier & Bellot. They have 9 mm FMJ rounds either supersonic or subsonic. The main thing I have about carrying FMJ is overpenetration. For that reason, I carry wadcutters in my revolver (minimizes the problem as well as lower energy/recoil).

I don't understand a lot about ballistics, but to me it seems a good idea to carry subsonic 9 mm rounds, especially considering that the options from Sellier & Bellot have a flatter nose than the supersonic "round nose" FMJ. One of the subsonic is more like a semi-wadcutter, and the other is more like a round nose bullet, but with a flatter nose. Subsonic semi-wad cutter has 20% less energy than the usual subsonic FMJ. To me, it seems that it should also minimize the problem with overpenetration at least a bit.

If that is not the case and I should stick with supersonic for whatever reason it seems that the best bet is to go with the one that has the least amount of energy (again, looking at Sellier & Bellot its their 124gr, not 115gr FMJ round).

With regards to semi-wadcutters, do these usually work fine with pistols (I'll be buying G19 Gen 3 and USPc)?

Would you agree with my conclusions? Are there any other things I should take into account with regards to subsonic rounds and semi-wadcutters in pistols?

Thanks

I think your reasoning about choosing the round nose, flat point in subsonic is right on. I would be concerned whether a SWC would feed reliably in a semiauto. We know it can be a problem in a ramp-feed rifle. Beyond that, I think a supersonic 9mm is too loud for shooting with no hearing protection.

 

[C-grunt]

Incidentally I was on a shooting this week from a drug deal gone bad that ended up with two guys killed. Gun used was a modern 9mm sub compact with a 3 inch barrel. I dont have the box the ammo came from but from the bullet profile and headstamp Im 95 percent sure it was a 147 grain flat nose bullet. It showed what I said before, any full powered 9mm FMJ round will easily go completely through someone.

 

[Jim Watson]

Of the two bullets you have to choose from, I would go with the 140gr FN loading. That bullet design/profile is very similar to that proposed when the US armed forces adopted the 9x19mm round for their service weapon…ours was 124grs. That round demonstrated very good accuracy in several pistols. It also fed very reliably.

The Rest of the Story is that the USAF and Hornady developed a flat pointed bullet similar to the 140 gr S&B for the maximum "stopping power" from a FMJ. After a brief trial of a blunted roundnose, rather like the 150 gr S&B, they went back to the old standard roundnose for assured feeding in the wide variety of pistols and submachine guns issued in NATO. Note that DWM went from the 1902 truncated cone 9mm to roundnose shortly before or during early WWI.

Penetration: The flat point will likely penetrate deeper and straighter than a roundnose. There are big game rifle bullets made that way for better kills.

There is a lot of concern with over penetration by defensive weapons, bullets zipping clear through an assailant and going on to strike a colleague or bystander.
While that has happened, police reports indicate that those bystanders are at greater risk from missed shots than pass throughs. We can post "shot placement" from our keyboards but it is harder to achieve in a fight.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Speed allows the hollow point to open up, which slows the round and reduces penetration.

Sub-sonic rounds are typically designed for silencers.

Speed obviously does allow for hollowpoints to open up, but some subsonic hollowpoint ammo is designed with that in mind and the petals will open up at lower velocities.

Subsonic ammo provides the least auditory insult when used with a silencer, but otherwise they are just lower velocity loads for a given barrel length and bullet weight.

I can't honestly recall every reading about a bullet 'designed' for use with a silencer. I have seen subsonic marketed for use with silencers, but that is a completely different subject. Hornady advertises a cleaner burning powder to help keep silencers clean, but who doesn't want cleaner ammo to keep their guns more clean? Otherwise, their handgun subsonic defensive ammo is just heavy for the caliber, lower velocity opening bullets that are loaded to not achieve supersonic velocity out of typical length handgun barrels.

 

[trackskippy]

We can post "shot placement" from our keyboards but it is harder to achieve in a fight.

It is, but its even harder if you dont realistically practice it on a regular and "on-demand" basis, so you can try to be at your best, the best you can.

Rapid, and if necessary, continual shot placement, and in the proper places, not just some random area, is the goal, better bullets just help, but arent a substitute for proper placement and proper shooting.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Using FMJ for defense, I suggest going with a flat nose bullet for straight line penetration. Round nose tend to deflect and wander more

This in an interesting concept. Round nose bullets tend to deflect more than flat nose bullets or otherwise won't have as straight of penetration? I am not sure how that would be necessarily true and even if it was, given defensive shootings' typical lack of precision in people hitting exactly where they are aiming, whether or not a bullet deflects inside of the body may or may not be beneficial to stopping the bad guy. A "bad" shot that deflects into a vital organ is better than a straight "good' shot that barely misses said vital organ. People often aim and hope to hit somewhere center mass or center chest on (usually) clothed opposition. They aren't taking aim at the aorta valve of the heart or even the heart. They are aiming at the general area and hoping their they have controlled their shot sufficiently and that the opposition doesn't move any appreciable amount between the time the shooter decides to pull the trigger and the time the bullet arrives on target. Often, one one or both of the participants involved in a fight are in motion.

In looking at a gel test for simulation between flat and round nose for a .380, it doesn't appear either has a less straight trajectory through bare gel, at least not of consequence.

 

[Riomouse911]

For the OP, here is a visual of a 165 gr. .40 S&W and a 115 9mm FMJ. The .40 traditionally has a blunt nosed bullet, this one is a truncated cone.
In 9mm, if you can find them, the truncated cone bullet is the route I would take if mandated with fmj bullets only.



Stay safe.

 

[RadekSkylark]

A lot has been said in this topic lately, nice to see many participate in this debate.

Incidentally I was on a shooting this week from a drug deal gone bad that ended up with two guys killed. Gun used was a modern 9mm sub compact with a 3 inch barrel. I dont have the box the ammo came from but from the bullet profile and headstamp Im 95 percent sure it was a 147 grain flat nose bullet. It showed what I said before, any full powered 9mm FMJ round will easily go completely through someone.

First of all, I'm interested what does it mean, "... I was on a shooting this week..."? Then you refer to a flat nose bullet, do you mean a "rounded" bullet with a "flatter nose" as the one I posted above in the link of S&B (the 150gr one), or a truncated cone, that is, something more similar to a SWC?

At this point in time to me it seems that there is just no getting around overpenetration with 9mm FMJ type of loads (not like with wadcutters in a .38 Special snub-nose, which is what I carry daily).

The Rest of the Story is that the USAF and Hornady developed a flat pointed bullet similar to the 140 gr S&B for the maximum "stopping power" from a FMJ. After a brief trial of a blunted roundnose, rather like the 150 gr S&B, they went back to the old standard roundnose for assured feeding in the wide variety of pistols and submachine guns issued in NATO. Note that DWM went from the 1902 truncated cone 9mm to roundnose shortly before or during early WWI.

Penetration: The flat point will likely penetrate deeper and straighter than a roundnose. There are big game rifle bullets made that way for better kills.

There is a lot of concern with over penetration by defensive weapons, bullets zipping clear through an assailant and going on to strike a colleague or bystander.
While that has happened, police reports indicate that those bystanders are at greater risk from missed shots than pass throughs. We can post "shot placement" from our keyboards but it is harder to achieve in a fight.

Firstly, can you please tell me what exactly do you mean by "a flat point bullet"? Is that basically an SWC? If so, how can it be that it penetrates deeper than plain old roundnose (which in my mind "squeezes" inside tissue, pushing it "around itself", which seems to be "logical", that such a bullet should have deeper penetration)...?

With regards to the USAF/Hornady defensive flat point bullet similar to the 140gr S&B, what happened with that (you explained what happened with the one more similar to the 150gr S&B, which seemed to have more feeding issues, so reliability comes first hand)?

Although I do agree that shot placement (that is, good hits on target) is the primary objective and that the biggest risk to bystanders is from missed shots, the problem is that even though missed shots pose a higher statistical risk of injury (death) for bystanders, hits on target by themselves (with anything that will over-penetrate and go through the target) do not eliminate the risk. Basically, if you don't want to hurt anyone un-intentionally it is quite clear that you should not miss what you're tryng to hit, but the problem in the case of FMJ is that even hitting the target doesn't take out the risk, which is exactly what I want to minimize (the risk) by hopefully making a smart choice of my carry ammo.

This in an interesting concept. Round nose bullets tend to deflect more than flat nose bullets or otherwise won't have as straight of penetration? I am not sure how that would be necessarily true and even if it was, given defensive shootings' typical lack of precision in people hitting exactly where they are aiming, whether or not a bullet deflects inside of the body may or may not be beneficial to stopping the bad guy. A "bad" shot that deflects into a vital organ is better than a straight "good' shot that barely misses said vital organ. People often aim and hope to hit somewhere center mass or center chest on (usually) clothed opposition. They aren't taking aim at the aorta valve of the heart or even the heart. They are aiming at the general area and hoping their they have controlled their shot sufficiently and that the opposition doesn't move any appreciable amount between the time the shooter decides to pull the trigger and the time the bullet arrives on target. Often, one one or both of the participants involved in a fight are in motion.

In looking at a gel test for simulation between flat and round nose for a .380, it doesn't appear either has a less straight trajectory through bare gel, at least not of consequence.

I totally agree that in reality, you can not know whether a deflected bullet would not perform better than one which has followed its path. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to stray for something that provides you with more control (un-deflected bullet), at least for me. When I think about roundnose vs flat nose bullets with regards to possible deflection, I think it has more to do with hitting bones or other objects that are "harder" than soft tissue itself (thus, ballistic gel tests would not represent the effects of such hits and differences in behavior between different bullet types).

For the OP, here is a visual of a 165 gr. .40 S&W and a 115 9mm FMJ. The .40 traditionally has a blunt nosed bullet, this one is a truncated cone.
In 9mm, if you can find them, the truncated cone bullet is the route I would take if mandated with fmj bullets only.

Maybe I don't truly understand the details, but to me, this is basically a semi-wadcutter (SWC) which is what I'd also prefer as long as I can get it to feed reliably.

Reliability is also an actual concern for me, cause I just cannot afford to go out in one outing and shoot 400 rounds (or so) with every new gun I've purchased to make sure that the rounds chosen feed reliably (400 rounds would cost me around 120-140$, which, considering the difference in purchasing power between Latvia/USA, is at least 240$ as for an average US citizen, disregarding range costs). So, in this regard, going with the "usual", plain roundnose bullets from and of the decent manufacturers is most likely in itself an assurance that everything will be fine in my Glock 19 or H&K USPc without the need of huge testing (I presume). And then, with time, I can just try and test some SWC rounds or similar to see how they work, to hopefully change to something else.

 

[CapnMac]

While that has happened, police reports indicate that those bystanders are at greater risk from missed shots than pass throughs.

From a well-documented case, with an extremely large number of "by standers" we can look to the shooting of Pope John-Paul II.
He was shot four times with 9x19 155gr ball from four shots taken. Two of the shots were not COM, one to an arm, and the other to a finger, both went on to strike people in the crowd. Neither of the bystanders was seriously injured.

Misses are higher risk than pass-through, at least anecdotally.

Much of the information on ammunition focuses on "penetration" as that's the (repeatable) engineering test that is most often used to replicate "real world" results. The number of centimeters of gelatin that a given round will penetrate does not transfer to the number of centimeters of human. Humans are not uniform gelatin. We are filled with bones, voids, gloopy bits of all sorts. So, really, not very uniform at all.

Unlike humans (or goats or pigs or Sunday beef roasts) gelatine can be made to one formula, and have definable characteristics at given temperatures. So that we can test a given ammo on Tuesday and get a similar result on Thursday.

 

[Jim Watson]

Firstly, can you please tell me what exactly do you mean by "a flat point bullet"? Is that basically an SWC? If so, how can it be that it penetrates deeper than plain old roundnose (which in my mind "squeezes" inside tissue, pushing it "around itself", which seems to be "logical", that such a bullet should have deeper penetration)...?

With regards to the USAF/Hornady defensive flat point bullet similar to the 140gr S&B, what happened with that (you explained what happened with the one more similar to the 150gr S&B, which seemed to have more feeding issues, so reliability comes first hand)?

Although I do agree that shot placement (that is, good hits on target) is the primary objective and that the biggest risk to bystanders is from missed shots, the problem is that even though missed shots pose a higher statistical risk of injury (death) for bystanders, hits on target by themselves (with anything that will over-penetrate and go through the target) do not eliminate the risk. Basically, if you don't want to hurt anyone un-intentionally it is quite clear that you should not miss what you're tryng to hit, but the problem in the case of FMJ is that even hitting the target doesn't take out the risk, which is exactly what I want to minimize (the risk) by hopefully making a smart choice of my carry ammo.

Bullet types and terminology:
Wadcutter, so called because its flat end will neatly clip discs out of paper targets. You said you carried these in a revolver, as do a lot of people here who want "stopping power" without a lot of recoil.
Semiwadcutter, the long nose is meant to run up the feed ramp of an automatic, the shoulder cuts a clean hole in the target. Thought to be more effective than roundnose on criminals and big game, although NYPD files do not agree.
Truncated cone or Flat point, similar to the USAF-Hornady bullet, meant to give greater impact and observed to give deep, straight penetration.

The Air Force work was done in the early 1980s, I do not still have direct reports of those tests 40 years ago, but recall statements by Jeff Cooper.


Reliability has to be the first consideration and these days, the expense of testing a new product can be prohibitive.
I know there are technically better bullets than the Federal hollowpoints I use but I am confident that they will feed, fire, and function. Changing loads is not a priority, practice and competition with the cheap stuff is.

Since you are starting with an empty chamber, and since manually operating the slide gives a different impulse from firing a shot, I suggest you do a lot of your practice and bullet testing with the first couple of shots.

 

[RadekSkylark]

View attachment 1067091 View attachment 1067092 View attachment 1067093

Bullet types and terminology:
Wadcutter, so called because its flat end will neatly clip discs out of paper targets. You said you carried these in a revolver, as do a lot of people here who want "stopping power" without a lot of recoil.
Semiwadcutter, the long nose is meant to run up the feed ramp of an automatic, the shoulder cuts a clean hole in the target. Thought to be more effective than roundnose on criminals and big game, although NYPD files do not agree.
Truncated cone or Flat point, similar to the USAF-Hornady bullet, meant to give greater impact and observed to give deep, straight penetration.

Since you are starting with an empty chamber, and since manually operating the slide gives a different impulse from firing a shot, I suggest you do a lot of your practice and bullet testing with the first couple of shots.

Oh, thanks for explanation. So basically a semi-wadcutter is a truncated cone, but one that is not "dirrectly coming out of the base of the bullet", but has a litte "ledge" before it, and a truncated cone/flat point is basically a roundnose bullet just with an flat tip.

Thanks for the tip on training. I was also planning to train using only 2-5 rounds from the mag, that way also more frequently practicing reloads and the draw stroke.

So, to come to some kind of a conclusion, does everybody agrees that if reliability is not a problem a flat nose or SWC is probably better than roundnose, and if there are options between such rounds, the lighter and faster one should probably be the choice? On the other hand, if SWC or flat nose rounds are not available or are not reliable enough, a heavier, slower roundnose is probably better than a lighter and faster one (if I'm off with my conclusions on this topic I'm sorry, a lot of information to take in, I may have misinterpreted something). And, above all, feed reliability, splits between shots, and the king - shot placement.

 

[481]

Hello, everyone!

I'm about to buy myself a 9mm pistol for self-defense. I'm from Latvia (Europe) and we're not allowed to use any type of expanding bullets for self-defense (Geneva convention, probably), so I'll need to carry an FMJ round.

One of the brands readily available locally is Sellier & Bellot. They have 9 mm FMJ rounds either supersonic or subsonic. The main thing I have about carrying FMJ is overpenetration. For that reason, I carry wadcutters in my revolver (minimizes the problem as well as lower energy/recoil).

I don't understand a lot about ballistics, but to me it seems a good idea to carry subsonic 9 mm rounds, especially considering that the options from Sellier & Bellot have a flatter nose than the supersonic "round nose" FMJ. One of the subsonic is more like a semi-wadcutter, and the other is more like a round nose bullet, but with a flatter nose. Subsonic semi-wad cutter has 20% less energy than the usual subsonic FMJ. To me, it seems that it should also minimize the problem with overpenetration at least a bit.

If that is not the case and I should stick with supersonic for whatever reason it seems that the best bet is to go with the one that has the least amount of energy (again, looking at Sellier & Bellot its their 124gr, not 115gr FMJ round).

With regards to semi-wadcutters, do these usually work fine with pistols (I'll be buying G19 Gen 3 and USPc)?

Would you agree with my conclusions? Are there any other things I should take into account with regards to subsonic rounds and semi-wadcutters in pistols?

Thanks

Since your options (basically non-expanding projectiles) are extremely limited, I am not sure that there is a great deal of difference in choosing one particular FMJ over another. Most here appear to agree that a 9mm FMJ is going to exit a human body with enough residual velocity to strike and penetrate another human body. The only question that remains, I suppose, is just how much of difference is there amongst the limited choices you have available to you.

There are bullet penetration equations that allow the prediction of not only the maximum penetration depth of a given FMJ but also the velocity at which it will exit a human body of a given dimension say 38cm (about 15 inches).

Using those equations so that you can evaluate their terminal performance characteristics for yourself, I have provided both the maximum penetration depth (D) in centimeters and the exit velocity (VR) in meters per second of an assortment of projectile shapes (round nose, flat nose...) after passing through 38cm (15 inches) of human soft tissue—

9mm 115-grain FMJRN @ 1,155 fps— D: 67.3cm VR: 119.3 mps
9mm 124-grain FMJRN @ 1,120 fps— D: 71.3cm VR: 125.7 mps
9mm 135-grain FMJRN @ 935 fps— D: 81.5cm VR: 129.0 mps

*9mm 140-grain FMJFN @ 1,000 fps— D: 78.2cm VR: 129.5 mps
9mm 147-grain FMJFN @ 985 fps— D: 81.4cm VR: 133.1 mps


*S&B 9mm 140-grain FMJFN

Minimum velocity for a 9mm (0.355'') RN projectile to pass through human skin (which is dependent upon sectional density) falls somewhere between 55 and 65 mps. You can see that the residual velocity of all of the above options exceed that value, so the risk of injuring or killing a bystander down range exists for all of the available choices. From the limited options you have, it would seem that the lighter supersonic round nose bullets offer slightly less terminal penetration and correspondingly lower residual velocity than the heavier subsonic offerings, but only by a small amount (11cm and 10 mps) in the ''best case'' of the 9mm 115-grain FMJRN v. the 147-grain FMJFN.

 

[Jim Watson]

The trend is toward lighter, faster bullets, no matter the design.

There are some exotic bullets made very light and fast out of sintered or polymer bonded powder metal with peculiarly shaped noses. They don't expand but the nose shape is supposed to increase energy transfer and tissue damage. That might be a loophole in your restrictions, but they are probably not available there.
https://www.targetsportsusa.com/polycase-inceptor-9mm-luger-ammo-65-grain-cu-arx-p-108990.aspx

 

[RadekSkylark]

Since your options (basically non-expanding projectiles) are extremely limited, I am not sure that there is a great deal of difference in choosing one particular FMJ over another. Most here appear to agree that a 9mm FMJ is going to exit a human body with enough residual velocity to strike and penetrate another human body. The only question that remains, I suppose, is just how much of difference is there amongst the limited choices you have available to you.

There are bullet penetration equations that allow the prediction of not only the maximum penetration depth of a given FMJ but also the velocity at which it will exit a human body of a given dimension say 38cm (about 15 inches).

Using those equations so that you can evaluate their terminal performance characteristics for yourself, I have provided both the maximum penetration depth (D) in centimeters and the exit velocity (VR) in meters per second of an assortment of projectile shapes (round nose, flat nose...) after passing through 38cm (15 inches) of human soft tissue—

9mm 115-grain FMJRN @ 1,155 fps— D: 67.3cm VR: 119.3 mps
9mm 124-grain FMJRN @ 1,120 fps— D: 71.3cm VR: 125.7 mps
9mm 135-grain FMJRN @ 935 fps— D: 81.5cm VR: 129.0 mps

*9mm 140-grain FMJFN @ 1,000 fps— D: 78.2cm VR: 129.5 mps
9mm 147-grain FMJFN @ 985 fps— D: 81.4cm VR: 133.1 mps


*S&B 9mm 140-grain FMJFN

Minimum velocity for a 9mm (0.355'') RN projectile to pass through human skin (which is dependent upon sectional density) falls somewhere between 55 and 65 mps. You can see that the residual velocity of all of the above options exceed that value, so the risk of injuring or killing a bystander down range exists for all of the available choices. From the limited options you have, it would seem that the lighter supersonic round nose bullets offer slightly less terminal penetration and correspondingly lower residual velocity than the heavier subsonic offerings, but only by a small amount (11cm and 10 mps) in the ''best case'' of the 9mm 115-grain FMJRN v. the 147-grain FMJFN.

Thank you for providing these calculations, for me, as a structural engineer, it makes it easier to compare. Actually, now that you refer to these calculation and the book in the link I remember that years ago when I bought my revolver (even before I did) I actually was trying out most probably the same calculations to try and understand which caliber would be a better choice in my situation (considering only FMJ rounds can be used), will have to look it up (most likely I would have made a spreadsheet for calculations).

Anyways, it does seem that in general I should probably just choose the most reliable and hopefully cheapest rounds to just use them for practice as well.

The trend is toward lighter, faster bullets, no matter the design.

There are some exotic bullets made very light and fast out of sintered or polymer bonded powder metal with peculiarly shaped noses. They don't expand but the nose shape is supposed to increase energy transfer and tissue damage. That might be a loophole in your restrictions, but they are probably not available there.
https://www.targetsportsusa.com/polycase-inceptor-9mm-luger-ammo-65-grain-cu-arx-p-108990.aspx

Yeah, the problem is that such rounds are just not available here.

 

[C-grunt]

First of all, I'm interested what does it mean, "... I was on a shooting this week..."? Then you refer to a flat nose bullet, do you mean a "rounded" bullet with a "flatter nose" as the one I posted above in the link of S&B (the 150gr one), or a truncated cone, that is, something more similar to a SWC?

Im a cop. I was involved in an investigation of a shooting that took place after a drug deal that went south and ended up in a shootout between the dealers/buyers. Two guys ended up getting shot and died. I was referring to a truncated cone type of bullet (thanks Jim Watson, I couldn't remember what that bullet type was called).

 

[481]

Thank you for providing these calculations, for me, as a structural engineer, it makes it easier to compare. Actually, now that you refer to these calculation and the book in the link I remember that years ago when I bought my revolver (even before I did) I actually was trying out most probably the same calculations to try and understand which caliber would be a better choice in my situation (considering only FMJ rounds can be used), will have to look it up (most likely I would have made a spreadsheet for calculations).

Anyways, it does seem that in general I should probably just choose the most reliable and hopefully cheapest rounds to just use them for practice as well.

You're welcome.

Happy to assist where I can. Empirical equations are always good source of insight.

There is not a lot of leeway in the options before you so after all is said and done, you'll have to go with the lesser ''evil'' that is being forced upon you.

Lai tev veicas!

 

[RadekSkylark]

Im a cop. I was involved in an investigation of a shooting that took place after a drug deal that went south and ended up in a shootout between the dealers/buyers. Two guys ended up getting shot and died. I was referring to a truncated cone type of bullet (thanks Jim Watson, I couldn't remember what that bullet type was called).

Oh, a cop, now that makes sense.

You're welcome.

Happy to assist where I can. Empirical equations are always good source of insight.

There is not a lot of leeway in the options before you so after all is said and done, you'll have to go with the lesser ''evil'' that is being forced upon you.

Lai tev veicas!

It does seem so indeed. Some Latvian language as well, nice!

 

[golden]

RADEK,

The NYPD was still using the .38 Special revolver.

The high velocity, non expanding round I was thinking of was the RUGER ARX. This is one of several non-expanding rounds with a tip of the bullet being shaped like a philips screwdriver head. These rounds and those sold be other ammo makers came and went before COVID. I cannot say how effective they were.

One thing you might want to do is look at the wording of your law or regulation forbidding hollow point ammo. The state of New Jersey has a law against civilians using hollow point ammo because they feel so much sympathy for criminals. It however does not bar some kinds of expanding or enhanced stopping power ammo. I have used the COR BON Powerball ammo which plugs the hollow point with a rubber ball. This actually increases expansion. Also, HORNADY has a plugged hollow point round, the FTX which is used in the Critical Defense line. I have been told, but not confirmed that it is legal in NEW JERSEY.

There are also the GLASER ammo made by COR BON. This is essentially a mini-shotshell inside a bullet. Instead of a solid lead core, the GLASER ammo insert lead shot used in shotshells and then places a top that I think is simply polymer. When the bullet impacts, the momentum of the heavy lead shot forces it forward out of the bullet jacket and it expands almost in every direction. It has low penetration and instead of a single bullet expanding, it fires out a load of small pellets. I know from reports that it can be very effective, but will have very limited penetration.

Good luck with you search,

Jim

 

[RadekSkylark]

@golden, as mentioned before, unfortunately in the local shops there are no options like Ruger ARX or other similar rounds. As for our regulations, they're quite clear - no "expanding" bullets. So wether it is an expanding hollow point or expanding soft point it doesn't matter, as they'll both expand, so cannot be sold/used.

Thanks for the suggestions, though!