View Full Version : Interesting thread on GT about bullet performance in actual shootings
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1165386
OP states he's a 16 year police officer, now doing crime scene investigations. Apparently he's worked a lot of shootings and has been privy to autopsies as well. Sounds like for a busy department or agency. In the thread he states that there is no difference between major calibers, i.e. 9mm, .40, or .45. From the results he has seen, that if the bullet doesn't strike vitals, it doesn't matter what your shooting, even rifle rounds. Bottom line, as most of us already know, is that shot placement is key. States the wounds between the major calibers are indistinguishable.
I was surprised to read that, he calls pistol hollow points "marketing hype" and prefers FMJ based on what he has seen from various shootings because they feed better and they are going to penetrate more. He states that the wounds from hollow points do no more damage than FMJ. A line from the thread, "I know I'll upset a lot of people, but I think Hollow Point ammunition is a very good idea that just doesn't match up with reality."
I found it to be interesting stuff. Check it out.
If the comments by “Lookin4U” are read closely, I’d say that his posts are quite reasonable and for the most part are in concordance with what we see and what has been reported here and in the wound ballistics literature.
If the comments by “Lookin4U” are read closely, I’d say that his posts are quite reasonable and for the most part are in concordance with what we see and what has been reported here and in the wound ballistics literature.
including the worthlessness of HPs?
if nothing else, HPs still offer a better chance of striking vitals- when expanded, they're bigger, and therefor hit more shit- even if it's just a small-percentile thing, it's still "better."
no?
Again, you have to CLOSELY read what he has written:
"Usually the miscreants we deal with have a vast assortment of different rounds in their magazines - sort of "whatever you can find" kind of arrangement. It is not uncommon to find at least three separate head stamps in a given pile of spent casings when there was only one shooter."
Given that context, then yes, most of the JHP's he is coming into contact with are likely older designs/poor performers so FMJ's would probably work just as well.
On the other hand, when talking about punching through intermediate barriers and preventing shots from deflecting, then a modern robust expanding JHP offers some benefits over FMJ. In addition, over the past decade in this area, the majority of the handgun JHP hits landed by good guys in OIS incidents have remained in the suspects, contrary to the experiences related by “Lookin4U” in his commentary. Based on our experiences, we choose to use well designed JHP's.
including the worthlessness of HPs?
if nothing else, HPs still offer a better chance of striking vitals- when expanded, they're bigger, and therefor hit more shit- even if it's just a small-percentile thing, it's still "better."
no?
Exactly. Pretty much every service caliber will pass right through the body in FMJ form damaging only a small path of tissue in its wake. It's kind of like target arrow being shot into an animal. Only a small hole is made as most of the tissue is stretched around the arrow pushing its way through. A flat frontal area such as a semi-wadcutter, wadcutter, or JHP catches on the surrounding tissue and causes more tearing and cutting in the bullet path and thus more damage and a larger hole. Combine that with an expanding JHP and you have even more tear, crushing, and cutting and an overall larger wound volume. A bullet that exits the body has wasted a lot of work energy, while a bullet that has optimal penetration depths and expanded to its fullest has destroyed the greatest amount of the badguy's body that the caliber is capable of doing. You're looking at almost double the wound volume. This is a concept that has been realized in wartime and hunting for well over a hundred years. Using a reliable JHP is a measurable and likely, a significant improvement over using a FMJ loading.
16yrs seems like a long time to be on the job........but it really isn't and is a relatively small sample of data. Dr. Fackler's work incorporates probably a couple of centuries worth of gun shot wound experience when you account for all the players involved.......and all that experience goes well beyond the simple crime scene investigator(I've done CSI work and it really isn't that thorough when it comes to GSW) level. Doc makes a great point regarding non officer shootings. The ammunition is usually of poor quality and reliability and because that it is hard to distinguish any advantage in using a poorly made FMJ and a poorly made JHP. OIS with quality JHPs are a different story though. The guy does get the big picture though. A well placed 9mm FMJ is better than a poorly placed .45acp JHP. However, a well placed .45acp JHP is better than a well placed 9mm FMJ.
Again, you have to CLOSELY read what he has written:
Given that context, then yes, most of the JHP's he is coming into contact with are likely older designs/poor performers so FMJ's would probably work just as well.
On the other hand, when talking about punching through intermediate barriers and preventing shots from deflecting, then a modern robust expanding JHP offers some benefits over FMJ. In addition, over the past decade in this area, the majority of the handgun JHP hits landed by good guys in OIS incidents have remained in the suspects, contrary to the experiences related by “Lookin4U” in his commentary. Based on our experiences, we choose to use well designed JHP's.
"I've become a fan of penetration, as the post I was typing when you posted will show. Since I have begun attending autopsies, I really think there is a lot more marketing hype to FMJ vs. JHP.Our department currently issues, at officer's preference, Glock G17's with 124gr Speer Gold Dots or Glock G22's with 165gr Speer Gold Dots. In 2009 I observed three autopsies of officer involved shootings, all three with the .40S&W 165gr Gold Dots... I can't honestly say that the damage looked any different than any other major caliber shooting I have seen.
From what I have observed, the damage done by all "major caliber" handguns (i.e. 9X19mm and up) looks very close to identical inside of the human body (Sorry guys, and I see a lot of .45ACP shootings). " --Lookin4U
What is your opinion of this observation?
It would seem that in the three autopsies that the poster described, the wound tracks from the .40 165 gr Gold Dot JHP's did not appear any different than those caused by other handgun projectiles--sounds quite reasonable in inline with what the forensic literature repeatedly reports.
Don't over-think this subject; projectiles, particularly handgun bullets, simply poke holes in things, just like arrows, spears, daggers, or shivs. The only difference is that bullets allow you to poke the holes from further away...
As always, the most important things are:
-- Cultivate a warrior mindset
-- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice
-- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
-- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.
Are you advocating that an FMJ is just as good as a premium JHP from the standpoint of stopping an assailant? Why waste money on JHPs if this is the case? I am a bit confused as this isn't in-line with what I think you have been saying previously.
(Note--sorry about your post getting damaged, it was not intentional; I am not sure what happened with the software--gkr)
"Are you advocating that an FMJ is just as good as a premium JHP from the standpoint of stopping an assailant? Why waste money on JHPs if this is the case? I am a bit confused as this isn't in-line with what I think you have been saying previously."
I don't think I have ever stated any such thing. In fact, in my post above I stated the exact opposite and in fact recommended the use of modern robust expanding JHP's:
"On the other hand, when talking about punching through intermediate barriers and preventing shots from deflecting, then a modern robust expanding JHP offers some benefits over FMJ. In addition, over the past decade in this area, the majority of the handgun JHP hits landed by good guys in OIS incidents have remained in the suspects, contrary to the experiences related by “Lookin4U” in his commentary. Based on our experiences, we choose to use well designed JHP's."
Having said that, keep in mind that a hit in a critical zone with an FMJ is far more effective than a peripheral hit or frank miss with a JHP--shot placement is king!
I am not sure why you are confused; it is all basic anatomy, physiology, and physics. Due to tissue elasticity, there is no way to reliably observe the macroscopic differences between a 0.355" FMJ projectile wound track compared with an expanded 0.65" JHP bullet track in live tissue--in no way does that fact negate the potential benefits of a JHP, as previously discussed.
The subtleties of ammunition selection are way down the list of important factors when discussing shooting results, as we have repeatedly emphasized (see my post above).
I think that Doc has made it clear in the past that handgun bullets are poor tissue destructors. They basically only destroy what they touch. In the big spectrum a .355 hole is not that much smaller than a .671 hole, and thus even if a bullet does expand, the tissue destruction from bullets under 2000FPS is largely limited to what it actually crushes.
I heard from an emergency room surgeon on another site that stab wound victims have a much lower survival rate than gun shot wound victims. the bleeding is much more pronounced.
That actually goes back to Doc's .38 special recommendation where he states that a cutting edge on a low velocity bullet can actually speed up exsanguination. Perhaps that is where we need to be looking as an additional wounding effect in handgun bullets
Due to tissue elasticity, there is no way to reliably observe the macroscopic differences between a 0.355" FMJ projectile wound track compared with an expanded 0.65" JHP bullet track in live tissue--in no way does that fact negate the potential benefits of a JHP, as previously discussed.
HAH, didnt see your post, as I was writing mine... Jinx.. you owe me a coke.:D
There are numerous reports in the medical and forensic literature that show a higher mortality rate with stabbing victims vs. those shot with handgun projectiles.
All of a sudden that pistol bayonet attachment starts to look pretty good...:p
I've been having this hankering to get a Roman sword for some reason. maybe this is why.:cool:
John_Wayne777
01-03-10, 13:14
I think the general point being communicated here is that where a bullet ends up is vastly more important to the end result than what type of bullet (providing we are discussing service calibers here) is used. The potential effect of a good shot can be maximized using modern JHP that penetrates deep enough to hit vital structures and expands reliably to cause as much damage as possible.
Given that handguns are limited platforms it makes sense for those of us who are interested in using a firearm to stop the hostile actions of an attacker to focus on selecting a reliable platform in a reasonable caliber that we can best use to put bullets exactly where they are needed under the stress of a life or death encounter. Using myself as an example, I can shoot an M&P in 9mm under stress better than I can shoot an M&P in .45 ACP. Thus it would be irrational of me to trade in the performance I have with the 9mm version of the M&P solely to gain the little bit of extra permanent crush cavity offered by the .45 ACP. In reality my efficiency (measured by speed and accuracy) with the 9mm is more likely to provide a measurable difference in the fight than the bigger bullet.
I made a comment in that thread. It is a pity that I am stuck here in London, because I feel that he and I could probably collaborate with some success on the technical aspects of these shootings (pre and post admission to hospital).
In reality my efficiency (measured by speed and accuracy) with the 9mm is more likely to provide a measurable difference in the fight than the bigger bullet.
this is exactly why i finally made the switch to 9mm after a decade of 45-or-nothing mentality. though i shot my 1911 well enough, and shot my USP quite well (or so i thought, until i started shooting 9emem), i can get twice as many rounds COM with 9mm in the same time it takes to put controlled pairs COM with even the USP. and still have 13-14 rounds left in the weapon. twice as many shots means twice as many opportunities to hit important things.
---
the idea that a blunt/jagged expanded JHP through the skull won't have a greater effect than a connical FMJ is kind of absurd. through other vitals, as well- especially the lungs. i don't disbelieve Looking4u's account- i just think that's totally A-typical. also, while i've never bought into the "deadly shockwave" and "hydrostatic shock" gimmics, i do still think, even if only a small-percentile thing, that the "shoch wave," or "pressure wave," or whatever you want to call it, of an expanded JHP smacking and pushing through wet tissue is going to cause some kind of temporary disruption of surrounding sensitives- nerve signals, secretions, blood flow, etc- even just a temporary disruption of normal functioning, seems to me, might be enough to at least slow your assailant down enough to prevent him getting the one shot off that kills you. i've never been superficially shot, but i imagine it can still suck really bad, even in the heat/endorphine rush/chaos of a firefight.
I don't think I have ever stated any such thing. In fact, in my post above I stated the exact opposite and in fact recommended the use of modern robust expanding JHP's:
Having said that, keep in mind that a hit in a critical zone with an FMJ is far more effective than a peripheral hit or frank miss with a JHP--shot placement is king!
I am not sure why you are confused; it is all basic anatomy, physiology, and physics. Due to tissue elasticity, there is no way to reliably observe the macroscopic differences between a 0.355" FMJ projectile wound track compared with an expanded 0.65" JHP bullet track in live tissue--in no way does that fact negate the potential benefits of a JHP, as previously discussed.
The subtleties of ammunition selection are way down the list of important factors when discussing shooting results, as we have repeatedly emphasized (see my post above).
My confusion arises from the fact that you agree that an FMJ .40 wound looks like that made from a GDHP .40. Since there is no magical shock-wave damaging multiple organs (Having watched multiple laproscopic surgeries, I agree, organs are very spaced out), the bullet only destroys what is in it's path, and if the paths look to be of the same size, what is gained from the JHP other than lower penetration? They both have been stated to make the same-size hole according to people who have seen the two holes made by the various rounds. .40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho. Sorry, feeling a bit lost here. :confused:
My confusion arises from the fact that you agree that an FMJ .40 wound looks like that made from a GDHP .40. Since there is no magical shock-wave damaging multiple organs (Having watched multiple laproscopic surgeries, I agree, organs are very spaced out), the bullet only destroys what is in it's path, and if the paths look to be of the same size, what is gained from the JHP other than lower penetration? They both have been stated to make the same-size hole according to people who have seen the two holes made by the various rounds. .40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho. Sorry, feeling a bit lost here. :confused:
I disagree with the premiss that hole size does not matter. Almost every piece of ballistic literature I've read indicates that it is indeed an advantage to use larger projectiles and also to use well designed expansion bullets. There are few that deny the logic behind it.
The push for smaller calibers comes from the operator end of the spectrum and is strictly focused on ease of use. It is generally easier to shoot a 9mm than a .40 or .45. In the grand scheme of things, the primary advantage to you is not caliber selection, but tactical aspects such as putting your opponent in a position of disadvantage while you retain a position of advantage. I would rather have a .22 with a POA for me and a POD for my opponent than have a M4 and have those roles reversed.
For me, given my selection of duty weapons I shoot 9mm best, .40S&W(180gr) second best, and .45acp worst when you take into account likely scenarios and overall weapon handling. Caliber size is important, but so is weapon handling. So, I split the difference and carry .40. The .40 also does better in the FBI barrier tests with a wide range of bullet types.
.......however, I've often wrestled with the temptation to just standardize on 9mm because it does make life so much easier in many other ways.
geminidglocker
01-03-10, 15:08
Too many variables in crime related shootings. Ballistic data acquiered in such investigations are deemed invalid, due to the fact that the majority of those involved are involved in their first, and last, only shooting incident. A skilled and properly trained shooter that has reacted to actual combat, is much more efficient with all said calibers.
Too many variables in crime related shootings. Ballistic data acquiered in such investigations are deemed invalid, due to the fact that the majority of those involved are involved in their first, and last, only shooting incident.
there's too many variables in all shootings to say that a person can shoot well enough to compensate for them. you can land multiple COM hit and still not stike anything vital. figuring in the fact that training needs to preceed experience, and that even well-trained combat veterans still aren't likely to land perfect COM hits on a majority of targets, due to all the variables and human flaw, this is even more so. more well-as-can-be-placed holes is better than bigger-but-fewer-well-as-can-be-placed holes, when we're talking about the likelihood of striking vitals.
A skilled and properly trained shooter that has reacted to actual combat, is much more efficient with all said calibers.
what's your point? and how do you support this statement?
geminidglocker
01-03-10, 15:50
I support this statement, by saying that when I was in Iraq I always seemed to let the muscle memory thing take over and just shoot at everything that moved, not just enemy combatives, it was in the beginning of the war so there were no negative points. Happy now? Thanks for ruining my day. Go piss in someone elses Kool-Aid!:mad:
One thing that I'm confused about is why manufacturers don't make 9mm FMJ's with a truncuated semiwadcutter type design as they do in .40S&W (actually Fiochi used to, and probably still does), or for that matter why more high quality JHP's aren't designed around the semiwadcutter type design, so that if there is a failure of expansion, the inherently superior cutting effect of the semiwadcutter design will be retained. I'd think that the armed forces, forced to use a FMJ design, would be all over the truncated semiwadcutter design for their handgun ammo.
And I can see why knife wounds can be more deadly than handgun bullets. A knife by its nature produces a highly lacerating/cutting wound, cutting everything in its path, whereas handgun bullets, especially FMJ's and low quality JHP's produce much smaller holes with much less of a "cutting" action, often just pushing tissues aside as they penetrate.
One thing that I'm confused about is why manufacturers don't make 9mm FMJ's with a truncuated semiwadcutter type design as they do in .40S&W (actually Fiochi used to, and probably still does), or for that matter why more high quality JHP's aren't designed around the semiwadcutter type design, so that if there is a failure of expansion, the inherently superior cutting effect of the semiwadcutter design will be retained. I'd think that the armed forces, forced to use a FMJ design, would be all over the truncated semiwadcutter design for their handgun ammo.
And I can see why knife wounds can be more deadly than handgun bullets. A knife by its nature produces a highly lacerating/cutting wound, cutting everything in its path, whereas handgun bullets, especially FMJ's and low quality JHP's produce much smaller holes with much less of a "cutting" action, often just pushing tissues aside as they penetrate.
SXZ Winchester 9mm FMJ ammunition has a flat meplat.
My confusion arises from the fact that you agree that an FMJ .40 wound looks like that made from a GDHP .40. Since there is no magical shock-wave damaging multiple organs (Having watched multiple laproscopic surgeries, I agree, organs are very spaced out), the bullet only destroys what is in it's path, and if the paths look to be of the same size, what is gained from the JHP other than lower penetration? They both have been stated to make the same-size hole according to people who have seen the two holes made by the various rounds. .40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho. Sorry, feeling a bit lost here. :confused:
I think if this was the case we would have seen no improvement in performance--people ceasing action--between hollowpoints and hardball or between 9mm hardball and .45 hardball.
I know there are vast differences between individual shootings and individual reactions, but on a hole haven't we seen that people tend to go down faster with less shots with a good well designed hollowpoint than with hardball?
And I can see why knife wounds can be more deadly than handgun bullets. A knife by its nature produces a highly lacerating/cutting wound, cutting everything in its path, whereas handgun bullets, especially FMJ's and low quality JHP's produce much smaller holes with much less of a "cutting" action, often just pushing tissues aside as they penetrate.
I think also with stabbings by nature occur at touching range and involve multiple knife thrusts--moreso than gunshot wounds. It is much more common to see someone stabbed a dozen times than shot a dozen or more time times if nothing else due to ammo capacity limitations and shots missing.
I think if this was the case we would have seen no improvement in performance--people ceasing action--between hollowpoints and hardball or between 9mm hardball and .45 hardball.
I know there are vast differences between individual shootings and individual reactions, but on a hole haven't we seen that people tend to go down faster with less shots with a good well designed hollowpoint than with hardball?
If people cease their actions much faster as you state with a JHP, and the wound produced by a JHP vs. an FMJ is identical, what does this do to the presumption that energy transfer being a mechanism of incapacitation is a myth? There are so many contradictions that emerge if we accept that a JHP leaves the same hole an FMJ does.
I support this statement, by saying that when I was in Iraq I always seemed to let the muscle memory thing take over and just shoot at everything that moved, not just enemy combatives, it was in the beginning of the war so there were no negative points. Happy now? Thanks for ruining my day. Go piss in someone elses Kool-Aid!:mad:
what?
If people cease their actions much faster as you state with a JHP, and the wound produced by a JHP vs. an FMJ is identical, what does this do to the presumption that energy transfer being a mechanism of incapacitation is a myth? There are so many contradictions that emerge if we accept that a JHP leaves the same hole an FMJ does.
I don't accept the premise that a properly designed hollowpoint leaves the same hole or permanent cavity as a hardball. We've seen this in ballistic gelatin. People, not being homogenous or transparent, are likely to be harder to disect and measure absolutely the wound channel.
Below is a picture of a .45 hardball compared to a standard velocity Ranger Talon that was retreived from a TX deer weighing between 125 and 150 lbs. I can't imagine that being shot with a round that performs like the Ranger Talon would be the same as being shot by one that maintains its profile like the hardball.
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i232/eds-stuff/45comparison.jpg
If hollowpoints made no difference in actual shootings, people like Doc Roberts and Dr. Fackler would have noticed long ago that hollowpoints make no difference over hardball.
I am not a believer in the Marshal and Sanow nonsense which has been proven to be fabricated and inaccurate, or energy wave theories. I recognize that no two shootings are the same because bullets don't hit the same exact place, people are physiologically different in terms of weight, body thickness, clothing, muscle, etc, mindset, mental reactions, and substances in their bodies like alcohol and drugs. Because of these differences there is no way to create an equal measuring system of shootings. However, we have seen general trends where in the same pistol calibers hollowpoints perform better than hardball and some hollowpoints perfom better than others.
And finally, the original posts being referenced were on Glocktalk, which at time has been known to produce less than credible posters and people posing as that which they are not.
And finally, the original posts being referenced were on Glocktalk, which at time has been known to produce less than credible posters and people posing as that which they are not.
perhaps we should invite Looking4u over and have our m4c staff check him out.
i don't see any reason to disbelieve Looking's findings, aside from the fact that he's a random internet personality like anyone else. he could be a phony, but if he's not- it doesn't really change anything. he hasn't claimed to be a ballistics expert nor a doctor. all he's done is state observations that really don't necessarily clash with anything we think we know. the wound channels dont look any different... ok, that's perfectly believable to me. there's more to term ballistics and incapacitation than post-mortum wound channel size. his statements about oddities are all perfectly plausible- and are just that: oddities, moldbreakers, luck. that happens. people have survived having unexploded RPGs lodged in their torsos... luck, or whatever you want to call it, happens.
furthermore, as has been touched on, and as he said, almost all of the shooting he's observed have been BG vs BG... shitty ammo, shitty weapons, shitty shot placement. these things make a huge difference. so while his observations are perfectly legit (assuming they are), his conclusions about defensive/duty loads might still be totally incorrect... and i believe that are, for the reasons listed here in this thread.
I disagree with the premiss that hole size does not matter. Almost every piece of ballistic literature I've read indicates that it is indeed an advantage to use larger projectiles and also to use well designed expansion bullets. There are few that deny the logic behind it.
The question is.....How much more of an advantage?
To keep it simple. What is the difference in effectiveness between a 9mm FMJ and a .45 FMJ? No one can scientifically answer that question.
The measuring stick that has been used up until recent history has been a very old, poorly done early 20th Century test inspired by tightly bound, drugged up and highly motivated religious fanatics who were very resistant to the immediate effects of gunfire.
Judging from what military handgun calibers have been adopted outside of the U.S. , the rest of the world seems to have formed their own conclusions about projectile diameter.
WS6—I think you are missing something here; nobody is saying that the initial wounds are identical; what is being stated is that when you go observe the wound tracks later during debridement, surgery, or autopsy, the elastic recoil of the tissue makes it nearly impossible to visually determine any differences between calibers and projectile type. While you may feel that, “.40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho.”, in reality, it does not turn out that way, as noted in my first sentence above. Also, keep in mind that it is quite likely that in numerous shootings, the smooth edges of FMJ’s have allowed them to slip past blood vessels without causing significant injuries; in contrast, if sharp edged projectiles had traveled in the exact same paths through tissue, damage to the vessels would have been substantial—this phenomena has been seen in lab testing as well in OIS incidents. In fact, I have a friend who was shot through the neck by an FMJ, who is likely still alive today due to the bad guy using .45 ACP FMJ, instead of a robust expanding JHP. There is also substantial lab and OIS incident evidence that the larger, heavier calibers (.40 180 gr and .45 230 gr) do a better job at penetrating some types of intermediate barriers, as well as being more likely to crush through bones. Finally, JHP’s are much less likely to get deflected by both intermediate barriers and skeletal bone compared to FMJ’s. Take a look at the OIS statistics for large LE agencies like NYPD that have transitioned from FMJ to JHP and it is quite obvious that there are advantages to using well designed, robust expanding JHP’s.
----------------
Unlike shooting paper, flat point truncated cone type FMJ’s, much like their semi-wadcutter cousins, do not produce larger wound tracks in living tissue compared to standard FMJ’s; on the other hand, as Dr. Fackler has discussed, a true full wadcutter with sharp leading edges can effectively enhance wounding effects compared to FMJ, LRN, and SWC’s.
--------------
I've posted my comments over at GT--"Lookin4U" has listed what agency he works for, his findings for the most part mirror those of other LE agencies and are in concordance with results published in the surgical, forensic, and wound ballistic literature. I am utterly perplexed and astounded that his commentary could have created any sort of controversy given how mainstream his thoughts are...
I've posted my comments over at GT--"Lookin4U" has listed what agency he works for, his findings for the most part mirror those of other LE agencies and are in concordance with results published in the surgical, forensic, and wound ballistic literature. I am utterly perplexed and astounded that his commentary could have created any sort of controversy given how mainstream his thoughts are...
the controversial part is where he says FMJs should be used for duty, or at least that he uses FMJs for duty. so when people are reading his words, i think they're reading in the context of his observations being justification for using FMJs. puts a little spin on it.
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see him making a statement that agencies should issue FMJ's...
PA PATRIOT
01-03-10, 18:26
Posted by the OP,
It is my opinion - take it for what it is worth - nothing - that FMJ's are superior to JHP's. They tend to feed more reliably and penetrate more reliably and I have yet to witness anything that would suggest that hollow-point expansion gives any tangible benefit at all in actual shootings...
Like I originally stated, this is just my opinion but it is based on actual shootings. For anyone who would care to disagree I will be more than happy to review the forensic pathology report you offer as evidence...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK,
My whole world of understanding that JHP is good compared to FMJ is bad just got a little cloudy.
Feed more reliably= Good
Penetration= Good
Hollow-point expansion= Does not matter?
But the OP later posted that,
For me, I will always carry a high capacity .40S&W or 9mm, with preference toward the .40S&W for reasons already stated, and at least one spare magazine.
I take it his choice was made due to the following statement,
From my personal observations, I have witnessed that the .40S&W out penetrates commonly encountered cover better than both .45ACP and 9mm... With the 9mm be significantly poorer in this respect than the other two.
I've never seen a miss with a 9mm of one of these structures that would have been a hit with a .45ACP
Also, soft tissue damage in these areas with both .223 and 7.62X39mm is indistinguishable from 9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP, except that the .223 hole is noticeably smaller (no magical "hydrostatic shock" has been observed).
I've got to admit, the Gold Dot/SXT hype about the jacket tips folding out to form talons that cause additional laceration sounds very intriguing... But a hit is still a hit and a miss is still a miss - and I've yet to see a lethal "nick" (i.e. a miss turned into a hit by expansion).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always believed bigger holes means more/faster bleeding but if all the holes are the same no matter what diameter the bullet was due to the elastic nature of live flesh then I guess a good 9mm +P 124gr bullet is all anyone would need.
PA PATRIOT
01-03-10, 18:36
I am not sure why you are confused; it is all basic anatomy, physiology, and physics. Due to tissue elasticity, there is no way to reliably observe the macroscopic differences between a 0.355" FMJ projectile wound track compared with an expanded 0.65" JHP bullet track in live tissue--in no way does that fact negate the potential benefits of a JHP, as previously discussed.
Now I'M really confused, if both wound tracks are Identical (I take it we are taking about non vital live tissue) what benefit does the expanded H/P have?
I'M guessing vital organ hit?
Bigger hole Thur same as organs are not elastic in nature?
Phila PD, please note my post to WS6 above addressing this topic:
"I think you are missing something here; nobody is saying that the initial wounds are identical; what is being stated is that when you go observe the wound tracks later during debridement, surgery, or autopsy, the elastic recoil of the tissue makes it nearly impossible to visually determine any differences between calibers and projectile type. While you may feel that, “.40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho.”, in reality, it does not turn out that way, as noted in my first sentence above. Also, keep in mind that it is quite likely that in numerous shootings, the smooth edges of FMJ’s have allowed them to slip past blood vessels without causing significant injuries; in contrast, if sharp edged projectiles had traveled in the exact same paths through tissue, damage to the vessels would have been substantial—this phenomena has been seen in lab testing as well in OIS incidents. In fact, I have a friend who was shot through the neck by an FMJ, who is likely still alive today due to the bad guy using .45 ACP FMJ, instead of a robust expanding JHP. There is also substantial lab and OIS incident evidence that the larger, heavier calibers (.40 180 gr and .45 230 gr) do a better job at penetrating some types of intermediate barriers, as well as being more likely to crush through bones. Finally, JHP’s are much less likely to get deflected by both intermediate barriers and skeletal bone compared to FMJ’s. Take a look at the OIS statistics for large LE agencies like NYPD that have transitioned from FMJ to JHP and it is quite obvious that there are advantages to using well designed, robust expanding JHP’s."
Feed more reliably= Good
Penetration= Good
Hollow-point expansion= Does not matter?
But the OP later posted that,
For me, I will always carry a high capacity .40S&W or 9mm, with preference toward the .40S&W for reasons already stated, and at least one spare magazine.
I take it his choice was made due to the following statement,
From my personal observations, I have witnessed that the .40S&W out penetrates commonly encountered cover better than both .45ACP and 9mm... With the 9mm be significantly poorer in this respect than the other two.
hopefully he'll be along himself at some point, but i'll take a stab- he doesn't explicitly state it, at least i didn't see it, but i think we can assume, based on other statements he made, that he'd take a 9emem over a .45 simply because you can get more rounds on target faster. since they perform the same, term ballistically, might as well take more/faster over half the ammo but with better penetration. which i wholeheartedly agree with, personally.
Wondering about this statement,
I've never seen a miss with a 9mm of one of these structures that would have been a hit with a .45ACP
Also, soft tissue damage in these areas with both .223 and 7.62X39mm is indistinguishable from 9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP, except that the .223 hole is noticeably smaller (no magical "hydrostatic shock" has been observed
I've got to admit, the Gold Dot/SXT hype about the jacket tips folding out to form talons that cause additional laceration sounds very intriguing... But a hit is still a hit and a miss is still a miss - and I've yet to see a lethal "nick" (i.e. a miss turned into a hit by expansion).
here's where i'd have to dissagree. i think he's never seen a "nick" that made the difference because he, for all his experience, hasn't seen everything. simple as that.
i've concluded that bullet size is much less important than bullet shape as it tears through the body. connical FMJs, as Doc has stated, can even push vital blood vessals and probably even organs aside, rather than damage, as they pass through. likewise, i think spitzers are 100% responsible for his experiences with rifle wounds- a spitzer that doesn't fag or even yaw will probably produce a much larger temp cavity than pistol, but still do minimal permanent damage if nothing vital is struck. as Doc has stated, a century of survived war wounds proves that non-fragmenting FMJ spitzers pretty much zip through without much damage... they're shaped to sail through the air, and they'll sail through superficial tissue too.
PA PATRIOT
01-03-10, 19:14
Thank you
WS6—I think you are missing something here; nobody is saying that the initial wounds are identical; what is being stated is that when you go observe the wound tracks later during debridement, surgery, or autopsy, the elastic recoil of the tissue makes it nearly impossible to visually determine any differences between calibers and projectile type. While you may feel that, “.40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho.”, in reality, it does not turn out that way, as noted in my first sentence above. Also, keep in mind that it is quite likely that in numerous shootings, the smooth edges of FMJ’s have allowed them to slip past blood vessels without causing significant injuries; in contrast, if sharp edged projectiles had traveled in the exact same paths through tissue, damage to the vessels would have been substantial—this phenomena has been seen in lab testing as well in OIS incidents. In fact, I have a friend who was shot through the neck by an FMJ, who is likely still alive today due to the bad guy using .45 ACP FMJ, instead of a robust expanding JHP. There is also substantial lab and OIS incident evidence that the larger, heavier calibers (.40 180 gr and .45 230 gr) do a better job at penetrating some types of intermediate barriers, as well as being more likely to crush through bones. Finally, JHP’s are much less likely to get deflected by both intermediate barriers and skeletal bone compared to FMJ’s. Take a look at the OIS statistics for large LE agencies like NYPD that have transitioned from FMJ to JHP and it is quite obvious that there are advantages to using well designed, robust expanding JHP’s.
----------------
Unlike shooting paper, flat point truncated cone type FMJ’s, much like their semi-wadcutter cousins, do not produce larger wound tracks in living tissue compared to standard FMJ’s; on the other hand, as Dr. Fackler has discussed, a true full wadcutter with sharp leading edges can effectively enhance wounding effects compared to FMJ, LRN, and SWC’s.
--------------
I've posted my comments over at GT--"Lookin4U" has listed what agency he works for, his findings for the most part mirror those of other LE agencies and are in concordance with results published in the surgical, forensic, and wound ballistic literature. I am utterly perplexed and astounded that his commentary could have created any sort of controversy given how mainstream his thoughts are...
Thankyou. I do not know enough about the human body in it's deceased state to have thought a lot about that. All of my schooling is about the body in its living state. What you have now posted has brought things back into alignment for me and I understand it now. I plan on spending some time in the ER once I graduate, and then perhapse I can get a real-world picture of trauma. Thus far we have not seen (with our own eyes) anything like a GSW.
Correct me if I am wrong, but won't the flat meplat bullets penetrate without tumbling, while the round-nose FMJ's tumble, thus decreasing penetration? This seems to be born out as 357 SIG FMJ-FP penetrated over 54" of gelatin and slammed into a vest while 9mm only penetrates 30-35" or so. (I know this is beyond the scope of consideration as 30" is...plenty, but just as a matter of fact?)
"Correct me if I am wrong, but won't the flat meplat bullets penetrate without tumbling, while the round-nose FMJ's tumble, thus decreasing penetration?"
Not necessarily. For example, while A475 GI M1911 .45 ACP 230 gr FMJ does not tend to yaw or "tumble" in tissue, the AA18 .45 ACP 185 gr +P truncated cone FMJ issued for the Mk23 Mod0 pistol did yaw, often times turning 180 degrees.
Not necessarily. For example, while A475 GI M1911 .45 ACP 230 gr FMJ does not tend to yaw or "tumble" in tissue, the AA18 .45 ACP 185 gr +P truncated cone FMJ issued for the Mk23 Mod0 pistol did yaw, often times turning 180 degrees.
Maybe due to the shorter length of the 185gr? I guess it is weight/caliber specific. Kinda blows that theory out of the water (FP=no tumble).
I also had another sort of question, what is your opinion of the work done by Maj. Ralph W. French, MAC, USA (Ret.), and Brig. Gen. George R. Callender, USA (Ret.) with regards to terminal ballistics? They tend to focus heavily on velocity and energy, but they have supported their claims well, at least as far as a layman like myself can determine. Here is the particular document I am currently perusing.
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2.htm
Feed more reliably= Good
This only matters if your gun doesn't feed modern JHPs properly. And in that case, I'd recommend changing guns, not ammo.
There are countless combinations of modern handgun and modern JHP that provide the same level of feed reliability as those same guns with FMJ.
Penetration= Good
This only matters if your current JHPs are deficient in penetration. Even the FBI -- champion of the deep penetrating handgun bullet -- agrees that beyond a certain point, deeper penetration is not only unnecessary but unwanted.
There are countless modern JHP designs which provide proven penetration.
Hollow-point expansion= Does not matter?
Reduced chance of overpenetration matters. (note: "reduced chance" is not a 100% guarantee that no bullet will ever overpentrate)
Larger wound track matters. (note: "larger" is not a 100% guarantee that the BG will drop dead instantaneously)
ToddG's comments are right on target, so to speak...
"I also had another sort of question, what is your opinion of the work done by Maj. Ralph W. French, MAC, USA (Ret.), and Brig. Gen. George R. Callender, USA (Ret.) with regards to terminal ballistics?"
It is interesting from a historical perspective, but not relevant to today's knowledge base; kind of like reading a surgical atlas from the 1930's--interesting, but it is not what I would want my surgeon to be using when operating on me today...
Is anyone here familiar with the work of Carroll E. Peters?
His book, 'Defensive Handgun Effectiveness', published in 1977, fits in well with this discussion.
Part of his book was based on bullet energy transfer tests done at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences using 5.9 inches of 20% ballistic gelatin at 10 degrees C .
In those tests he noted that the W-W .38 Special +P FMJ 150 gr. metal penetrating bullet behaved in a similar manner to a +P lead 158 gr. SWC bullet of the same caliber. It is a truncated conical bullet with a large tangent angle nose shape.
A bullet using that nose shape should function well in a semiautomatic pistol and could possibly increase the effectiveness of FMJ bullets.
Not necessarily. For example, while A475 GI M1911 .45 ACP 230 gr FMJ does not tend to yaw or "tumble" in tissue, the AA18 .45 ACP 185 gr +P truncated cone FMJ issued for the Mk23 Mod0 pistol did yaw, often times turning 180 degrees.
May I ask if this load is still used? I understand it was used by US SF when HP was not allowed.
What is the muzzle velocity of this load, out of a 5" barrel? Is there any noticeable advantage in terminal effect using this load instead of more conventional, std. vel, round nose FMJ 45 ACP ammo? I think at least the 185+P FMJ-FP would penetrate better some barriers.
I don't have documents to support this, but going from memory of several thousand gunshot wounds where seemingly intact FMJ bullets have been retained in the body, the majority of those bullets have ended up in a base-first presentation (180 degrees from initial). In many cases the bullet 'points' to the entrance wound when viewed radiologically.
I don't think it is surprising, since the centre of gravity of most bullets is towards the base. At some point during its terminal trajectory, one of these rounds will be presenting its entire length as a 'striking surface' in that wound channel.
Vincent DiMaio pointed this out in his book "Gunshot Wounds."
As shown here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19937
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/WWII.jpg
The 9 mm para has a fairly pointed ogive, and looks more unstable than the blunter 380 and 45 ACP FMJ-RN bullets.
I wonder if there is a way to promote earlier tumbing.
I wonder if there is a way to promote earlier tumbing.
There are couple of ways. A more triangular(or tear drop) bullet profile would result in a bullet with a heavier rear that will want to flip more rapidly and/or you can use a spoon tip like was tried in the H&K 4.6mm.
The spoon tip does a couple theoretical things. It causes a lift/sucking effect on the point based on Bernoulli's Principle through fluids(water/air), and would result in faster destabilization. It also helps to slow down the bullet spin as it is penetration tissue, and thus the bullet is allowed to destabilize. The flat edge of the spoon catches on the tissue to slow down spin. As long as the bullet keeps a significant spin going, it will correct any yawing and straighten out the flight path.
Interesting... perhaps a more pointed nose will work. There are many lead 115 gr truncated cone designs (casting molds) that have this "triangular" nose.
Stability/accuracy is not problem, since the 9 mm twist rate (for tradition?) is much faster than needed: 1-10" vs 1-16" (or slower) in 38/357 that fire bullets up to 180 gr. I've fired many of these TC designs and they grop very well.
There are numerous reports in the medical and forensic literature that show a higher mortality rate with stabbing victims vs. those shot with handgun projectiles.
This is certainly true when you select data for intentional GSW's and edged weapon wounds (EWW's), and discard all the unintentional/negligent wounds.
The long-quoted statistic from the American College of Surgeons Advanced Trauma Life Support course is that handguns GSW's have an overall mortality of under 20%. When suicides are subtracted from that number--as they should be, as typically the handgun is in contact with the cranium or in the mouth with subsequent massive brain damage, and as such are almost always lethal--the mortality rate of handgun GSW's drops to under 10%.
A major metropolitan police force recently concluded a multi-year study of officer mortality when assaulted by felons and concluded that the likelihood of officer mortality from handgun GSWs is about 5%. This, of course, is in a group of persons who wear ballistic vests and have the means and training to shoot back at the felons who have assaulted them. In an unarmored person, mortality would necessarily be higher, but by all estimates still under 10%
From an emergency medicine & surgical perspective, treatment of handgun GSWs is relatively straightforward. EWW's present a much more complex diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. EWWs that penetrate the thoracic or abdominal cavities have a much higher rate of mortality than handgun GSWs in no small part because of the complexity of the problem presenting to the physician/surgeon.
Glock17JHP
01-08-10, 15:14
this is exactly why i finally made the switch to 9mm after a decade of 45-or-nothing mentality.
Me too...
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see him making a statement that agencies should issue FMJ's...
i dont believe he ever explicitly stated FMJs should be used by agencies- but that was the implication of his conclusions, and he did state that he uses and recommends FMJs be used, because they feed better. he didn't state who the recommendation goes to. i'll skim through and find the quote, and ETA it here.
ETA:
Post No. 33
It is my opinion - take it for what it is worth - nothing - that FMJ's are superior to JHP's. They tend to feed more reliably and penetrate more reliably and I have yet to witness anything that would suggest that hollow-point expansion gives any tangible benefit at all in actual shootings...
Like I originally stated, this is just my opinion but it is based on actual shootings. For anyone who would care to disagree I will be more than happy to review the forensic pathology report you offer as evidence...
i didn't actually see anywhere where he "recommended" FMJs be used.. i didn't look that hard, as it's a long thread, but i'm willing to admit i might have simply concluded that part in my own mind, based on the comment he did make, quoted above. i've also thought i clearly remembered telling my wife things she has absolutely no recollection of.. maybe i'm partially insane.
nonetheless, we can infer, based on his statement, that he would recommend people carry FMJs. :)
Glock17JHP
01-08-10, 21:31
I wish someone would invite him over here for a visit... I cannot, since I got myself banned on Glocktalk when I got frustrated with some of the mentality there...
I wish someone would invite him over here for a visit... I cannot, since I got myself banned on Glocktalk when I got frustrated with some of the mentality there...
it's not too hard to get banned over there- i was banned even before i signed up. literally.
Good evening gentlemen,
I actually began checking in on this site a few days ago after being kindly invited, and registered - but for whatever reason, today is the first day I have been allowed to post.
I had, in fact, come to the opinion that hollow points gave no significant advantage over FMJ's and that FMJ's may give a penetration advantage. I have repeatedly observed that being able to reliably reach vital structures is more important than any advantage given by expansion.
The good DocGKR kindly pointed out the comparable penetration given by the better designed modern JHP's, more sure tissue laceration, and lessened chance of deflection due to nose profile that these bullet designs offer.
Having, embarrasingly, never considered these issues (the emphasis, to me, had always been on "bigger-is-better" for JHP's), I now see - as I stated in the GT Thread - that there may well be very tangible benefits offered.
None-the-less, everything else is clearly secondary to proper shot placement and penetration (if the bullet doesn't get there, everything else doesn't matter!) in the incidents I deal with.
Burt Gummer
01-08-10, 22:57
Welcome Lookin4U, I've been following your thread over at GT very closely.
Welcome. I hope you will find useful information and exchange here. Your post over at GT was one of the most practical and useful discussions I have ever seen regarding real world wounding effects--it should be required reading before anyone is allowed to post wound ballistic information or questions on the internet.
I wish someone would invite him over here for a visit... I cannot, since I got myself banned on Glocktalk when I got frustrated with some of the mentality there...
My handle is glockjeeper on GlockTalk. Both Doc and I, and some others I believe, invited him over here.
Now I see he's made it. Welcome Lookin4U. There is ALOT LESS BS over here, hence the reason I like it and can't stand GT much anymore.
Well, for all of you here who have not seen my posts of GT, let me go ahead and make you mad to! (LOL;))
First off, I had heard and believed all of my life that if big bullets hit people (specifically .45ACP), the fight is over... with little insignificant bullets like 9mm, you can only hope to cause enough pain to discourage your attacker...
Nearly every gun writer, certainly they are experts, had espoused this as have nearly every trainer and LE instructor I have heard.
As a police officer in a large, urban city I began to see shootings, lots of shootings. The first thing that shocked me was that very few of these people died. As a matter of fact, very few of them even appeared to have been measurably slowed down.
It began to dawn on me that maybe there was more to it than just making a bullet break the skin.
I began to learn that just being hit by a bullet alone only insured a wound... but nothing else. The bullets actually had to do something, damage something more than just skin, fat, and muscle to be quickly effective.
Well, for all of you here who have not seen my posts of GT, let me go ahead and make you mad to! (LOL;))
First off, I had heard and believed all of my life that if big bullets hit people (specifically .45ACP), the fight is over... with little insignificant bullets like 9mm, you can only hope to cause enough pain to discourage your attacker...
Nearly every gun writer, certainly they are experts, had espoused this as have nearly every trainer and LE instructor I have heard.
As a police officer in a large, urban city I began to see shootings, lots of shootings. The first thing that shocked me was that very few of these people died. As a matter of fact, very few of them even appeared to have been measurably slowed down.
It began to dawn on me that maybe there was more to it than just making a bullet break the skin.
I began to learn that just being hit by a bullet alone only insured a wound... but nothing else. The bullets actually had to do something, damage something more than just skin, fat, and muscle to be quickly effective.
Most of the ER personel I have spoken with explained to me that unless major structures of the heart were destroyed, the CNS was destroyed/injured severely, they would almost assuredly be able to save a GSW victim, provided that they presented in time.
I guess if a lot of lung-tissue was damaged, that too, but that would almost take a shotgun blast to both lungs or something. Just a puncture won't do it. People suffer pneumothoraxes all the time, and some people have them spontaniously (risk factor for that, in the absence of underlying pathology, is being very tall, in case you were wondering.).
We can fix most anything now days, if we get to it soon enough.
Most of the mystery of gun performance has been cleared up for me since I began working as a Crime Scene Investigator, both reconstructing shooting scenes and documenting medical follow-ups and/or autopsies.
Many of my observations very much challenged what I believed, and I decided to post some of these observations with my opinions on GT. As those who followed the thread know, this was met with very mixed reviews.
Though different rounds do pop up from time to time, we have very little diversity in the calibers we see... our local miscreants only use what is cheaply and commonly available in cheaply and commonly available guns (if we see anything else, we're pretty sure it's stolen! LOL)
First off, the only rifle shootings we see are with .223 (5.56mm) and 7.62x39mm. These are pretty popular, and I have estimated that they are involved in perhaps 25% or so of our shootings.
The rounds we see, however, are only the 'surplus' or 'bulk' FMJ variety, with Wolf being the most popular brand followed by an assortment of the various Asian/former Soviet Union steel cased imports. This, of course, is what is cheapest and most commonly available. Our miscreants do very well to figure out what rounds even fit in their guns, most have no concept that the more expensive stuff might actually cost more for a reason...
These bullets do not fragment, deform, or yaw and generally cause minimum soft tissue upset that is indistinguishable from handgun wounds. When bone is struck they can cause dramatic fragmentation.
-These rounds are not, I'm sure, indicative of what the better, higher performance rounds will do but then I'm not supplying the thugs with better stuff to find out!
-I have never seen an M193, M855, SS109, Hornady, etc. round used so cannot comment on their performance.
That being said, the remainder of my comments will be specifically about handgun rounds used against humans....
After seeing a number of autopsies, I have come to have a better understanding of what the inside of the human body is actually like, what actually has to be done to shut the body down, and what damage bullets actually do.
To simplify things, handgun bullets poke holes in you. How effective these bullets are is more dependent on where and how deep these holes are than anything else.
To save your life in an SD shooting, you want to incapacitate your opponent as quickly as possible. Death is, in and of itself unimportant when trying to stop your opponent from fatally wounding YOU! It does no good to score a fatal hit that will eventually kill your opponent 5 minutes after he beheaded you with a machete...
To rapidly incapacitate (more like hope to rapidly incapacitate) an opponent certain vital structures inside of your opponent must be damaged or destroyed.
The surest way to incapacitate an opponent is to severely damage/destroy the brain and/or top quarter of the spinal cord... A much harder task when the SHTF than many misguided trainers would ever believe.
Next down (and more realistically) is to pick, as close as you can, what is (or should be) the midline of the Center Of Mass and put as many bullets there as you can as fast as you can, only stopping when the opponent has collapsed motionless or you have to reload.... Reload quickly, if necessary, and repeat.
Handguns are compromise weapons. They are comparatively small and easy to carry, but give up the many terminal ballistic advantages of rifle rounds.
Unlike rifle rounds, in actual flesh handgun rounds are limited to simple tissue crush/laceration damage either physically in or immediately proximal to their path.
The only way to significantly damage vital structures is to have the bullet travel into and preferably completely pass through that structure.
Handgun round ballistic performance is limited by three factors. The size of a realistic usable platform, current technology in propellants and recoil management, and a .500" limit placed on handgun bullet diameter by Federal Law.
It can generally be said about anything in life that in actual performance there is a point of diminishing return. A point where improvement ceases and addition becomes counter productive.
The two performance criteria in selecting caliber is optimum diameter and optimum penetration.
Optimum is the point beyond which no additional benefit is received, but begins to become counter productive.
This is where the controversy begins - GET READY TO GET MAD AT ME - from my observations it is my opinion that 9x19mm is the optimum self defense handgun round.
Standard, off the Walmart shelf 9mm LUGER rounds will generally consistently fully penetrate fully clothed adult male COM unless they first strike an intermediate barrier, or multiple bones, or are especially designed not to over-penetrate.
Once a bullet fully penetrates, what good is additional bullet weight and/or velocity?
As this additional power increases, so does recoil, length of recovery time, difficulty in maintaining shooter accuracy, etc. for absolutely no additional benefit.
Certainly a little extra is not detrimental, and may have negligible performance decline in exchange for extra insurance - this is a personal compromise.
In real world, flesh and blood, elastic tissue, the permanent wound channel made by 9mm's are indistinguishable from their big competitor - .45 ACP.
As elastic tissue recoils, the true measure of actual damage has been repeatedly observed to be less than the actual nominal 0.097" diameter difference between these rounds.
Also, it has not been observed that this measurably increases the rate of internal bleeding when vital structures are hit.
What an increase in bullet diameter actually does is increase recoil (gun is pushing more mass), diminishes magazine capacity as you can not fit as many larger bullets in the same size space as smaller, increases drag which lessens penetration, and generally creates a larger and heavier gun for a given, comparable, configuration.
There is some logic to the larger diameter possibly hitting something a narrower diameter bullet missed, but in practice this is more theoretical than realistic.
If you keep missing that Coke can with your 9mm, you're probably still going to miss it with the .45ACP.
What is more realistic is having more chances, i.e. shots, to score a hit than hoping a 0.05" (the approx. radius difference) extra shoulder room will work in your favor.
Personally I prefer .40S&W, as to me the additional recoil is indistinguishable, and I'm willing to sacrifice 2 rounds of capacity for what I perceive to be superior intermediate barrier penetration - a similar logic to those who prefer .357Sig.
To each his own. This is just how I see it.
Burt Gummer
01-09-10, 09:32
Lookin4U: One of your observations that seemed to get a great deal of controversy over at GT, is that .45 rounds manage to penetrate intermediate barriers where 9mm fail to do so:
From my personal observations, I have witnessed that the .40S&W out penetrates commonly encountered cover better than both .45ACP and 9mm... With the 9mm be significantly poorer in this respect than the other two.
Keep in mind, this is what I have observed on the streets. I have not carefully tested multiple loads and bullet weights to validate this. Possibly there are better penetrating 9mm rounds - but I have yet to see it…
…Basically for me it's simple:
Against a 9mm more things become cover.
With a 40S&W or .45ACP some of them turn into concealment only...
Since “miscreants” using whatever ammo they can beg, borrow, or steal. My local Wal-Mart (a source you mention in them acquiring ammo) only carries 9mm in 115 grain and .45 in 230 grain. Those respective bullet weights are the most common. Although several factors are involved in barrier penetration such as bullet shape, bullet construction, and velocity, sectional density is a constant.
From deeper to shallower penetration relevant to Sectional Density:
9mm 147 gr. = .167 SD
.45 Auto 230 gr. = .162 SD
9mm 115 gr. = .130 SD
Could this be the reason why .45 ACP (230 gr.) is exhibiting greater intermediate barrier penetration than 9mm (115 gr.)? I realize that the real world has too many variables to account for, but I’m just trying to wrap my head around what you’re witnessing out in the streets. :confused:
DocGKR: You’ve stated in the same thread that documented findings show 9mm performs better on steel (which on the surface, does seem to contradict Lookin4U’s observations) while .45 is better on windshield. What about plywood and drywall (9 or 45)? :confused:
I believe Lookin4U's comments are in concordance with our findings regarding penetration of common intermediate barriers--look around your house, work, vehicles, and other settings and assess how much steel you would potentially have to shoot through to disable an armed attacker vs. glass, dry wall, wood, fabric, plastic, etc...
My comments regarding duty handguns are well known:
"I most recently qual'd on 9 mm Glocks and the .45 ACP 1911.
Unless your department picks your caliber for you, pick the platform you shoot best, then decide on caliber from there. Currently the best duty pistols going right out of the box are probably the 9 mm Glocks, any caliber S&W M&P, as well as the HK P30 and HK45. X300’s are a good duty pistol light. A J-frame w/o lock using a CTC Lasergrip is a great BUG.
For CCW and most urban LE duty, there are a lot of advantages in carrying a 9mm--easy to shoot one handed, relatively inexpensive to practice with, lots of bullets. When I injured my strong hand a few years ago and lost its use for several months, I found out how much more effective I was using a G19 weak handed compared to a 1911...
If I was in a department that issued .40 or was doing a lot of LE work around vehicles, I'd be strongly tempted to carry a M&P40. Lots of 180 gr JHP's that do well against intermediate barriers is a nice thing. In addition, I really like having a manual safety on a pistol that is used for uniformed LE use; I have twice seen officers' lives potentially saved when another person gained control of an officer's pistol, but the engaged manual safety prevented the weapon from firing--I don't like to think about the outcome if the pistols involved had been a Glock, Sig, XD, revolver, etc... If I ever go back on uniformed Patrol duties, I'll likely carry a .40 M&P w/manual safety.
The nice aspects of .45 ACP is that it makes large holes, can be very accurate, and offers good penetration of some intermediate barriers. Unfortunately, magazine capacity is less than ideal, .45 ACP is more expensive to practice with, and in general is harder to shoot well compared with 9 mm. .45 ACP makes the most sense in states with idiotic 10 rd magazine restrictions or in departments that give you lots of free .45 ACP ammo. While a properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is a superb, unparalleled choice for the dedicated user willing to spend a significant amount of money to get it properly initially set-up and considerable time to maintain it, in this day and age both the M&P45 and HK45 are superior duty pistols.
Whatever you choose, make sure you fire at least 500 and preferably 1000 failure free shots through your pistol prior to using it for duty. If your pistol cannot fire at least 1000 consecutive shots without a malfunction, something is wrong and it is not suitable for duty/self-defense."
Glock17JHP
01-09-10, 13:09
Really interesting thread, guys!!!
I especially like your input, Lookin4U... it is a bit different from the norm here, but not contradictory... sort of like a new set of eyes on an old issue... very good!!!
My experiences lead me to the 1911 .45 ACP back when I bought my first handgun... the gun store owner lead me that way, as well as all the gun magazines of that day (1979). For years a bought into the 'energy transfer' thought, and that the bigger caliber was the way to go. In those days I honestly believed that a solid hit with the .45 ACP would knock a man down.
As I kept learning, I eventually experimented with other calibers: .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .38 Special+P, .38 Special, etc. The only caliber I told all my friends I would never own was a 9mm... I had bought into the idea expoused by many that you could survive multiple hits with a 9mm and keep fighting. We used to call the 9mm a 'wimp caliber'.
Then I discovered Dr. Martin L. Fackler... this was before the IWBA, when he was still at the Letterman Army Hospital/Institute at the Presidio in San Francisco, CA. I searched until I got a phone number, and gave him a call. I was a novice, but I was also eager to learn. He was willing to give me the time of day.
Later, the IWBA began, and I was able to join. I bought Duncan MacPherson's book: 'Bullet Penetration', and struggled through it... two times!!! I figured out how to test my own bullets, and eventually contacted Duncan to tell him what I was doing after learning some things about penetration and expansion from his book. He encouraged me to write a paper and submit it for publication in the WBR, the IWBA's journal. I went on to author 3 papers, and was helped and encouraged along the way by Duncan and Dr. Fackler.
As time passed, I started viewing wound ballistics differently. With my encouragement, my wife went from a .357 Magnum to a .38 Special+P, and then a .38 Special (the firearm is a S&W Model 64 M&P, 3 inch heavy barrel, round butt, w/Hogue rubber combat grips). I went from a .45 ACP to a .357 Magnum, then a .38 Special+P, and then to the dreaded 'wimp caliber': 9mm!!! My friends thought we had both gone insane!!!
For many of the reasons others have already given, I am a 9mm fan now. I had a Glock 17 originally, but went to a Glock 19 about a year ago. Why? Because I shoot better with it that a Glock 17. Not sure why, but I do. I load it with Winchester Ranger 147 grain JHP (RA9T). Why that load? Two reasons: 1) I like the penetration and expansion characteristics better than any other 9mm load I have tried, and 2) My Glock 19 shoots better (accuracy-wise) with this load than it does with the Federal HST or Speer GDHP in that same bullet weight. These were the 3 loads I narrowed everything down to. All 3 are 100% reliable, so accuracy was the deciding factor.
Lookin4U,
You are like a breath of fresh air here... thank you for joining us.
-Ron.
great thread....
as a ex military critical care doc and anesthesiologist.....this concurs with what I see in the operating room and icu.
but then...what I see is skewed....ie they survived long enough to get to the operating room and icu.
Personally I prefer .40S&W, as to me the additional recoil is indistinguishable, and I'm willing to sacrifice 2 rounds of capacity for what I perceive to be superior intermediate barrier penetration - a similar logic to those who prefer .357Sig.
To each his own. This is just how I see it.
I came to the same conclusion regarding the .40S&W. For me, it was a question of penetration in FBI protocols. Out of all the service calibers, the .40S&W in a 180gr JHP was the most consistant penetrator and often exceeded the 12" penetration minimum through all testing barriers. The .40 can do this in virtually all JHP bullet types.....cheap, or expensive. I like to think of it as the 6.8 SPC(versus 5.56/9mm) of the handgun cartridges. The 9mm on the other hand cannot do this unless using more expensive bonded bullet technology which in recent testing is not quite as reliable at opening up as classic Ranger Talons or HSTs.
However, I still toy with the idea of just going back to 9mm and using good ammunition. Single hand shooting is easier with 9mm, and should I be forced to shoot weak hand I'm sure that the additional capacity of the 9mm will count for a lot.
After reading your posts Lookin4U, I must say that you know what you are talking about. I hope that you stick around here and continue to post. Good luck over at GT.......the Michael Courtney acolytes are thick as thieves over there and will get rather obnoxious in trying to twist your posts.
Lookin4u, first of all, welcome to m4c.net. I'd also like to commend you on being brave enough to publish online who you work for (I wouldn't because I fear some admin figuring out who I am and flipping out..). Anyway, you brought up some excellent points on GT, unfortunately that place is filled with erronet computer commandos. Did you happen to notice most of your "critics" all hailed from Arizona? I bet they all got together with the big guns, a jar of peanut butter and five way keyboard and sat up all night discussing how to combat your blasphome(sp?)
Seriously I work in a major metropolitan area and have been on numerous shooting calls. Recently we had a robber taken down as he walked out of the stop and rob armed with a handgun. The team opened up on him with 9mm, 40 and .45 PLUS two hits of .223 at approximately 30 ft. He took seven hits, five in the torso and then RAN away only to be caught ten minutes later...he lived (and will face trial). The .223 were both COM shots.
Your real world posting jives with what we do for a living. That plus the fact that I've followed the writings and advise of Dr. Roberts on m4c, Lightfighter and 10-8 and if he agrees with you, then you are on to something.
Please keep posting your findings. I recently switched from 9mm to .45. I shoot the .45 better but find my duty belt heavier with all the extra mags I carry to have a equal (to 9mm) round count.
Many police officers look at the size of the tiny 9mm compared to the BIG .45 and believe that one shot will do the trick. It is an uphill battle to try and change their minds just as it's an uphill battle to get them to train more (why train when my big round will "drop" the attacker with one shot).
I've started to get into training and need more information like this to help officers make a realistic decision on what to carry vs. hype they see in the movies, print, internet, etc.
Thanks and stay safe,
SNY
WWB 115gr FMJ 9mm indeed did fail to penetrate the car-door I shot up more often than did 230gr WWB .45ACP. Both failed to penetrate it as well as the 124gr +P 9mm loadings and those didn't do as well as .40 and 357 SIG. The worst penetrator on the car door was the 147gr JHP 9mm. It was stopped more often than not if it hit sheet metal going in and attempting to come out the other side.
Keep in mind, a car-door is a rather non-homogonous and complex barrier. Many holes/angles/etc.
SHooting car-doors and an old computer-case really turned me off to the .45 when the 357 SIG and .40 are available though. Any angle at all and that big, slow slug deflects. I plan on doing a penetration test between the 9mm 357 SIG and .45 because I have seen the FBI tests and they say there should be no difference. I feel that I have seen that there is, but I want to test it a little more rigorously.
DocGKR, would it be safe to say that if I placed some pine 2x6's behind some sheet metal and shot it with these various calibers that the one that penetrates the pine the most would also penetrate someone/a block of gel the most after passing through said barries? Obviously there would be no correlation to gel, just a comparison of which round has the most oomph after passing through the sheet metal, or should phone-books be used, or is this just pointless without gel? I don't want to correlate, just compare.
thermocafe
01-10-10, 00:56
Greetings, Lookin4U. Welcome and thanks for your postings.
Back in med school I spent time at Miami-Dade and Broward with the M.E.s and Forensics folks (wonderful people, btw) studying this stuff and doing autopsies. My experience mirrors yours: on a dead person, you can't tell no difference in the wounds. (except maybe powder patterns on intermediate wounds, or the like).
It’s also important to note the difference between DEATH and INCAPACITATION. This seems to cause most of the confusion arising out of these caliber debates.
In my time there, I noticed something interesting: I don't recall being part of an autopsy on a 45AUTO death. Lots of knives, blunt force trauma, MVAs, 9mm, 357, 38spc, a .40S&W and even an accidental jumper. But no .45s?
Looking further back, when first learning about all this I read in Col. J. Hatcher's Textbook on Pistols and Revolvers, where he recounts many stories of the .45 incapacitating magnificently, but not killing. (Great book: even has the documentation and results of the Thompson/LaGarde tests.)
In theory at least, it seems reasonable to conclude that if we can stop our adversary with fewer shots, there will be less likelihood of death. In lots of first-hand accounts I’ve been told and accounts passed down thru reputable sources, it seems that in fact the 9mm does end up being more lethal in a given encounter. Perhaps a greater number of rounds required to end the fight, thus causing more blood loss/tissue damage? There was even a first-hand account on TOS of an officer with a .40 and twelve COM hits, with a thirteenth to the head required to stop the fight.
Anyways, Col. Hatcher further goes on to suggest that if we want to carry the most lethal round, we'd all be decked out with .22 revolvers, as this caliber (used to be, anyway) was responsible for more deaths than any other. A la “stopping inside a victim and setting up an infection that would kill in 2 or 3 days.”
But then, if pure killing power were our aim, we'd either a) all become doctors [a joke: a secret AMA report few years ago in JAMA suggested that doctors accidentally kill more people than the first five causes of death combined], or b) all be carrying edged weapons. So there’s an important difference.
There ARE one-shot stops, and they DO occur with 9mm, too. Of course I’m not arguing the utility of the caliber.
One important point hearing everyone talk about capacity being a motivating factor in weapon or caliber consideration is this: ruling out so-called "bunch shooting" incidents, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Miami-Dade info, and all the way back thru the NYPD SOP6 and the 1967 LAPD study, the average number of shots fired per officer per incident, even among Law Enforcement, is a staggering three. Much less than even the small revolver’s capacity.
So with these ideas in mind, I think it would be reasonable to say capacity is more a comfort matter than a true practical matter.
You get a few shots in a real short time frame, so ya' better make 'em count.
Which agrees perfectly with Chuck Taylor's oft stated opinion to "shoot the most potent handgun/load that you can effectively use." A .22 to the cranium is gonna work, when it’s conceivable that two or three .45’s to the thoracic cavity may not.
None of this is intended as any form of attack, hissie fit, or slight in any way. Just to point out that there ain't no definitive answer to this caliber question yet, and I humbly submit that alternative views are reasonable and also worthy of our consideration.
I haven’t bothered with the GlockTalk thread, as I can do without the aggravation of some of the things that I understand go on over there. Perhaps the reason some may get miffed is the assertion that there is one single caliber that is THE best. Otherwise EVERYONE EVERYWHERE would have standardized on a given caliber.
The only thing I note about a specific “best caliber” argument is that Marshall and Sanow tried that with the .357 and were soundly and loudly rebuked by most of the ballistics and forensics establishment, including Taylor, MacPherson, van Maanan (http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm), and Dr Fackler (http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm) there and here. (http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm) Dr. Fackler, by the way, did write:
The 9mm115-grain Silvertip bullet which penetrates only 21.1 cm (in ballistic gelatin) is an example of the new generation of lighter-weight/higher-velocity bullets that have been produced as a result of this unfortunate but influential study [the RII].
The critical consideration is that the bullet produce its permanent tissue disruption to sufficient depths to ensure major vessel disruption from any angle. Of the bullets that attain this goal, common sense would indicate that the largest one would be the most effective, since it would put a larger hole in heart or vessels.
Different things work well for different folks. Me personally, I would never carry a 9mm if I didn’t have to (my old agency used to issue Glock 9mm). And it’s interesting that more and more agencies are beginning to standardize on the larger calibers, .40 and .45.
However it also has to be said that street thugs with their garbage .380’s continue to murder Police Officers and get the better of better equipped, more highly trained individuals. Hence Dr. Roberts’ strong suggestion that first and foremost is “cultivate a warrior mindset”. Col. Hatcher recommended the .45ACP for these “enraged and determined foes of tremendous intestinal fortitude.”
But that caliber debate has been going on and on for so long it’s hard to figure out just when it started. Best I got it figured is when the whole 1904 caliber testing began, intensifying when the 9mm Luger was getting promoted back in the 1930’s.
Much the same as the circle completes itself, so with many things we are now seeing full circle. Why, even earlier in this thread, there were several questions that Dr Roberts had to answer multiple times, even though the answer was already provided. So this caliber thing likely won’t end soon.
But that’s the beauty of our Great Nation: we still have the semi-freedom to choose what we want! I don’t have to worry about defending myself with your equipment, and you don’t have to choose my equipment.
With those provisos, and while I humbly disagree on there being a “best caliber”, I say great post!! Very useful info. Thanks, Lookin4U! :)
Glock17JHP
01-10-10, 23:08
WWB 115gr FMJ 9mm indeed did fail to penetrate the car-door I shot up more often than did 230gr WWB .45ACP. Both failed to penetrate it as well as the 124gr +P 9mm loadings and those didn't do as well as .40 and 357 SIG. The worst penetrator on the car door was the 147gr JHP 9mm. It was stopped more often than not if it hit sheet metal going in and attempting to come out the other side.
Keep in mind, a car-door is a rather non-homogonous and complex barrier. Many holes/angles/etc.
SHooting car-doors and an old computer-case really turned me off to the .45 when the 357 SIG and .40 are available though. Any angle at all and that big, slow slug deflects. I plan on doing a penetration test between the 9mm 357 SIG and .45 because I have seen the FBI tests and they say there should be no difference. I feel that I have seen that there is, but I want to test it a little more rigorously.
DocGKR, would it be safe to say that if I placed some pine 2x6's behind some sheet metal and shot it with these various calibers that the one that penetrates the pine the most would also penetrate someone/a block of gel the most after passing through said barries? Obviously there would be no correlation to gel, just a comparison of which round has the most oomph after passing through the sheet metal, or should phone-books be used, or is this just pointless without gel? I don't want to correlate, just compare.
WS6,
In your first paragraph in the quote you said the 147 grain JHP 9mm was the worst penetrator of a car door you shot up... I have to say, however, that in shooting a car door fairly recently with 3 different loads of that description (Winchester Ranger, Federal HST and Speer Gold Dot), we saw something very different. All 3 of these loads penetrated all the way through the door we shot consistently, unless we struck a major structure within the door... and in similar situations other calibers and loads were also stopped.
I have pictures, and tried to attach one to my post but there appears to be a technical difficulty at the moment...
"DocGKR, would it be safe to say that if I placed some pine 2x6's behind some sheet metal and shot it with these various calibers that the one that penetrates the pine the most would also penetrate someone/a block of gel the most after passing through said barries?"
No. Use water.
------------------
I am unclear why there is so much interest regarding penetrating steel with handgun projectiles.
Imagine you are a patrol officer conducting a traffic stop. As you approach the vehicle and move next to the front passenger door, you suddenly notice the driver bringing a pistol up to engage you. Obviously, you are going to move off the line of fire, and will probably begin shooting back at the threat you can directly see engaging you. Now, answer this--are you more likely going to be shooting through the vehicle door/body or the vehicle windows at that point?
All 3 of these loads penetrated all the way through the door we shot consistently, unless we struck a major structure within the door
That's the problem with everyone comparing car doors they've shot. They are of differing construction and there are alot of things hidden inside.
We would be better off if someone made a slotted rack holding sheet metal panels. We could determine the actual metal penetration of the calibers we are discussing.
That would settle the issue once and for all.
WS6,
In your first paragraph in the quote you said the 147 grain JHP 9mm was the worst penetrator of a car door you shot up... I have to say, however, that in shooting a car door fairly recently with 3 different loads of that description (Winchester Ranger, Federal HST and Speer Gold Dot), we saw something very different. All 3 of these loads penetrated all the way through the door we shot consistently, unless we struck a major structure within the door... and in similar situations other calibers and loads were also stopped.
I have pictures, and tried to attach one to my post but there appears to be a technical difficulty at the moment...
Every car door is different. This was a 1980's crown-vic car door. Rather heavy-duty. OO Buckshot wouldn't penetrate it much past about 30 yards (the OUTER layer!). #4 buckshot wouldn't hardly at point-blank after the pellets spread to strike individually. I saw a LE video on liveleak or something showing #4buck totally perphorating a car-door. Musta been lighter gauge/different material.
I believe this door also stopped a .44mag 240gr JSP when an internal structure was hit, lol. This door did NOT play.
No. Use water.
------------------
I am unclear why there is so much interest regarding penetrating steel with handgun projectiles.
Imagine you are a patrol officer conducting a traffic stop. As you approach the vehicle and move next to the front passenger door, you suddenly notice the driver bringing a pistol up to engage you. Obviously, you are going to move off the line of fire, and will probably begin shooting back at the threat you can directly see engaging you. Now, answer this--are you more likely going to be shooting through the vehicle door/body or the vehicle windows at that point?
I like to drink grapefruit juice. Are those little 3" wide square 64oz "cardboard" containers it comes in suitable?
My interest in this is that I have seen the FBI tests saying that .45 is equal to 357 SIG through sheet-metal. Quite frankly, I don't believe it based on what I have seen. I want to do it myself to see for myself. I was the kind of kid that touched the stove, so to speak (albeit, I didn't use my finger, but rather a paper-towel. Yes. Things went wrong and mom came to the rescue, but that's a story for another time...).
Also, I can see myself shooting through my own windshield. Lots of people here just wanting to start stuff and I have had people act a fool in traffic to the point of getting out of their cars to start stuff. One day I imagine someone might have a weapon and be a little more hot under the collar than most. My windshield would be forfeit, as would my car-door, even though I doubt the doors on my car could stop even a pellet-gun. Lot of "small town" mentality and there is a large military base nearby.
"We would be better off if someone made a slotted rack holding sheet metal panels. We could determine the actual metal penetration of the calibers we are discussing."
How exactly do you think the FBI protocol for sheet steel works??? The parameters are well established and of course it is a repeatable, verifiable test, with 20 years of data to support it.
-----------------
Milk/juice jugs should work fine.
Shooting from inside a vehicle sounds neat, that is until you try it the first time without eye and ear pro... Unless your vehicle is blocked or pinned in place, why not simply drive away when confronted with a threat?
How exactly do you think the FBI protocol for sheet steel works??? The parameters are well established and of course it is a repeatable, verifiable test, with 20 years of data to support it.
-----------------
Milk/juice jugs should work fine.
Shooting from inside a vehicle sounds neat, that is until you try it the first time without eye and ear pro... Unless your vehicle is blocked or pinned in place, why not simply drive away when confronted with a threat?
My vehicle sits about 5" off the ground. Traffic-lights aren't really a prime get-away place when there are cars in front/cars behind/a ditch to the left, and a wall to the right, like what occured one time when someone wanted to start something and jump out of his truck before he figured out I wasn't who he thought I was (there was another guy who drove a car IDENTICAL to mine a while back that lived here. Apparently he created some problems for himself). Open highway? No problem. Kinda a nice feature owning a sports-car. People tail you? Floor it. 350 horsepower. It fixes most things. City traffic? I'm kinda stuck :(
Anyways, guy talks some smack at my window and I told him that if he wanted to leave he had better do it now and go get back in his truck with the rest of his buddies. He took my advice and luckily, that was that. Next time I decided that I would 1)be out of the car to meet the threat and/or 2) possess a firearm on my person/in my vehicle so as to be at less of a disadvantage if the individual is armed next time. As it was, the best plan I had was to grab one of his arms and forcefully pull in towards me which would either slam his face into my roof, or force him to stick his head in my car where his eyes would get a thumb. Just not an optimal situation and my decision to remain in the car--sucked, from a tactics standpoint. If he had had a weapon, he would have been more stand-offish so as to use distance in his favor. As it was, he was touching my window sill, so I figured a knife was it, if that. Meaning I would indeed have my chance to grab a limb and execute my (admittedly poor) plan. Again, just conjecture and it ended peacefully, or rather, with noone being banged up.
Oh yes, I do agree. My ears would be crying and I am sure that glass fragments/dust would get blasted all over my interior (read:me). It's certainly not something I would WANT to have happen, that is for sure! Like I said before, I think getting out of the vehicle would be the best option, but I would like other options as well, in extremis. Kinda the reason I buy gold-dots and not just WWB. I like to use the best thing I can, because every little bit is worth something.
I understand that the FBI data is good, solid data and not just some guy blasting at milk-cartons in his back-yard. However, I would like to see it for myself. Based on what I HAVE seen, the FBI data does not correlate with my own experiences and a car door. I want to dig a bit further.
Am I re-inventing the wheel? No doubt. However, I hope to gain experience from it, if nothing else.
In the end, when I graduate and have the money and time, I fully intend on going to a few classes that will give me a better plan than the one I outlined. I have the hardware, now I need to learn how to use it optimally.
Thomas M-4
01-11-10, 00:44
Do the FBI protocols call for single piece of sheet metal or two?
WS6--stay in the car! How many OIS incident reports would you have to see before you believed something, even though you didn't directly observe it? 100? 200? 500? How many OIS incidents do you think have been analyzed and correlated with lab test results in the 20 years since the FBI protocols were developed?
-------------
Thomas M4: Two pieces of 20 gauge, hot-rolled steel with a galvanized finish are set three inches apart. The clothing covered gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the rear most piece of steel. This test event simulates the weakest part of a car door.
Thomas M-4
01-11-10, 00:55
WS6--stay in the car! How many OIS incident reports would you have to see before you believed something, even though you didn't directly observe it? 100? 200? 500? How many OIS incidents do you think have been analyzed and correlated with lab test results in the 20 years since the FBI protocols were developed?
-------------
Thomas M4: Two pieces of 20 gauge, hot-rolled steel with a galvanized finish are set three inches apart. The clothing covered gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the rear most piece of steel. This test event simulates the weakest part of a car door.
Thanks DocGKR.
WS6--stay in the car! How many OIS incident reports would you have to see before you believed something, even though you didn't directly observe it? 100? 200? 500? How many OIS incidents do you think have been analyzed and correlated with lab test results in the 20 years since the FBI protocols were developed?
-------------
Thomas M4: Two pieces of 20 gauge, hot-rolled steel with a galvanized finish are set three inches apart. The clothing covered gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the rear most piece of steel. This test event simulates the weakest part of a car door.
From what little I have seen, OIS's are contradictory. One of my friends locally analyzed lots of them when he worked for the local PD and said that going from 9mm to .40 resulted in a LOT! higher success rate. Yet, others state that as long as the 9mm and .40 are both well-chosen rounds, they should do about the same. The 9mm's used were 127gr +P+ Ranger and the .40 used is the 165gr GDHP, IIRC. Both good rounds.
Thermocafe:
I've met several Crime Scene Techs from Miami-Dade and Broward during many trips to IPTM on the Unversity Of North Florida's campus in Jacksonville, FL. Great people and Broward sounds like it would be an incredible place to work....
I apologize for my failure to make myself clear, something that gets me in trouble of forums (LOL).
My reference was to an optimal round, one that in and of itself consistently satisfactorily meets the listed requirements of penetration and adequate wound channel in the human anatomy. My choice of 9x19mm was based on these perimeters as well as control-ability, magazine capacity, and size of platform.
If I am to carry the weapon everyday, have no magazine capacity restrictions, and am shooting at commonly clothed individuals, increase in size or penetration will not out weight the compromises other rounds will bring, in my opinion.
Best is dictated by circumstances. There are no ridiculous capacity restriction placed on me, I'm average size, can compensate for a reasonable range of recoil (recovery time), and frequently encounter intermediate cover, so "best" for me and my circumstance is .40S&W.
Changes in circumstance and expected encounters dictate what will be necessary, but in my opinion 9x19mm is the handgun baseline. Everything else brings the listed compromise, but may be necessary.
A citizen in California or similar states have 10-round restrictions, therefore the "capacity out weights diameter increase" logic has no bearing, but the possible perceived increase in recoil/recovery time still does.... Again, for the small increase in recoil I, personally would move to a .40S&W or single stack 10mm, and play with loads until desired results were reached (the Glock 20 is uncomfortable in my hand).
If I was in the position of dignitary security, I would expect that vehicle involved confrontations would increase in priority and would move to 10mm (Actually to a 6.8mm AR, but we'll stay with service handguns...), as intermediate barrier penetration would take first place (remember, if the bullet doesn't get there nothing else matters).
As clumsy as my explanation is, I hope it makes some sense...(?) (I understand what I'm thinking, just sometimes I fail to let others in on it! LOL)
The only way to significantly damage vital structures is to have the bullet travel into and preferably completely pass through that structure.
The two performance criteria in selecting caliber is optimum diameter and optimum penetration.
Optimum is the point beyond which no additional benefit is received, but begins to become counter productive.
There seems to be some agreement on the cutoff point of what caliber and power level is acceptable for a service caliber handgun. Many consider .380 ACP as the bare minimum.
One day I was looking at the 'Box of Truth' website. One of the tests seemed to illustrate why the cutoff is at that caliber.
In the 'Books of Truth' test, handguns in .22 LR and 32 ACP calibers, were fired into a stack of books. They both penetrated about an inch. The service calibers were fired at the same books. The .45 FMJ went in about 4 1/4 inches. The 9MM FMJ and 7.62x25 FMJ both did about 7 inches.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot31.htm
I would venture to guess that the early short cartridges, .38, .44 and .45 calibers, that were found to be inadequate back then, were just not powerful enough to consistantly drive a lead bullet completely through a human body from less than ideal angles. Most countries settled on calibers with 200 to 350 ft lbs of muzzle energy and 7.62 to 9MM bullet diameters and seem to be content with their choices right up until today.
.380 ACP is below the minimum...
I fail to understand the uproar over my statement about my documented observations of 9mm having generally less intermediate barrier penetration than .40S&W or .45ACP.
And yes, this was with what is probably the cheapest, and poorest performing ammunition available... but then, that's what I'm interested in.
Real life shootings are never "best case scenario" situations... Think about it, first off you're in a real life shooting!
It is my very firm conviction that performance should be based off of the worst that I see - what happens when the shot takes a longer path of travel in tissue, or is at the very bottom of the performance scale. This, in theory (as flawed as it may be), gives me a reasonable minimum I can expect. If the cheap, common, garbage ammunition consistently does what is necessary then I am reasonably confident in what the expected performance will be even if the new ammunition fails to be the "night-and-day" improvement its manufacturer claims.
Just my opinion, worth nothing, but I would be fearful of expecting published "best performance" results in a bullet that, for unforeseen reasons and unaccounted for circumstances, performed like standard pressure ball ammunition... At least if I "expect" the minimum, I'll rarely be disappointed.
Again, my opinion, but I'd rather go into a life-or-death struggle with a lower expectation of performance....
.380 ACP is below the minimum...
I agree with you but alot of people have been led to believe that .380 is the minimum.
200RNL:
I'll "cheat" on the question of cut-off round, and put what I posted about this question on GT.
"9x19mm and above will cut a more than sufficeintly large hole 'more-or-less' straight (discounting possible bone deflection all bullets, pistol and rifle, may experience) to sufficient depth in a human body. I have never seen a 9x19mm or larger service caliber have insufficient penetration unless there was some intermediate barrier struck prior to entrance into the body.
From what I have seen (again, your "tests" may vary), .380ACP (9x17mm) is unreliable at this, and everything below this is just plain insufficient in my opinion (not saying you won't die from a .22 short, just that it is far less likely). I have, indeed, seen a few .380ACP's strike average or better size adult males, track reasonably true, and penetrate sufficiently to strike vital targets and cause death.
More often, however, I have seen them fail to penetrate deep enough to reach vital structures, either through actual lack of penetration or inability to travel true even in soft tissue.
With this much variation in performance, I assume (just my opinion, could be wrong) that the better penetration is the upper limit of this calibers capability. I cannot, therefore, recommend a caliber that I can only assume performs only 'adequetly' in just the best case scenarios.... Also, with the large number of similarly sized, high quality 9x19mm handguns available, why would I? (Again, this is just my opinion.)"
I fail to understand to uproar over my statement about my documented observations of 9mm having generally less intermediate barrier penetration than .40S&W or .45ACP.
I don't even know why there is an argument. Unlike the hard to pin down caliber / incapacitation issue, all one has to do with barriers is to go out and do tests on the materials in question.....case closed.
Looks like the GT thread was closed--that is unfortunate, as it was one of the few threads of value I have recently seen there...
I have, indeed, seen a few .380ACP's strike average or better size adult males, track reasonably true, and penetrate sufficiently to strike vital targets and cause death.
More often, however, I have seen them fail to penetrate deep enough to reach vital structures, either through actual lack of penetration or inability to travel true even in soft tissue.
A fully expanded .380 bullet would have difficulty penetrating.
Did any of the inadequate penertations involve FMJ bullets or undeformed JHPs?
Just to throw out some additional data.......heavier and larger projectiles at more moderate velocities do in fact crush internal bone structure better than smaller calibers(faster or heavier loads). Sectional density is important, but once you have that taken care of, the larger caliber will do better against a pelvis, spinal column, femur,....etc. Adequately disabling these structures can put your opponent on their ass for the rest of the fight and keep them in a position of disadvantage. Dr. Lane showed this with his experiments in the early 1990s.
Also, larger calibers with good sectional density deal with barriers such as windshields better:
FBI Test Protocol(Winchester Ranger Talons):
Automobile Glass = 1 piece of 1/4" laminated safety glass set at a 45 degree angle with an offset of 15 degrees, shot at 10ft
.380 95gr(1000fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 4.5”/NA
9mm+P 124gr(1180fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 10.6”/.48”
9mm+P+ 127gr(1250fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 9.4”/.48”
9mm 147gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 10.8”/.52”
.357sig 125gr(1350fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 10.3”/.49”
.40S&W 180gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 12.3”/.60”
.45acp 230gr(905fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 12.2”/.61”
.45acp+P 230gr(990fps): (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 13.6”/.60”
However, bonded bullets like the Winchester Ranger Bonded are another story:
9mm+P 124gr(1180fps)BONDED: (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 12.7”/.58”
9mm 147gr(995)BONDED: (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 12.6”/.55”
.357sig 125gr(1350fps)BONDED: (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 12.8”/.62”
.40S&W 180gr(1070fps)BONDED: (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 12.4”/.63”
.45acp 230gr(905fps)BONDED: (Penetration/Expansion)
Through Auto Glass: 12.5”/.66”
Loads like this tempt me even more to go back to the 9mm. Once the windshield equation is eliminated, I guess it boils down to hole size and internal bone damage in caliber effectiveness. Those two important factors still prompt me to go a little larger if the compromise is right. For me, .40S&W doesn't compromise much over the 9mm.......but .45acp compromises too much.
Burt Gummer
01-11-10, 09:54
.45 ACP creates significantly more damage to bone over 9mm. But does anyone know how does .40 S&W perform against bone compared to the .45?
Personally, I want a caliber that isn't completely dependent on using premium and/or specific ammo (i.e., "Walmart Test"). For now, it remains the hi-cap .45 for me:
"…if restricted to ball … I'll take .45 ACP any day." —Dr. Gary K. Roberts 10-10-2008
Keep in mind that quote is referencing military, Hague restricted pistol uses. For CONUS LE and personal defense, all of the common service calibers work acceptably, as noted in my earlier post.
Burt Gummer
01-11-10, 10:58
Yes Sir. I have no intention to quote out of context. Only that FMJ ("ball") is the lowest form of bullet design in reference to my "Walmart Test" statement.
DocGKR, how does .40 S&W fair against bone relative to the .45?
For me, .40S&W doesn't compromise much over the 9mm.......but .45acp compromises too much.
This is very much my argument.
For those who have not read my posts on GT, my biggest concern is with the bullet failing to reach vital structures within the body.
This occurs either by the bullet "simply missing" any vital structures, which can be as much chance and circumstance as marksmanship (can't do much about the former), or inadequate penetration.
Penetration is not only a performance issue as it can also fall victim to chance and circumstance, particularly when intervening cover/concealment comes into play. Maybe the target is just behind a single layer of drywall, maybe there is something between him and the drywall that you cannot see, etc...
Nearly every shooting I see involves some form of cover/concealment, with automobiles being the single most common... As annoying as it is, when you shoot at people they usually try to get behind stuff - even stuff neither you nor they even noticed until the bullets started flying!
For me, I will always have to factor in "reasonable" intermediate barrier penetration because I realize it may well be a deciding factor when the SHTF. Too much power, however, can adversely affect outcome.
I like what JohnKSa posted on GT, "Don't pick a gun so big that it gets you killed."
I think this is wisdom few can appreciate, and the focus of much misunderstanding about the realities of gun control when lives are on the line.
(BTW not referring to .45ACP, which to me has very manageable recoil, but lags behind the .40S&W in general barrier penetration)
After reading the thread over there as well as here, I have to say Thank You Sir for your time in posting the information. I was a medic in Detroit and saw much of what you saw (though not the autopsies) and I have to say you were spot on as well. Having Doctor Roberts give his support to your obsorvations should have been the end of debate over there, but fools will be fools. Again, Thank You both gentlemen.
Note: I was not always in agreement with Doc. In fact, at one time I was doing heavy research to discredit him. What I learned in that research totally changed my view of his knowlege as well as of him as a person. I would even to go so far as to say he undersells himself (maybe sell is a poor wording choice). Meh, take that for what its worth, eh?
R Knight
SGT
Military Police
Burt Gummer
01-11-10, 16:46
.......but .45acp compromises too much.
Marcus, would that compromise be strictly capacity?
At least for myself, I find that -- all else being equal -- I shoot a .45 better than a .40 (assuming we're talking about full power ammo). By "better" I mean I can get faster speed for the same level of accuracy, or better accuracy for the same amount of time spent on breaking shots. While the .45 has more push in recoil, the .40 tends to be substantially flippier which translates into more time & effort spent recovering between shots.
While I am sure there are measurable terminal benefits to some .40 loads, I remain confident that choosing a 9mm round listed by DocGKR provides me with an acceptable level of performance while maximizing shootability and capacity.
Marcus, would that compromise be strictly capacity?
Shootings pan out differently depending on your line of work and the environment that you work in. In a civilian shooting they are often under 7yards and usually only involve a few shots. In that case capacity isn't a big deal and a small CCW will often be ideal.
Law enforcement shootings are usually close up as well, but sometimes they are dynamic and at longer ranges. As a cop, if we expect trouble we bring a long gun and bring our friends who also have long guns.
If we resort to our handgun, it's usually because we were taken off guard and/or ambushed. When a badguy ambushes a LEO, they either wait till you get close and then they dump rounds at you at point blank range, or they get some distance and open up on you with a long gun. Either way, if you are being fired on the badguy is likely on the move and using cover/concealment. This means that no matter how skilled you are, you are going to be missing.....a lot. Most of these shootings only have a 20-25% hit rate by the officer. Remember, everything changes when someone is shooting at you and everything that you thought you knew on the gun range goes out the window. Also, you'll want to try to hit the badguy behind cover by doing things like bouncing rounds off the pavement to hit his legs........this requires more ammo. Although......larger calibers do this better too......
Given only a 25% hit rate, this is approximately how many hits you'd get in given your platform:
-9mm 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.40S&W 12+1rds = 3.25 hits
-.45acp 8+1rds = 2.25 hits
-9mm 17+1rds = 4.5 hits
-.40S&W 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.45acp 10+1rds = 2.75 hits
......hopefully some of those hits are center of mass.
So yes, magazine capacity is important. Good magazine capacity means you have more ammo on your belt to work with, and you'll spend less time reloading. When you are reloading, you are out of the fight and vulnerable. If you crank up the magazine capacity on the .45acp to over 10rds you often run into ergonomic problems. The overall dimensions of the grip gets larger making it harder to shoot with gloves on and single-handed, and trigger reach becomes more of a stretch(especially with gloves). For me, given all my likely circumstances and scenarios, the .40 is as large as I care to go. The KEY of course on the .40S&W is to use the 180gr loads which are quite mild in recoil and feel very similar to hotter 9mm loadings. A lot of people get turned off to the .40S&W after they shoot the higher energy loads like 155gr at 1200fps which are quite snappy.
My last reason for not using .45acp is because I am only allowed to use classic Sigs on duty. .45acp Sigs are very problematic and have durability problems. If I had to change calibers, I would much rather move back to 9mm than go larger than .40S&W.
Very interesting discussion going on here and despite that it's written in English, most of it is over my head? :p Also, Welcome Aboard the M4C Lookin4U! :cool:
Let's remember that in the past mass shootings, the bg were using 9mm and .22. Not trying to be morbid, but they had a devastating impact.
I carry the .45, but always heard bad things about the .40. We are issued Win Ranger (although I can't remember what grain). I wouldn't carry the Glock 22 after all the problems it had(s). What platform would you recommend? M&P (which is what I have in .45)?
Great thread.
thermocafe
01-11-10, 23:44
Greetings! I’d like the opportunity to share some more thoughts if you’d all permit me. Please forgive the length: I just started typing in MS Word and couldn't stop.
It’s really been bothering me this question of WHY…why does this caliber debate continue to rage on and on? Why does it cause such emotional reactions in so many?
Maybe the caliber debate is not an answerable question when posed in its current form?
Is it possible it’s like abortion? Maybe it’s not possible to find a “right” answer per se, ie. one that 100% of everyone will agree on as morally this or that…maybe we can only address the issue by knowing what works and what doesn’t. (Please understand I am NOT trying to work abortion into this discussion except to use the observations of the whole pro vs anti thing as an analogy to how we approach the caliber debate.)
On the abortion issue, if one looks at how society dealt with the issue in the past, and compare it to how we handle the issue now, and then look at how each affected the functioning of our society, it seems at least possible that the unanswerable moral “right” vs “wrong” issue could be side-stepped entirely. If we could reframe the question to reflect “what’s good for our society” and “what hurts our society”, maybe we could arrive at a more concrete and agreeable conclusion?
*Again, I’m using this analogy only as it applies to the caliber debate.*
So,perhaps if we looked at the history of armed encounters and their outcomes from the perspective of what allows the highest probability of survival in the extremely unlikely event of an armed confrontation, we could isolate what IS and what is NOT important in how to survive a confrontation.
Concerning the folks who get hysterical over “THIS caliber! No, THAT caliber!” debates, I ask myself: what happens when they encounter an angry, violent street thug who cares little for the lives of others? If someone gets that hysterical over a pleasant caliber debate, how are they gonna react in a real “yo momma’s a this, and I’m gonna rip yo that off and do something unpleasant down yo throat” kind of life-threatening situation?
I submit to you that this - in and of itself - speaks to the very heart of this entire matter!
Perhaps the psychology of confrontation may allow us a more concrete resolution to all this caliber debate.
Please allow me to explain.
I was thinking about this constant 9 vs 40 vs 45 vs this vs that vs the other, and I thought of the case of Lance Thomas. Here we have a man who was a participant in FIVE gunfights in his own store. There were surveillance videos of the incidents, and they have been fairly well documented publicly.
The caliber progression thru the five fights started with the .38 revolver on up thru the Sig .45. In all but the first instance, his attackers required multiple hits to go down. This was his reasoning behind why he went up in caliber from .38, thru 9mm, .357, and eventually .45ACP.
His first successful stop was a one-hit-stop, connecting with the face of the armed perpetrator. It was the third shot out of a .38 revolver, having missed with the first two. The suspect lived.
His final gun-fight involved several Sig 220s loaded with Glasers, and required multiple (twelve, if memory serves) successful hits to ensure the suspect went down - permanently.
Now on the face of it, we COULD say oh, the .38 is perfect, and the .45 is worthless. But I respectfully submit that this is grossly mis-leading, and takes the unique circumstances and psychology of confrontation out of the equation.
I further submit to you that when dealing with pistols, the psychology of the participants in the confrontation may be hands down the most important determining factor of all. FAR more important than “caliber X is best”.
Allow me to quote from Col. Hatcher’s Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers:
Undoubtedly surprise is a big factor, and the easiest person to stop with any bullet is the man who has no expectation of being shot.
Could this be the rub of the whole matter?
thermocafe
01-11-10, 23:44
I can pretty much guarantee that if I were to clad myself in black with a shaded respirator, conduct a dynamic entry into a residence with an unprepared occupant, run straight at and shoot that occupant with a .22 twice in the chest and once in the head, they’d be on the floor. In fact, I would bet with most people – if you caught them by surprise – a single .22 round would be sufficient to put them down.
In that type of scenario, I am going to provide absolutely no argument that caliber “X” is way more than sufficient.
But how do you suppose this would fly in a civil trial? Do we really believe a judge or jury would accept this as suitable self-defense for an individual, private citizen? John Q decked out in tactical gear, busting down the door, running right at “the perp” while shooting? Self defense?
On the contrary, you can imagine the legal repercussions, even in the most pro-defense states.
This is why maybe the single, isolated issue of caliber vs. caliber is an unanswerable question? Maybe we’re asking the wrong question?
Concerning gunfights, by the time a Trauma Surgeon or Medical Examiner sees the individuals with GSWs, BY DEFINITION the fight is already over. So the best they can do is look at the tissue damage and see its effects, and try to correlate it to controlled experiments and observation. They will get a barebones narration of the sequence of events in the confrontation.
If they’re lucky or inquisitive, they’ll have access to shot angles and bullet types. Otherwise, they can only go on what they see in front of them. And so it goes with forensics and trauma texts.
The only problem with drawing conclusions from what they see is that the Surgeons / M.E’s – at least in most cases – were no where near the fight when the fight took place.
I believe this can accurately be referred to as a systemic bias. The results and conclusions are skewed by the very nature of the system.
An example: let’s compare person A and person B, both gunshot victims.
Person A walks into the ER as a victim of an accidental GSW. Two-and-a-half days ago, Person A was the unfortunate recipient of a .22 round ricochet from a revolver to the stomach. The doctor on duty notices correctly there is almost ZERO tissue damage throughout the body, and as the individual was only shot once in the belly, there is little tissue damage – not even an exit wound. The little lead .22 projectile stopped nicely within the abdominal cavity of said victim. Person A walked into the ER.
Person B shows up to the M.E.’s office with 17 GSWs to the torso, neck, and extremeties. There is massive tissue damage. Person B was a wanted felony suspect engaged by multiple officers from multiple agencies with 5.56mm, 9mm, .40S&W, and even a shotgun slug. Person B is expired, but there is MASSIVE tissue damage. The interesting thing is that except for the 12 guage hole, all the other rounds look the same. They find fragments of the 5.56mm VMAX in the torso on radiology.
Now on the face of it, we’d reasonably look at those two events and say “hmm…that little .22 didn’t do much, but boy those 5.56mm VMAX, .40S&W and 9mm HSTs, and that Ranger slug really tore this sucker up. So make my handgun an XYZ.”
Not so fast.
The problem with this is that the .22 dropped Person A instantly, as it was Johnnie and Billy playing in the quarry. Johnnie, a 19 year old United States Marine on leave, was not expecting to get shot, was totally surprised and plopped instantly to the ground like a “marionette whose strings were cut”.
Person B, the 38yo wanted felony suspect, fought viciously until he was butt-stroked on the head with a flashlight. Only then did the fight end, with Person B expiring 9 minutes later from exsanguination.
See a problem with the blanket conclusion that “caliber x” is best?
It's easy to draw conclusions looking at a body on the slab or operating table, and easier to forget there were other things going on - it wasn't just the victim standing there allowing themselves to be shot so everyone could see how they'd react. There were emotions, desires, variations in intestinal fortitude, etc.
And observations of those in the O.R. or ME's office will, predictably, be consistent with others' observations from the same perspectives. But I submit that it’s deceptively easy to conclude that the observation from one perspective automatically guarantees the same observations from another perspective. A person shot with a 45 may look the same as one shot with a 9mm on the slab/table, but it seems reasonable that sometimes the stories of how they got there may be dramatically different (either way).
thermocafe
01-11-10, 23:48
For private citizens, the desire is to end the fight and get out of danger as quickly as possible. Delta Force training with Ninja stealth and a team of Seals is not the self-defense minded private citizen’s main concern. It’s getting out of danger quickly.
Consider this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQzkjXBYrqs) video, starting at ~1:27, of a Navy Seal replying to the occasional critique of the the 9mm. Obviously it works for them.
I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a Navy Seal. And therefore I most likely won’t have an assault rifle and 5 heavily armed team-mates around me in the event of an armed encounter at the local “Stop-n-Rob”.
So I submit that the importance of mindset to this whole debate cannot be understated or repeated enough. I’d go so far as to say that mindset may be a fundamental PART OF THE ANSWER.
If permitted by the staff of this site, I would also go so far as to suggest it may be extremely unfair to people new to this arena, for someone to assert that ANY given caliber is “the best”.
“Better”? Sure! But “best”? Not possible. The best caliber for stopping someone is a creosote-laden telephone pole to the chest at 40mph. Anyone want to volunteer to carry that concealed?
As many reputable ballisticians have pointed out, it “makes common sense” (Dr. Fackler) that a bigger-caliber weapon would cause more damage, including the consideration there is a squared-relationship between increasing caliber size and the sectional area of said caliber. Dr. Fackler was a huge proponent of the big-bore, along with many other “seen the elephant” instructors and professionals. Chuck Taylor’s first-person accounts of five shootings with a .45, one with a 9mm, and one with a .38 are very well known. According to his accounts, his adversaries “went down so fast [he] didn’t have time to fire a second shot.”
Now, thinking about the circumstances of those fights (I have no knowledge of specifics, other than all were “dead right there”), I’d consider it at least a possibility that some of those adversaries were surprised by his masterful response, thus contributing to their responses.
Therefore, how a confrontation goes down may be the most defining part of a consistent stop-the-fight answer.
If a street-thug comes upon a man in a suit on a date with his girl-friend, he assumes there is a worth-while risk-to-payoff ratio. He proceeds. When Mr. Niceguy unexpectedly draws, aims, and puts two .380 shots dead center-mass of thug in under half a second, all of a sudden our street thug finds himself totally thrown off guard and either runs or collapses.
On the other hand, if a complacent felon on-the-lam is suddenly cornered and surrounded by agents seeking to deny him his emancipation, then his anger, rage, and mental preparation will rise to the occasion. He is keyed up and is going to either fight free, or die trying. Thirty-three connecting 9mm shots will be relatively meaningless (it’s my understanding this is where the record number of shots-without-a-stop comes from: an actual incident in which officers connected with thirty-three 9mm’s without a stop).
So perhaps the caliber debate is not as easy as X vs Y, and can only be answered thru the consideration of mindset and preparation. As has been said again and again.
It makes me wonder if the reason behind the shrill hysterics in the age-old caliber debate is the age-old reason that Faith and Religion is so comforting: people don’t like the feeling of not knowing what’s gonna happen, as if no one is in control of anything.
Unfortunately, one cannot possibly accurately predict how a confrontation / gunfight will go down…I know if I could, I WOULDN’T BE THERE TO BEGIN WITH!
But in the caliber debate, people try to make predictions in an equation with WAY too many variables. There is nothing, short of not being there to begin with, that will GUARANTEE survival of any given encounter. The caliber debate rationally applied seems to affect only a part of the odds of our being victorious in an ugly encounter.
There are days and adversaries for whom a .177cal pellet would be sufficient – because of the psychological make up of the adversary and how the confrontation goes down. In this case, 9mm is supremely efficient, and would work magnificently.
Then some poor folk encounter those for whom a howitzer would not provide a one-shot-stop. So on that day, guess what? The .45 don’t accomplish what we hoped, and it therefore appears ineffective.
If a single individual experienced both the days above, without thinking about it, it is reasonable that the given individual would conclude the 9mm is “the best” and .45 is “not the best.”
But let’s not forget that in the overwhelming majority of confrontations: NO SHOTS AT ALL are ever fired. Brandishing the weapon alone is enough of a deterrent, even if it’s a non-firing fake. Interestingly, this has far more to do with the Psychology of Confrontation than a given caliber.
thermocafe
01-11-10, 23:48
In the end, it seems that caliber selection is all about maximizing the odds of surviving a given encounter for which no predictions can be made. If true, that would explain the charged and unanswerable nature of these debates, as one person's scenario differs dramatically from another’s.
But the maximizing of odds would be another legitimate argument in favor of the bigger calibers.
I admit it is the pot calling the kettle black. I was a major .45 snob when I became a cop. My department issued 9mm Glocks. I’m terrible with a Glock to begin with – I simply cannot efficiently wield one. But our department had several successful encounters with its 9mm 127gr Winchester Ranger. I was educated.
Now given my choice, I still carry the .45. I feel more comfort - as if I’ve maximized my chances on that issue. But I also now accept that the 9mm can be quite successful too, ESPECIALLY if the other factors are adequately dealt with.
I profusely apologize for the length of this reply, but I felt it was necessary to point out other apparently legitimate considerations, so that someone reading this fine thread doesn’t read it and say “oooh, all I need to do to survive an armed encounter is carry a handgun of “X” caliber”, and forget to concentrate on more important considerations like preparation, training and mindset.
To me, careful study of the Psychology of Confrontation seems the only way to a definitive – and non-contentious – understanding of the caliber debate.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
A fully expanded .380 bullet would have difficulty penetrating.
Did any of the inadequate penertations involve FMJ bullets or undeformed JHPs?
The inadequate penetrations involved both FMJ and JHP's. .380ACP seems to not only have difficulty with the depth it can travel into soft tissue, but also maintaining it's course... In other words, sometimes the 'length' of the wound channel may have, in and of itself, been suffuicient had the projectile not made a significant curve in it's path. ((The effect of a curved trajectory is, of course, to shorten the overall effective penetration).
This is a common problem with .380ACP and below. They frequently (there can be exceptions) lack both depth of penetration and sufficient momentum to maintain their path.
Shootings pan out differently depending on your line of work and the environment that you work in. In a civilian shooting they are often under 7yards and usually only involve a few shots. In that case capacity isn't a big deal and a small CCW will often be ideal.
Law enforcement shootings are usually close up as well, but sometimes they are dynamic and at longer ranges. As a cop, if we expect trouble we bring a long gun and bring our friends who also have long guns.
If we resort to our handgun, it's usually because we were taken off guard and/or ambushed. When a badguy ambushes a LEO, they either wait till you get close and then they dump rounds at you at point blank range, or they get some distance and open up on you with a long gun. Either way, if you are being fired on the badguy is likely on the move and using cover/concealment. This means that no matter how skilled you are, you are going to be missing.....a lot. Most of these shootings only have a 20-25% hit rate by the officer. Remember, everything changes when someone is shooting at you and everything that you thought you knew on the gun range goes out the window. Also, you'll want to try to hit the badguy behind cover by doing things like bouncing rounds off the pavement to hit his legs........this requires more ammo. Although......larger calibers do this better too......
Given only a 25% hit rate, this is approximately how many hits you'd get in given your platform:
-9mm 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.40S&W 12+1rds = 3.25 hits
-.45acp 8+1rds = 2.25 hits
-9mm 17+1rds = 4.5 hits
-.40S&W 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.45acp 10+1rds = 2.75 hits
......hopefully some of those hits are center of mass.
So yes, magazine capacity is important. Good magazine capacity means you have more ammo on your belt to work with, and you'll spend less time reloading. When you are reloading, you are out of the fight and vulnerable. If you crank up the magazine capacity on the .45acp to over 10rds you often run into ergonomic problems. The overall dimensions of the grip gets larger making it harder to shoot with gloves on and single-handed, and trigger reach becomes more of a stretch(especially with gloves). For me, given all my likely circumstances and scenarios, the .40 is as large as I care to go. The KEY of course on the .40S&W is to use the 180gr loads which are quite mild in recoil and feel very similar to hotter 9mm loadings. A lot of people get turned off to the .40S&W after they shoot the higher energy loads like 155gr at 1200fps which are quite snappy.
My last reason for not using .45acp is because I am only allowed to use classic Sigs on duty. .45acp Sigs are very problematic and have durability problems. If I had to change calibers, I would much rather move back to 9mm than go larger than .40S&W.
Well stated.
One thing, while three shots may be a national average, it is way below what we see here.
Heck, we even see a number of multi-shot suicides! (Talk about something you want to get right the first time!)
I've never sat down and figured up our average, but I doubt it would be below 10 shots when people are hit (NOT suicides, LOL).
(side note, recently worked a homicide with 16 contact shots to the head - I'm sure only one was necessary, but that seems to be the "local mentality")
Also, our officers are trained to "shoot COM until threat is stopped" so we do not have the "officer fired 2 shots and then re-holstered before he was killed" stories here.
(Could tell you a few about officers "digging trenches" toward the suspect though! LOL)
To me, careful study of the Psychology of Confrontation seems the only way to a definitive – and non-contentious – understanding of the caliber debate.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
I understand and appreciate what you are saying.
It is, in fact, true that many, if not most, confrontations are ended with the appearance of a weapon (there is no way to track how many unreported incidents of this occur, but it is reasonable to assume there are many in a nation of @ 80 million gun owners).
Unfortunately, there is so much variation in psychological response that it is totally unpredictable. I'm assuming you are LEO, and if so then you know we see more mentally ill people than anyone outside of the mental health profession - and these individuals act completely without pattern, rhyme, or reason.
My view of armed confrontation is simple and supported by actual shooting data (hey, I can't go out and shoot all of these people myself, so that's the best I, or anyone else, have).
Cause actual, physical damage assuming no beneficial reaction from your opponent.
If he stops when the gun appears, I'm finished.
If he stops when the first round is fired, I'm finished.
If he stops when the second round is fired, I'm finished.
If he stops when the third round is fired, I'm finished.
...
If he stops when the sixteenth round is fired, I reload, and I'm finished.
If he stops when the seventeenth round is fired, I'm finished.
etc., etc.
In a life-or-death struggle, never expect an easy end.
In all things in life it is far better, and safer, to be pleasantly surprised than devastatingly disappointed.
-Prepare for the worst.
-Prepare to do what you have to for yourself and/or others.
-Mentally prepare yourself to be hit, and know that it will almost certainly not be incapacitating.
-Get an ultra reliable plus gun you can always have with you (a gun you do not have, no matter how good, is worse than useless).
-Ensure that the ammunition has adequate, reasonable penetration (no good if the bullet doesn't get there).
-Practice, practice, practice - practice live fire, practice drawing from the way you actually carry it, dry fire, make up games, become comfortable with your gun.
-Practice switching hands, shooting weak hand. Statistically you're most likely to be hit in your gun hand, as your weapon will be the focus of your opponent's attention - and possibly bullets (indeed, this is a common injury we witness in our officer involved shootings).
-Shoot COM until the threat stops!
-Be prepared to reload and continue!
It’s really been bothering me this question of WHY…why does this caliber debate continue to rage on and on? Why does it cause such emotional reactions in so many?
I think the answer is that faith in ones chosen caliber is a religion.
Proving the existance of God is alot easier than proving, scientifically, the relative incapacitation of ones chosen handgun caliber.
I think the answer is that faith in ones chosen caliber is a religion.
Proving the existance of God is alot easier than proving, scientifically, the relative incapacitation of ones chosen handgun caliber.
LOL!
My chosen caliber is .88, they just don't seem to make many 16 shot low recoil compacts in it yet!
Alaskapopo
01-12-10, 02:53
Shootings pan out differently depending on your line of work and the environment that you work in. In a civilian shooting they are often under 7yards and usually only involve a few shots. In that case capacity isn't a big deal and a small CCW will often be ideal.
Law enforcement shootings are usually close up as well, but sometimes they are dynamic and at longer ranges. As a cop, if we expect trouble we bring a long gun and bring our friends who also have long guns.
If we resort to our handgun, it's usually because we were taken off guard and/or ambushed. When a badguy ambushes a LEO, they either wait till you get close and then they dump rounds at you at point blank range, or they get some distance and open up on you with a long gun. Either way, if you are being fired on the badguy is likely on the move and using cover/concealment. This means that no matter how skilled you are, you are going to be missing.....a lot. Most of these shootings only have a 20-25% hit rate by the officer. Remember, everything changes when someone is shooting at you and everything that you thought you knew on the gun range goes out the window. Also, you'll want to try to hit the badguy behind cover by doing things like bouncing rounds off the pavement to hit his legs........this requires more ammo. Although......larger calibers do this better too......
Given only a 25% hit rate, this is approximately how many hits you'd get in given your platform:
-9mm 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.40S&W 12+1rds = 3.25 hits
-.45acp 8+1rds = 2.25 hits
-9mm 17+1rds = 4.5 hits
-.40S&W 15+1rds = 4 hits
-.45acp 10+1rds = 2.75 hits
......hopefully some of those hits are center of mass.
So yes, magazine capacity is important. Good magazine capacity means you have more ammo on your belt to work with, and you'll spend less time reloading. When you are reloading, you are out of the fight and vulnerable. If you crank up the magazine capacity on the .45acp to over 10rds you often run into ergonomic problems. The overall dimensions of the grip gets larger making it harder to shoot with gloves on and single-handed, and trigger reach becomes more of a stretch(especially with gloves). For me, given all my likely circumstances and scenarios, the .40 is as large as I care to go. The KEY of course on the .40S&W is to use the 180gr loads which are quite mild in recoil and feel very similar to hotter 9mm loadings. A lot of people get turned off to the .40S&W after they shoot the higher energy loads like 155gr at 1200fps which are quite snappy.
My last reason for not using .45acp is because I am only allowed to use classic Sigs on duty. .45acp Sigs are very problematic and have durability problems. If I had to change calibers, I would much rather move back to 9mm than go larger than .40S&W.
I think training so you hit what you are aiming at is more important than capacity. The hit ratio in Alaska is 80% according to some studies done by Ted Smith and APD and former Alaska State Trooper Jeff Hall who is not a NRA leo trainer.
LAPD SWAT has a hit ratio of 80% as well. Your much better off working on getting good with your weapon vs simply having more bullets. I am not against having more bullets. But to accept a 25% hit ratio as acceptable is stupid in my opinion.
Pat
I think training so you hit what you are aiming at is more important than capacity. The hit ratio in Alaska is 80% according to some studies done by Ted Smith and APD and former Alaska State Trooper Jeff Hall who is not a NRA leo trainer.
LAPD SWAT has a hit ratio of 80% as well. Your much better off working on getting good with your weapon vs simply having more bullets. I am not against having more bullets. But to accept a 25% hit ratio as acceptable is stupid in my opinion.
Pat
This was the LEO ambush hit ratio for for LAPD and LASD which ranged from 20-25%(almost entirely the use of the sidearm). I'll have to see if I can find an online source for it in case anyone wants to review it. If you throw in SWAT and OIS where the officers are able to obtain a POA(and long guns), then the hit ratio goes up to around 75-80%. SWAT operations are almost entirely offensive based and have superior POA over the badguy at close ranges. During a SWAT engagement, the officers also primarily use long guns which greatly tighten up the hit ratio.......except for the guys with shields and rams. Combine that with unison presentation of multiple officers which divides an opponent's attention and it takes a major f***-up to make things go south. I'm trying to remember which city SWAT it was for, but during a raid a perp hit in a closet and an officer carelessly walked in front the the closet. The perp saw the shadow of his feet and ambushed two SWAT officers. The return fire of the officers responding to the ambush only had a hit ratio of 40%(long guns). It all depends on if the officer is caught flat footed and reacting to gun fire......bad guy has POA and officer has POD. A similar hit ratio occurs in military engagements. I think that SWAT's ability to maintain an offensive POA throughout all their operations is a big reason why many of their officers go with lower capacity .45acp single stacks.
I agree though that 25% is an unacceptable figure to train for and all our officers should be accounting for each shot. I do think it is wise to accept the possibility of worst case scenario and be prepared to deal with it should it occur......which would be only a 20-25% hit ratio with your sidearm.
Burt Gummer
01-12-10, 09:26
25% hit ratio is a software issue, not a hardware issue. Agencies documented a substantial increase in hit ratio in OIS after implementing Reality Based Training/Force-on-Force.
25% hit ratio is a software issue, not a hardware issue. Agencies documented a substantial increase in hit ratio in OIS after implementing Reality Based Training/Force-on-Force.
Reality based training scenarios primarily focus on improving the ability of the officer to avoid positions of disadvantage, and maintain positions of advantage. When a POA is maitained, it improves the focus of the officer and increases hit ratios.
When a trained officer is in a POD, and the badguy has his POA in an ambush.....the 20-25% hit ratio returns, even with highly trained personel. This is the nature of the beast, and until the officer can regain a position of equal footing or POA through movement and suppression fire. You simply don't have the time aim your shots when you have shitty cover/concealment and you are taking as much lead as you are dishing out.
Burt Gummer
01-12-10, 16:20
Reality based training scenarios primarily focus on improving the ability of the officer to avoid positions of disadvantage, and maintain positions of advantage. When a POA is maitained, it improves the focus of the officer and increases hit ratios.
When a trained officer is in a POD, and the badguy has his POA in an ambush.....the 20-25% hit ratio returns, even with highly trained personel. This is the nature of the beast, and until the officer can regain a position of equal footing or POA through movement and suppression fire. You simply don't have the time aim your shots when you have shitty cover/concealment and you are taking as much lead as you are dishing out.
You're incorrect.
Alaskapopo
01-12-10, 21:46
You're incorrect.
Can you back that up. I am curious as to why you say he is incorrect.
Pat
In my experience Marcus is correct.
Burt Gummer
01-13-10, 12:33
Look into Washington County S.O. (Portland, OR area) case study, for one.
Disclosure: I have am a Armiger RBT Instructor certified by Ken Murray (Training at the Speed of Life).
Look into Washington County S.O. (Portland, OR area) case study, for one.
can you give a little more info...? this doesn't tell a guy where to look or WTF he's looking for.
Glock17JHP
01-13-10, 13:21
While I am sure there are measurable terminal benefits to some .40 loads, I remain confident that choosing a 9mm round listed by DocGKR provides me with an acceptable level of performance while maximizing shootability and capacity.
This about sums up my opinion on .45 ACP vs .40 S&W vs 9mm...
I prefer the 9mm, but only personally like about 3 loads... really 2...
Look into Washington County S.O. (Portland, OR area) case study, for one.
Disclosure: I have am a Armiger RBT Instructor certified by Ken Murray (Training at the Speed of Life).
Sounds great, and I'm sure you've got some good experience under your belt.
I worked three years in the firearms division at the Federal Law Enforcment Training Center in Glynco, GA helping to train hundreds of officers working for DOI, ICE, BP, CBP, DOD, and ATF. We covered everything from use of force scenarios with paid role players, urban and rural house raids, active shooter scenarios, IED threat assaults, and of course circa vehicle engagements. Now days I assist the southeast region of the DOI with their firearms division and use of force training. I only "assist" as I still have a beat to patrol, an armory to keep up on, and training fellow officers in my district.
Throwing credentials around gets a little boring.......
Having discussions about combat philosophies is what I think everyone here wants to read about.
This about sums up my opinion on .45 ACP vs .40 S&W vs 9mm...
I prefer the 9mm, but only personally like about 3 loads... really 2...
Yep, after shooting almost 800rds of .40S&W duty ammo yesterday, I can honestly say shooting 9mm isn't has hard on the body. :cool:
Glock17JHP
01-13-10, 19:51
Let me be honest here...
I am a civilian... I try to learn and be as informed as possible about things that help me make good choices on firearms and ammo. I have many other interests, some are other sorts of weapons and self defense, but I will focus on firearms and ammo here for obvious reasons.
As a civilian, I feel well armed with a Glock 19 loaded with Winchester Ranger (RA9T). I shoot this weapon better than any of the roughly 40 handguns I have owned over the past 30 1/2 years. The load is one of only three that I was willing to choose from, and it is the most accurate with the combination of pistol and me. I think the penetration and expansion characteristics are just about right for my expected scenarios.
Ditto for my shotgun, which I prefer as a civilian in the scenarios I would expect to encounter. I have owned about 20 long guns in this 30+ year timeframe, about 1/2 were rifles, including AR-15's. My current long gun of choice is a Winchester Defender 8-shot 12 gauge pump shotgun w/synthetic stock. The load I prefer is Winchester Ranger 'Low Recoil' 9-pellet 00 Buck (RA1200). This load patterns at about 4 inches at 30 feet. Penetration is just about what I feel is ideal, again... this is for my expected scenarios. I keep a few Brenneke Tactical Home Defense 1 oz. 'Low Recoil' slugs handy, but to be honest... I don't really expect I will really ever likely need them. I find these 2 loads pleasent to shoot as far as recoil, and I like the performance of both.
I know I would choose other firearms and loads if I were 'on duty' as an LE person... however, I am not. So my needs may be (are) different than others here.
I want to have enough gun to do well, but not so much (as one guy said) that it would be detrimental and get me killed. I also chose the Glock 19 with my family in mind... some of them may need to shoot to defend with that pistol, also, so I want it to be user-friendly for them as well. We shoot as a family, I think that is important!!!
Last point to remember...
I used to view my handgun as my primary home defense weapon... I don't now. A few years ago I was reminded by a friend that a handgun is a poor choice if you have a long gun. Your handgun should maybe be what you use until you can make it to your rifle or shotgun!!! We all debate a lot about handguns and loads, maybe we should discuss long guns more often???
I know handguns are what LE have handy when the SHTF, so I am sure we do need to still talk a lot about handguns, actually... the previous paragraph was more civilian-related...
OK, who's next???
Glock17JHP,
Your logic is sound. :) I hope you don't think I was somehow putting down the 9mm or something. Just trying to say that 800rds of 155gr and 180gr .40 in one day kicked my ass. I carry 9mm off duty and it is often tempting to just standardize on 9mm for all my needs provided that I purchase quality bonded loads for duty use. My adoption of the .40 was primarily its penetration ability with pretty much any type of JHP on the market. When I order ammo for the govt we put a handful of vendors on a list and the the lowest bidder is selected. Often.......the lowest price is not bonded ammo meaning that the performance of the 9mm may not be ideal against barriers such as windshields.
SGT D USMC
01-14-10, 01:51
shot placement, the other part of the equation, is not as controlable as we often visualize. In vietnam I rarely ever got more than just a flash of the enemy. and even more rarely did I actually get a sure enough center of mass sight picture even if ever so briefly. But the reality of a center of mass shot is that it still is a toss up as to what organs will actualy be hit. And I laugh at people who say they will depend on mulitible hits or head shots to make up for power. I Have never been involved in a urban or inside of a building shooting which might give you a clearer shot.
I believe in having a bullet with as good of terminial balistics as possible because you cannot count on making mulitible hits.
shot placement, the other part of the equation, is not as controlable as we often visualize. In vietnam I rarely ever got more than just a flash of the enemy. and even more rarely did I actually get a sure enough center of mass sight picture even if ever so briefly. But the reality of a center of mass shot is that it still is a toss up as to what organs will actualy be hit. And I laugh at people who say they will depend on mulitible hits or head shots to make up for power. I Have never been involved in a urban or inside of a building shooting which might give you a clearer shot.
I believe in having a bullet with as good of terminial balistics as possible because you cannot count on making mulitible hits.
Thanks for the insight. I agree that there are only brief moments to get a good shot off, and sometimes the only hits you get are less than ideal. I think this is kind of the arguement from page 1 of this thread.......are FMJ just as good as JHPs? From that perspective I would say that JHPs are superior in that they to have a measurable terminal effects improvement and they really offer no disadvantages.
Glock17JHP
01-14-10, 13:32
Glock17JHP,
Your logic is sound. :) I hope you don't think I was somehow putting down the 9mm or something. Just trying to say that 800rds of 155gr and 180gr .40 in one day kicked my ass. I carry 9mm off duty and it is often tempting to just standardize on 9mm for all my needs provided that I purchase quality bonded loads for duty use. My adoption of the .40 was primarily its penetration ability with pretty much any type of JHP on the market. When I order ammo for the govt we put a handful of vendors on a list and the the lowest bidder is selected. Often.......the lowest price is not bonded ammo meaning that the performance of the 9mm may not be ideal against barriers such as windshields.
Marcus,
No offense was taken at all... I was just trying to put my thoughts out there as to my choices, based on a civilian scenario.
If I were 'on duty' LE, I would likely consider a .40 S&W... but I would want to shoot a few pistols in that caliber. I have only fired a Glock 22 in that caliber, but there seem to be concerns with that particular model. I have not fired the S&W 4000 series pistols, but they might be one I would try.
If I were 'on duty' LE, I would also want an AR-15 clone of some sort, either in 5.56 mm or 6.8 SPC. Again, I would want to compare a few at least. For a shotgun, I might want the Benelli (M4?), and I might favor the Federal Tactical 'FlightControl' LE132 00. I still might not want to bother with slugs, unless I were convinced otherwise.
I am teachable, and have a 'slightly' open mind... pretty good when you hit your 50's, right?
With regard to the .40, you made a wise decision to stay away from the Glocks. Not a very durable platform in .40/.357sig. The DHS bought thousands of Sig P229s during the 2004 contract. After the purchase, they decided that they wanted railed P229s, so they started just giving the non-railed models to other Federal agencies. We snagged a bunch for the southeastern region of the DOI and they have honestly been the best performing Sigs in our inventory.......even better than our P228s and P226s in 9mm. It seems that level of durabilty has carried over into later years. I purchased a P229 in 2008 with a rail and have put about 30k rounds through it in two years. Right now I'm using it in the 2k round pistol challenge and have 2350 rounds through it with no problems. I want to break the 3k mark before I clean it and oil it. So, from experience I can say the P229 is one hell of a .40.
Other .40s which have good reputations are the HK USP line(P2000 too), S&W M&P, and of course the S&W 4006.
As far as semiauto shotguns go, they're great as long as you don't have to clear malfuctions and you use the right ammo. Malfunction clearing takes about 3x as many steps as a regular 870, and you need to keep them maintained versus a 870 which rarely needs a cleaning. Semiauto shotguns really are a finicky system which aren't the best for cops in my opinion. It takes a significant amount of time and attention to keep them clean and lubed properly to keep them working well. That being said, if you can keep them running right they do offer a significant combat advantage in my opinion.
No. Use water.
------------------
I am unclear why there is so much interest regarding penetrating steel with handgun projectiles.
Imagine you are a patrol officer conducting a traffic stop. As you approach the vehicle and move next to the front passenger door, you suddenly notice the driver bringing a pistol up to engage you. Obviously, you are going to move off the line of fire, and will probably begin shooting back at the threat you can directly see engaging you. Now, answer this--are you more likely going to be shooting through the vehicle door/body or the vehicle windows at that point?
http://intrencik.com/357sig.htm
Someone already conducted this test better than I could have. Their findings mirrored what I discovered shooting the car-door. 357 SIG was king on sheet metal and the .45 was very near the bottom of the heap.
Dear Sirs,
...I've just started some tests with gel blocks manufactured with animal powder...it's not the powder used in the well known ordnance gelatin....but it's cheaper and I adjusted the powder percentage and blocks temperature in order to have the same retardation properties of the former....I calibrated it with an air pistol....
...as I've just written I performed only some tests to satisfy my own interest in the matter because time problems...but I hope to have the time in the future to perform other tests...
...so I hit some previously calibrated blocks with two 9mm FMJ 124 grs bullets at about 1150 fps from czech ammunition factory S&B and a 9mm 125 grs cast HP bullet at about 1200 fps....the latter was a 158 LRN .358" bullet that I modified with the help of a lathe to shorten and to bevel it and using a center drill to obtain the hollow cavity in the nose...after that I handload the ammunition using a balistite shotgun powder with which I have a long handloading experience and known to develop mild max pressures when used for high performances pistol ammunition(..a friend tested some handloads with a pressure gun..)...
...I used my own G17...
...the cast HP expanded and, unfortunately, fragmented (four large fragments found in the same path of the bullet core at penetration distance from 30 to 35 cm...so no additional wound tracks)...the recovered bullet had a mass of about 76 grs and an average diameter of about .374".... its total penetration was about 39.5cm....not too far from the 41 cm(..more or less..) of the calculated penetration in 10% BG at 4 C deg...
...this gel is very elastic but the "hole" left in the gel blocks is much larger for the cast HP bullet...until the penetration distance is about 6"...after that I guess the expanded nose folded back and start to break....and the "hole" left shrinks to a size not very different to that of the 9mm RN depicted...
...I hope it could be interesting...
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8677/9mmfmj.jpg
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7493/9mmcasthp.jpg
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/6843/9mmfmjcracks.jpg
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7472/9mmcasthpcracks.jpg
from the pics it's possible to take a look at the different size of the crushed track (...and the max temporary cavitation from the cracks...)...
All the best
Andrea
P.S.: the ruler scales are millimeters and centimeters.
MK108, Very interesting test.
Other tests I have seen indicate that 9MM FMJ becomes unstable at some point along its travel
From looking at the permanent cavity in the your test material, the full metal jacket bullet that you fired seemed to penetrate without yaw.
Do you think that the test material you used would be capable of detecting bullet yaw?
MK108, Very interesting test.
Other tests I have seen indicate that 9MM FMJ becomes unstable at some point along its travel
From looking at the permanent cavity in the your test material, the full metal jacket bullet that you fired seemed to penetrate without yaw.
Do you think that the test material you used would be capable of detecting bullet yaw?
I guess that the behaviour of the bullet is correct until the force acting on it is similar to the one caused by the soft tissues....as written by Mr. McPherson...
...while it's true that the 9mm RN yaw can be noticeable it's true too that other well known researchers, as Prof. Peters, Dr. Roberts or Dr. DiMaio, found that normally in the first 6" of penetration the yaw of RN bullets is very small...
Dr. Roberts's wound profiles about WW2 german ammunition depicted the same behaviour....a very small yaw until about 20cm penetration distance...
...it seems that the 9mm FMJRN bullet penetrates with little yaw for the first 6" of soft tissues penetration even in the wound profile by Dr. Fackler(..I took the pic from the website "firearmstactical.com" by Mr. Shawn Dodson..):
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/9mm%20US%20M882.jpg
...for example if you calculated the Cd of the 9mm bullets in the gel blocks used by Dr. DiMaio, whose lenght was about 15 cm long, you will find that the Cd is very similar to the Cd of the 9mm bullet at zero yaw angle...
...maybe some 9mm bullets yaw earlier...because their design(..when not destabilized before the soft target..)...but I guess that the behaviour of the two 9mm FMJ bullets I used can be correct....I would like to test such later instability in the future...at the time I had only a 15 cm gel block (..the mold was an empty tetrapack milk container...)...
All the best and an happy week end to every one!
Andrea
maybe some 9mm bullets yaw earlier...because their design(..when not destabilized before the soft target..)...but I guess that the behaviour of the two 9mm FMJ bullets I used can be correct.
I was wondering how the bullet shape (pointed conical) Prof. Peters recommended as the ideal bullet in his book, would behave in your test. He calculated that the conical bullet behaved almost in the same manner as a well designed semiwadcutter bullet in 15cm of ballistic gelatin. One would think that pointed conical bullet would behave more like a round nose FMJ in ballistic gelatin. Perhaps the conical bullet has some early yaw that might show up in a test such as yours.
Andrea, you do good work with your lathe. Maybe you could re create Prof. Peters conical bullet nose shape and fire it in your next test.
Where I can find Prof. Peters book?
The book is:
'Defensive Handgun Effectiveness' :
'A Systematic Approach to the Design, Evaluation and Selection of Ammunition for the Defensive Handgun'
by Carroll E. Peters
There is one copy over at Amazon right now.
http://www.amazon.com/Defensive-Handgun-Effectiveness-Systematic-Evaluation/dp/B002KHALHS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263708145&sr=1-1
So, err, not to be out of line here, as I truly have enjoyed this thread and welcome new data on all sorts of topics bit...*glances at high-end 1911 sitting in holster*...you guys sure seem to put the .45 ACP right out...starting to make me self conscious of my gun/ammo choice. :laugh:
In all seriousness, I find that the recoil in my gun is quite manageable with .45 ACP and I can shoot plenty fast with it for self defense.
Is the .45 ACP that bad of a round? :confused:
Like the other common service pistol calibers, .45 ACP seems to work fine--I've carried a .45 ACP 1911 for the past 25 years, although beginning this year, I am switching to an M&P45. Keep in mind that I am equally happy carrying a 9mm Glock or M&P40.
Like the other common service pistol calibers, .45 ACP seems to work fine--I've carried a .45 ACP 1911 for the past 25 years, although beginning this year, I am switching to an M&P45. Keep in mind that I am equally happy carrying a 9mm Glock or M&P40.
Very cool, Doc, and thanks for the info. I've been looking at getting an M&P45 with a thumb safety myself, they seem very nice. I tried the Hk45, but while it was great ergonomically, I disliked the decocker and the overall cost of parts and accessories.
Glock17JHP
01-07-11, 13:20
So, err, not to be out of line here, as I truly have enjoyed this thread and welcome new data on all sorts of topics bit...*glances at high-end 1911 sitting in holster*...you guys sure seem to put the .45 ACP right out...starting to make me self conscious of my gun/ammo choice. :laugh:
In all seriousness, I find that the recoil in my gun is quite manageable with .45 ACP and I can shoot plenty fast with it for self defense.
Is the .45 ACP that bad of a round? :confused:
No... the 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP are all good with the right ammo, and within the limitations inherent in a handgun caiber. If you are comfortable with a .45 ACP, and you have it loaded for serious work with good SD ammo... you are doing fine!!!
To save your life in an SD shooting, you want to incapacitate your opponent as quickly as possible. Death is, in and of itself unimportant when trying to stop your opponent from fatally wounding YOU! It does no good to score a fatal hit that will eventually kill your opponent 5 minutes after he beheaded you with a machete...
Sweet mother of Jesus I wish there was a way to implant that in the mushy little brains of 95% of the people who post in any thread about bullet performance...
Sweet mother of Jesus I wish there was a way to implant that in the mushy little brains of 95% of the people who post in any thread about bullet performance...
I think that that may become my new sig in a few places. :D
No... the 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP are all good with the right ammo, and within the limitations inherent in a handgun caiber. If you are comfortable with a .45 ACP, and you have it loaded for serious work with good SD ammo... you are doing fine!!!
I rotate between either Corbon DPX and Winchester Ranger +P. I've studied most of Doc's gospel pretty closely. :)
Beat Trash
01-07-11, 17:22
I just read all 8 pages of this topic. Interesting.
Looking4U, Welcome...
I'm not Dr. Roberts, so I won't speak for him. While he is a wealth of knowledge, he has in the past tried to simplify the concept. Unfortunately some insist on complicating things anyway.
In the last 18 years + of inter-city Law Enforcement, I have seen people shot with just about every caliber of gun a person can steal. I've seen .25acp kill, I've seen 45acp fail.
I've come to the conclusion that shot placement is paramount. The use of good tactics and shot placement in my opinion is of more importance in allowing me to come home alive tonight than the type of round in my gun.
I think too many worry too much on the type of ammunition they put in their gun.
I've known too many over the years who would buy the latest defensive ammunition available. But they would never shoot any of it in their guns. Too expensive! I'd rather have someone covering me with a 9mm loaded with FMJ who trains often enough to put those rounds where the need to go than someone with the latest round who only shoots at beer cans a few times a year (on sunny days, of course).
Pick a caliber that you feel ok with. Use a reliable gun that you can shoot effectively. Get some competent training. Practice what you learned while training. Pick a round that meets your needs. Buy enough of it to test it in your gun. Then move on.
Originally Posted by Lookin4U
To save your life in an SD shooting, you want to incapacitate your opponent as quickly as possible. Death is, in and of itself unimportant when trying to stop your opponent from fatally wounding YOU! It does no good to score a fatal hit that will eventually kill your opponent 5 minutes after he beheaded you with a machete...
Sweet mother of Jesus I wish there was a way to implant that in the mushy little brains of 95% of the people who post in any thread about bullet performance...
Once people form conclusions on this subject, it is very hard to change their minds. One hundred years of Thompson-LaGarde and gun magazines has its effects.
I'd rather have someone covering me with a 9mm loaded with FMJ who trains often enough to put those rounds where the need to go than someone with the latest round who only shoots at beer cans a few times a year (on sunny days, of course).
That statement could have a few people clutching their chests on some forums.:eek:
I've read many dozens of OIS's over the years. Fortunately, I've never had to be part of one. The only conclusion I have been able to draw from those reports is that handguns in general suck. Regardless of what caliber and pistol you choose to carry, practice it enough that you are proficient under a wide range of conditions including with either hand and single hand. Do what you have to do to avoid being shot, move a lot, and make your shots count. You're only as strong as your weakest link, and for most of us that would be shooting with our off-hand. For me, I've mostly shoot 9mm as it makes me a better gun fighter due to its low training costs, reliability, ease of control, and higher magazine capacity.
Now, if the option is there I will almost always grab a 12 gauge.....especially at night or other environments that force the close ranged fight. Once again, you see enough OISs and by far close ranged buckshot seems to do quite a good job. Martin Fackler also commented on this trend in his papers. Obviously this would not be the best option for longer ranged engagements, but you prepare for your environment and seize the combat advantage.
Once people form conclusions on this subject, it is very hard to change their minds. One hundred years of Thompson-LaGarde and gun magazines has its effects.
It swings the other way, too, though, and you have die-hards who apparently have this idea that because the military uses ball ammunition (based on treaty requirements), that this means ball ammunition is the most effective and no other design could possibly do better or be more reliable... :bad:
"I'd rather have someone covering me with a 9mm loaded with FMJ who trains often enough to put those rounds where the need to go than someone with the latest round who only shoots at beer cans a few times a year (on sunny days, of course).
Pick a caliber that you feel ok with. Use a reliable gun that you can shoot effectively. Get some competent training. Practice what you learned while training. Pick a round that meets your needs. Buy enough of it to test it in your gun. Then move on."
ABSOLUTELY CONCUR!!!
ABSOLUTELY CONCUR!!!
Can't argue with that. I think way too many people spend way too much time arguing about/thinking about their ammo and gun and far too little time bothering to become proficient shooters, much less spend any time mentally preparing themselves for what comes during and after a gunfight. Oh well.
Guys like Jim Cirillo did a lot of good work with model 10s loaded with RNL.
Not that they wouldn't have prefered more capable guns and bullets, but I'd rather Jim and his model 10 have my back than most average guys with any gun they would care to choose.
... and just so we have an idea that nothing handheld is a death ray, a bit from an article in Police magazine, Oct 2010 edition;
Backing from the front end of a parked car, the suspect rounded a windshield and came within full view of Olszynski. Glancing over, the suspect became aware of Olszynski and turned to face him. Only 15 feet separated the two men.
The man swung his gun in Olszynski's direction.
Olszynski opened fire with the pump-action shotgun, discharging multiple Federal 00 buck shells, each of which contained nine pellets.
The deputy had expected such firepower would have dropped the man where he stood. But the man didn't flinch, and despite their proximity, an improbable and scary thought occurred to Olszynski: Am I missing him?
With each blast, Olszynski rechambered and squeezed off another. With the fourth shot he saw a red plume come off the suspect's body and realized that his rounds had found their target. Yet the man still advanced, half-circling toward him. By the time Olszynski's Remington ran dry, the suspect had closed the gap between them to about seven feet.
Dropping the shotgun, Olszynski transitioned to his sidearm. As he did, the man dropped to his knees before him.
"I give up."
With those words, Kirk Knight fell to the ground and rolled onto his back. Olszynski moved his gun away and told him not to move. Maintaining his sidearm on him, Olszynski watched as Lewellyn flipped the man over and handcuffed him. After conducting a quick but thorough search of Knight for any additional weapons, Lewellyn tried to radio for medics.
But radio traffic of responding units was tying up the radio, delaying the request for about a minute. Seeing some movement by a minivan a few rows away and near where the suspect had been trying to run, Olszynski walked over to investigate. On the ground huddled a mom, dad, and their child, crying.
Radio traffic or not, Knight's fate had been sealed by 36 shotgun pellets. He was transported to the hospital where he was subsequently pronounced dead.
Great read tpd223. It just goes to show that unless you directly damage the central nervous system, you have to wait for bleedout and/or organ failure regardless of how much damage you inflict on a person.
fivefivesix
01-08-11, 09:33
[QUOTE=DeltaKilo;870155]Can't argue with that. I think way too many people spend way too much time arguing about/thinking about their ammo and gun and far too little time bothering to become proficient shooters, much less spend any time mentally preparing themselves for what comes during and after a gunfight. Oh well.
How can one prepare for what comes after a gun fight. i dont know what it is like to take another humans life. i know how i felt when i killed my first animal at a young age and that alone gave me respect for all things living.
[QUOTE=DeltaKilo;870155]Can't argue with that. I think way too many people spend way too much time arguing about/thinking about their ammo and gun and far too little time bothering to become proficient shooters, much less spend any time mentally preparing themselves for what comes during and after a gunfight. Oh well.
How can one prepare for what comes after a gun fight. i dont know what it is like to take another humans life. i know how i felt when i killed my first animal at a young age and that alone gave me respect for all things living.
One prepares only by considering the very real possibilities of what one might face, and determining whether or not they're mentally prepared to do what needs to be done and accept the aftermath. One can be prepared to deal with the consequences, even if one isn't sure what the consequences are.
Beat Trash
01-08-11, 12:28
How can one prepare for what comes after a gun fight. i dont know what it is like to take another humans life.
Lt. Col. David Grossman wrote a book titled "On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society". While I do not agree with everything in his book, the majority of it is a good read. It explains why your brain and body reacts the way it does after you are involved in a critical incident. So when you may experience some of these things you will know that you're not going nuts.
There is another series titled "The Bullet Proof Mind". It's worth looking into also.
One must also remind themselves that they did not cause this death. The outcome was determined by the actions of the suspect.
This has been one of the best threads I have read.Great input from DocGKR as always and Lookin4U,as well as everyone else who contributed.
Glock17JHP,your choices are exactly the same as mine and for the very same reasons,and being so I suspect our lifestyles are very similar. I had a long time in LE but my needs are different now,so I've adapted. Slow process ,tho.;)
Guys like Jim Cirillo did a lot of good work with model 10s loaded with RNL.
Not that they wouldn't have prefered more capable guns and bullets, but I'd rather Jim and his model 10 have my back than most average guys with any gun they would care to choose.
Almost the same combination I started out with but mine was a Model 15. My only disappointment with the R-P 158 gr RNL was that it had trouble penetrating the doors of junked cars I tried it on. That wasn't surprising for a soft lead bullet at standard velocities. When my department switched over to WW 158 gr SWC +P, I was satisfied with my sidearm as were most of the other guys I worked with. That was until the BLA started shooting at cops with Browning High Powers. Then the cry went out to get us semi auto 9mm's. No one was talking about .45's. We wanted the big magazines the bad guys had.
fivefivesix
01-08-11, 20:40
Lt. Col. David Grossman wrote a book titled "On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society". While I do not agree with everything in his book, the majority of it is a good read. It explains why your brain and body reacts the way it does after you are involved in a critical incident. So when you may experience some of these things you will know that you're not going nuts.
There is another series titled "The Bullet Proof Mind". It's worth looking into also.
One must also remind themselves that they did not cause this death. The outcome was determined by the actions of the suspect.
i think the last paragraph sums it up, it would be the criminal that caused himself to lose his life, because if it does come down to it and he intends to do me or my loved ones harm he will get a double tap to chest. you guys bring up great things to ponder.
My confusion arises from the fact that you agree that an FMJ .40 wound looks like that made from a GDHP .40. Since there is no magical shock-wave damaging multiple organs (Having watched multiple laproscopic surgeries, I agree, organs are very spaced out), the bullet only destroys what is in it's path, and if the paths look to be of the same size, what is gained from the JHP other than lower penetration? They both have been stated to make the same-size hole according to people who have seen the two holes made by the various rounds. .40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho. Sorry, feeling a bit lost here. :confused:
Human tissue is elastic, an varies greatly in consistency, and density. Trying to visually estimate hole size in a bloody wound is quite difficult. The fact is that an expanded JHP with jagged edges will tend to cut more arteries, veins, and capillaries than a smooth FMJ which will often push them aside as it passes. An expanded JHP will also do more damage to inelastic tissue than an FMJ due to the larger temporary cavity.
Given identical shot placement and assuming adequate penetration an expanded JHP will cause more rapid incapacitation than an FMJ.
Edged weapons cut much more efficiently than bullets leading to rapid blood loss.
BuckskinJoe
01-09-11, 08:12
I've read many dozens of OIS's over the years. Fortunately, I've never had to be part of one. The only conclusion I have been able to draw from those reports is that handguns in general suck. Regardless of what caliber and pistol you choose to carry, practice it enough that you are proficient under a wide range of conditions including with either hand and single hand. Do what you have to do to avoid being shot, move a lot, and make your shots count. You're only as strong as your weakest link, and for most of us that would be shooting with our off-hand. For me, I've mostly shoot 9mm as it makes me a better gun fighter due to its low training costs, reliability, ease of control, and higher magazine capacity.
Now, if the option is there I will almost always grab a 12 gauge.....especially at night or other environments that force the close ranged fight. Once again, you see enough OISs and by far close ranged buckshot seems to do quite a good job. Martin Fackler also commented on this trend in his papers. Obviously this would not be the best option for longer ranged engagements, but you prepare for your environment and seize the combat advantage.
Most excellent! Very perceptive and well stated.
Given identical shot placement and assuming adequate penetration an expanded JHP will cause more rapid incapacitation than an FMJ.
Bleedout time, from either type of bullet, may give an attacker more than enough time to kill you. The $64,000 question is: How much more rapid is the incapacitation of a JHP vs. a FMJ?
There are perceptions and antecdotes on handgun incapacitation but the actual, measureable difference between JHP and FMJ incapacitation has not yet been scientifically determined.
Bleedout time, from either type of bullet, may give an attacker more than enough time to kill you. The $64,000 question is: How much more rapid is the incapacitation of a JHP vs. a FMJ?
There are perceptions and antecdotes on handgun incapacitation but the actual, measureable difference between JHP and FMJ incapacitation has not yet been scientifically determined.
Likely the difference in bleedout time between JHP and FMJ is far less significant than the bleedout time gap between shooting the guy once and shooting the guy until he stops or you run out of ammunition...
Bleedout time, from either type of bullet, may give an attacker more than enough time to kill you. The $64,000 question is: How much more rapid is the incapacitation of a JHP vs. a FMJ?
There are perceptions and antecdotes on handgun incapacitation but the actual, measureable difference between JHP and FMJ incapacitation has not yet been scientifically determined.
There's bleed out, and central nervous system damage. I once saw a teenage girl shot through the forehead by a 9mm FMJ and she was able to tell us that her boyfriend had done it. The bullet neatly went in between the two hemispheres of her brain causing minimal damage. An expanded JHP would have caused more damage to the tissue surrounding the wound path. Also, just because you get a nice COM hit on someone doesn't mean you'll hit anything good. An expanded JHP once again will almost double the size of the wound channel increasing the possibility of damaging the aorta or the spinal cord. Probably the one advantage I can think of to using FMJ is that the bullet won't slow down very much and might retain enough momentum to punch through the spine.
The shape of a projectile also plays an important role in wounding. A rounded point will push tissue aside instead of ripping/tearing/crushing it. If you've ever taken a target arrow and shot an animal with it, the tissue just stretches around the arrow. A wadcutter, or expanded hollow point has worse fluiddynamics and will crush tissue in its path versus pushing it aside. So the benefits of a JHP are larger hole, and a more effective wounding mechanism. Pre-World War I the British experimented with the dumb-dumb and manstopper handgun rounds during their African campaigns. The manstopper .455 Eley bullet was an early hollow point that demonstrated clear improvement over the standard round nosed bullet. Of course, the innovation stopped with international treaties and early magazine fed auto pistols that needed round nosed bullets for reliable feeding.
There's bleed out, and central nervous system damage. I once saw a teenage girl shot through the forehead by a 9mm FMJ and she was able to tell us that her boyfriend had done it. The bullet neatly went in between the two hemispheres of her brain causing minimal damage. An expanded JHP would have caused more damage to the tissue surrounding the wound path. Also, just because you get a nice COM hit on someone doesn't mean you'll hit anything good. An expanded JHP once again will almost double the size of the wound channel increasing the possibility of damaging the aorta or the spinal cord. Probably the one advantage I can think of to using FMJ is that the bullet won't slow down very much and might retain enough momentum to punch through the spine.
The shape of a projectile also plays an important role in wounding. A rounded point will push tissue aside instead of ripping/tearing/crushing it. If you've ever taken a target arrow and shot an animal with it, the tissue just stretches around the arrow. A wadcutter, or expanded hollow point has worse fluiddynamics and will crush tissue in its path versus pushing it aside. So the benefits of a JHP are larger hole, and a more effective wounding mechanism. Pre-World War I the British experimented with the dumb-dumb and manstopper handgun rounds during their African campaigns. The manstopper .455 Eley bullet was an early hollow point that demonstrated clear improvement over the standard round nosed bullet. Of course, the innovation stopped with international treaties and early magazine fed auto pistols that needed round nosed bullets for reliable feeding.
There has been an ongoing and very interesting discussion on another forum on the effectiveness of Wadcutter ammunition vs. ball, as well. Interesting stuff came of that.
Likely the difference in bleedout time between JHP and FMJ is far less significant than the bleedout time gap between shooting the guy once and shooting the guy until he stops or you run out of ammunition...
In a life, and death situation I will take any advantage I can get regardless of how small.
In a life, and death situation I will take any advantage I can get regardless of how small.
Well, absolutely. I would expect any sane person to avail themselves of every technical and tactical advantage available.
......
more ammo isn't always better, especially if you can't hit diddly with the gun it comes out of.
Well, absolutely. I would expect any sane person to avail themselves of every technical and tactical advantage available.
more ammo isn't always better, especially if you can't hit diddly with the gun it comes out of.
so......"more ammo" is not considered a "technical" and/or a "tactical advantage"?
more ammo isn't always better, especially if you can't hit diddly with the gun it comes out of.
to follow up....when exactly is "more ammo isn't always better"?
so......"more ammo" is not considered a "technical" and/or a "tactical advantage"?
Think of it this way: I CAN get a 50-round drum magazine for my 1911. I CAN get 30 round magazines for a glock. Just because I CAN get them, does that mean that I should?
Let's take a step back and consider tactics for a moment. One of my best tactics as a civilian is the same as undercover LEO: Concealment. One conceals a firearm, one conceals intent, etc.
So, first of all, a high-cap 9mm, while offering an advantage of more bullets does not necessarily overcome the increase in weight, nor the reduced concealability from a larger double-stack magazine or wider frame.
Secondly, the shooter, for example me, has big hands. Smaller concealable subcompact 9mms which hold about the same amount of ammo as my 1911, while easily concealed, are not easy or comfortable for me to shoot. Ergo, I cannot hit accurately with them because I have difficulty getting a good grip. In a gunfight, where SPEED is the key, making inaccurate shots is a bad thing. For that reason, some shooters, such as me, may choose to use a 1911 with .45 ACP ammunition over 9mm guns that aren't as comfortable/familiar.
I make the decision to practice and be very good with what I choose to carry. I carry a 1911 with 8+1 in the gun, and two spare 10-round magazines. That gives me 29 rounds of ammunition. I am also practiced and capable of doing tactical reloads and whatever is necessitated.
While it's tempting to increase my round count, I know how I shoot with this gun, and I'm good with this gun. Higher capacity doesn't necessarily mean better odds, at least in my experience.
well then. ok.
Think of it this way: I CAN get a 50-round drum magazine for my 1911. I CAN get 30 round magazines for a glock. Just because I CAN get them, does that mean that I should?
Let's take a step back and consider tactics for a moment. One of my best tactics as a civilian is the same as undercover LEO: Concealment. One conceals a firearm, one conceals intent, etc.
So, first of all, a high-cap 9mm, while offering an advantage of more bullets does not necessarily overcome the increase in weight, nor the reduced concealability from a larger double-stack magazine or wider frame.
Secondly, the shooter, for example me, has big hands. Smaller concealable subcompact 9mms which hold about the same amount of ammo as my 1911, while easily concealed, are not easy or comfortable for me to shoot. Ergo, I cannot hit accurately with them because I have difficulty getting a good grip. In a gunfight, where SPEED is the key, making inaccurate shots is a bad thing. For that reason, some shooters, such as me, may choose to use a 1911 with .45 ACP ammunition over 9mm guns that aren't as comfortable/familiar.
I make the decision to practice and be very good with what I choose to carry. I carry a 1911 with 8+1 in the gun, and two spare 10-round magazines. That gives me 29 rounds of ammunition. I am also practiced and capable of doing tactical reloads and whatever is necessitated.
While it's tempting to increase my round count, I know how I shoot with this gun, and I'm good with this gun. Higher capacity doesn't necessarily mean better odds, at least in my experience.
Think of it this way: I CAN get a 50-round drum magazine for my 1911. I CAN get 30 round magazines for a glock. Just because I CAN get them, does that mean that I should?
Let's take a step back and consider tactics for a moment. One of my best tactics as a civilian is the same as undercover LEO: Concealment. One conceals a firearm, one conceals intent, etc.
So, first of all, a high-cap 9mm, while offering an advantage of more bullets does not necessarily overcome the increase in weight, nor the reduced concealability from a larger double-stack magazine or wider frame.
Secondly, the shooter, for example me, has big hands. Smaller concealable subcompact 9mms which hold about the same amount of ammo as my 1911, while easily concealed, are not easy or comfortable for me to shoot. Ergo, I cannot hit accurately with them because I have difficulty getting a good grip. In a gunfight, where SPEED is the key, making inaccurate shots is a bad thing. For that reason, some shooters, such as me, may choose to use a 1911 with .45 ACP ammunition over 9mm guns that aren't as comfortable/familiar.
I make the decision to practice and be very good with what I choose to carry. I carry a 1911 with 8+1 in the gun, and two spare 10-round magazines. That gives me 29 rounds of ammunition. I am also practiced and capable of doing tactical reloads and whatever is necessitated.
While it's tempting to increase my round count, I know how I shoot with this gun, and I'm good with this gun. Higher capacity doesn't necessarily mean better odds, at least in my experience.
just this though....why are you comparing a subcompact 9 to a full sized 1911?
shouldn't you be comparing similarly sized guns?
just this though....why are you comparing a subcompact 9 to a full sized 1911?
shouldn't you be comparing similarly sized guns?
If you re-read what I said, I started out by suggesting that a wide-frame, larger double-stack auto was more difficult to conceal. For concealability, one might, then, suggest "okay, well, why not use a subcompact or a compact?" and I was addressing that as well by saying I don't shoot nearly as well with them.
A full-size 1911 is narrow enough that it conceals effortlessly on me, and I can throw spare magazines on my belt or in a pocket without a huge issue. I find that I am less able to conceal a larger-frame semi-auto with a double-stack magazine, although the Smith M&P seems to conceal very well for me and I'm considering possibly switching to that.
I'll always personally stick with the .45 ACP because it works, I like it, and it's my personal preference. I shoot very well with it. I also dislike guns like the Glock because it has no manual safety like the 1911. I much prefer a single action with a safety such as the 1911, again for my own personal reasons. At least that's something I can get on the M&P. But, then, with a $2500 custom 1911 riding in my holster, I'm not in a hurry to spend more money to gain maybe 2 extra rounds in the gun, and nothing extra in spare mags since I already carry 10 round magazines spare, and have enough mag pouches and 10-round magazines that I could easily pack in enough ammo to fight a war, i suppose...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.