Lots of smart people like using non-expanding hard cast or FMJ with a large mepalt (aka flat nose) - Jeff Cooper, Jim Cirillo, etc. Buffalo Bore offers a number of max meplat products. A wadcutter causes a lot of damage, is inherently accurate, and provides fantastic straight-line penetration.
Expanding Ammo.
- Thread starter manta49
- Start date
Care to name any names? The suggestions of Clint Smith, Mas Ayoob, or Jeff Cooper would carry a bit more weight with me than Deputy Fife who teaches the local CCL class. There are, unfortunately, many cops and CC instructors who aren't nearly as knowledgable as they'd like you to think they are.
Any citations of these cases? You see, it's important to know the full details of such cases because that will give us a better idea of whether the ammunition was the deciding factor, or if it was mentioned but other factors changed the judge or jury's mind.
A good example of this is the Harold Fish case in AZ. Fish was convicted of murder for shooting a man with a 10mm handgun. During the trial, the prosecutor brought up the fact that Fish used a 10mm which is considered by many to be over-powered for self-defense (not a sentiment I personally agree with). Because Fish was convicted, many people automatically assumed that the prosecutor successfully painted him as a bloodthirsty monster due solely to his use of a 10mm. What was overlooked was that Fish shot his attacker from a fairly long distance and, more importantly, the attackers history of threatening behavior, a history which mirrored Fish's story, was not allowed into evidence at the trial. Fish subsequently appealed and had his conviction overturned.
Discern said:
Things are getting weird. If that's what FMJ will do, then what does HP stuff do? I thought the idea behind good HP ammo was good penetration, expansion, and damage that would stop the aggressor ASAP. You shoot someone in vital a area with HP ammo and you don't case damaged spine, brain, etc?? I am confused.
I guess this could go on forever, but I think any SD shooting case will be decided on the facts surrounding that case. Collateral damage will be an issue no matter what type of ammo used. Excessive force can also be an issue. If you walk over the the BG and he is out of action and you proceed to pump rounds into him, then you could have issues. If you happen to be using HP's it's not going to let you off the hook.
Discern, I sure would like to see some cites of cases where the kind of bullet used was even mentioned in court. During the 9 years I was the lead firearms instructor for my agency, our lawyers were unable to find even one.
What does happen is the civil lawyer plants stories in the press, suggesting the gun/ammo used is a factor. But they all know better than to try to introduce such things in court.
In my own case (which involved a 90 mile high speed persuit), the plaintifs' lawyer planted a story that I did what I did because (please finish your drink before reading this) - I drove the same make and color truck as a certain TV action ""hero"" who routinely uses excessive force!
They lost.
What does happen is the civil lawyer plants stories in the press, suggesting the gun/ammo used is a factor. But they all know better than to try to introduce such things in court.
In my own case (which involved a 90 mile high speed persuit), the plaintifs' lawyer planted a story that I did what I did because (please finish your drink before reading this) - I drove the same make and color truck as a certain TV action ""hero"" who routinely uses excessive force!
They lost.
secret_agent_man
Moderator
The prosecution in the Harold Fish case also produced a ballistics expert who testified to the devastating effect of the hollow point bullets Fish fired. After the trail, some jurors conceded this testimony influenced their guilty verdict. It was all hogwash, the expert didn't know scat, and the presiding judge admitted to allowing a reversible error to go down. It remains one of the most onerous prosecutions in recent memory. Hardly a decision anybody expected from an Arizona court.
What got me thinking is i read about the miami shootout that one BG was shoot with a 9mm expanding round that passed trough his arm into his chest stopping close to his heart.
Would a FMJ round of penetrated deeper damaging his heart putting him out of action.
PS Expanding ammo is prohibited here apart form .22
The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
Weapons subject to general prohibition.
(f)any ammunition which is designed to be used with a pistol and incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact.
Would a FMJ round of penetrated deeper damaging his heart putting him out of action.
PS Expanding ammo is prohibited here apart form .22
The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
Weapons subject to general prohibition.
(f)any ammunition which is designed to be used with a pistol and incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact.
Manta, the Miami Shootout was a fluid, dynamic event. The round you refer to behaved exactly as designed. Of course, if we could accuractly predict exactly the circumstances under which each round will be employed, we could choose JHP, Ball, AP, Tracer, etc.
The real issue in that shooting were the numerous errors that took place before the first shot was fired. The agents did the best they could with the information they had.
(Before anyone tries to blast me, I have a copy of the FBI report, all 3 of the films made, a copy of the lecture at FLETC by the lead investigator from Dade County, and I had a chance to talk to him. I actually taught a course on the lessons learned by LE about this event.)
The real issue in that shooting were the numerous errors that took place before the first shot was fired. The agents did the best they could with the information they had.
(Before anyone tries to blast me, I have a copy of the FBI report, all 3 of the films made, a copy of the lecture at FLETC by the lead investigator from Dade County, and I had a chance to talk to him. I actually taught a course on the lessons learned by LE about this event.)
Maybe, but there are no guarantees in a gunfight. As Sleuth pointed out, the single bullet (115gr Winchester Silvertip) that the FBI chose to focus on (ignoring the dozens that missed alltogether or hit Platt's extremities) performed exactly as designed. The issue, according to the FBI, is that JHP ammunition of the time was designed to expand as aggressively as possible and only penetrate 6-8". While 6-8" may well be enough in a straight-on frontal shot, a shot at an oblique angle or one that must pass through an extremity first (both were the case with Platt) may need more penetration in order to reach the vitals.
It was for this reason that the FBI came to their current standard of 12" minimum penetration and 14" or more being ideal. Most modern premium JHP ammo such as Winchester Ranger, Speer Gold Dot, or Federal HST meets the FBI's criteria. While Winchester Silvertips are still a good choice in certain calibers like .357 Magnum or 10mm Auto, they are a rather dated design and are not the best choice in other calibers like 9mm and .38 Special.
Hi I just used the maimi shoot out as a example because it is well known. I think the problem there was more poor tactics and wrong firearms for the job, i would feel happy either expanding or FMJ 9mm ammo.
But as i said the only ones allowed expanding ammo here are vets and police.
But as i said the only ones allowed expanding ammo here are vets and police.
Really, it was. Arming yourself with handguns and shotguns against two very bad men armed with semi-automatic rifles isn't a good idea. However, the FBI did manage to learn through the incident that what they though they wanted wasn't what they really needed so far as handgun bullets are concerned.
Side note:
Not widely known is the fact that two members of the team had full auto MP5's.
One agent was in the bathroom when the radio traffic came out. The other was talking to a Bank Manager. Neither one got into the shootout.
And the agents had shotguns (only one was used). Most were in the trunk of the cars, and thus not accessable when needed. Another lesson learned.
Not widely known is the fact that two members of the team had full auto MP5's.
One agent was in the bathroom when the radio traffic came out. The other was talking to a Bank Manager. Neither one got into the shootout.
And the agents had shotguns (only one was used). Most were in the trunk of the cars, and thus not accessable when needed. Another lesson learned.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Jim Cirillo was experimenting with large meplat bullets back in the '80s and early '90s, well before modern JHP technology. And Jeff Cooper's views were also formed based on data developed long before the modern JHP designs appeared on the scene.jmortimer said:
Today, virtually all law enforcement agencies use JHPs. The Coast Guard issues FMJ ammunition for military applications, but issues JHP ammunition for law enforcement activities within the territorial waters of the United States.
Well, Massad Ayoob unequivocally recommends JHPs. I know that having taken LFI-1 and having taught with him.Webleymkv said:
There are four ways in which shooting an assailant stops a fight:
- psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
- massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
- breaking major skeletal support structures
- damaging the central nervous system.
Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't.
Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility, but someone with a gun can still shoot.
Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target.
The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
So as a rule of thumb --
- More holes are better than fewer holes.
- Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
- Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
- Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
- There are no magic bullets.
Because they might make bigger holes, and the modern ones are likely to penetrate sufficiently, I'll use JHPs.
No, that is not true.Webleymkv said:
According to Fish's appeal brief, Fish testified that he "...waited until the last possible instant before firing and shot Kuenzli just a few feet short of a physical encounter..." and that he estimated the distance as 5 to 8 feet when he shot. The brief also states that, "The state’s firearms expert, ... was unable to refute Fish’s account of the shooting, including the fact that Kuenzli was 5-8 feet away. [R.T. 5/02/06 , 202-203]. Haag also testified that the number of bullets in the gun, the bullet found at the scene, the placement of the ejected casings, the angle of the entry wounds were all consistent with Fish’s account. [R.T. 5/02/06 , 219; 222-223; 235] ..."
So it appears from the evidence that Fish's assailant was 5 to 8 feet away from Fish when Fish shot.
It probably doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion, but we should at least have our facts straight.
secret_agent_man
Moderator
Fish had retreated, backing up against a large boulder as his attacker ran all out at him. Fish fired with his back against the wall, so to speak, out of options. It just goes to show you how whack a verdict can get. This was a slam dunk case of self defense. Since there were no independent witnesses, the prosecutor manufactured his case against Fish, and the jury suckered for it. A real low note in American jurisprudence.
Harold Fish would have been better off with non-expanding ammo in his case. But that is a false presumption. As Massad Ayoob pointed out after the conviction, FMJ ammo is actually more deadly than HP ammo. It may, and most likely will require more hits to incapacitate an attacker. And as FMJ's often go completely through a human torso, the person shot is faced with more rapid blood loss. Bad karma, indeed.
Harold Fish would have been better off with non-expanding ammo in his case. But that is a false presumption. As Massad Ayoob pointed out after the conviction, FMJ ammo is actually more deadly than HP ammo. It may, and most likely will require more hits to incapacitate an attacker. And as FMJ's often go completely through a human torso, the person shot is faced with more rapid blood loss. Bad karma, indeed.
Last edited:
Based on what I can tell, the bullet penetrated signficantly more than 6-8". That's even if you don't consider the fact that it had to penetrate the chest already expanded which would have reduced penetration over what normally would have been expected.
Here's a link to picture from The Gun Zone showing the track of the bullet.
http://www.thegunzone.com/platt-shot.html
Notice how the arm was penetrated at an angle--maybe 4" of tissue. Then it exited the arm and entered the upper chest (from the side, under the arm) already expanded and went about 8-10 inches into the chest. I've seen at least one quote indicating that it penetrated about 14" of tissue altogether.
secret_agent_man
Moderator
It is no secret that the FBI following the Miami incident came to favor penetration at the expense of expansion. Which makes the wadcutter the primo bullet design. Something Cirillo was working up. The widespread acceptance of the semi autopistol unfortunately all but killed off the wadcutter.
If you run the numbers, the foot-pounds exerted across a flat wadcutter meplat is downright impressive compared to that of an expanded hollow point of the same caliber and loading. Looked at from this perspective, even the lowly target wadcutter is a ballistic humdinger.
If you run the numbers, the foot-pounds exerted across a flat wadcutter meplat is downright impressive compared to that of an expanded hollow point of the same caliber and loading. Looked at from this perspective, even the lowly target wadcutter is a ballistic humdinger.
For those in NJ, since HP is illegal for SD, are there any legalities or issues with expanding FMJ. I am thinking specifically of Federal Guard Dog ammo.
Would this be considered legal in NJ for SD? The box is clearly marked for "Home Defense", so it would seem to address some of the points made in this thread.
thoughts?
Thanks
Would this be considered legal in NJ for SD? The box is clearly marked for "Home Defense", so it would seem to address some of the points made in this thread.
thoughts?
Thanks
Originally posted by fiddletown
I am aware that Ayoob reccomends JHP ammo but, to my knowledge, he does so for reasons of increased effectiveness and reduced risk to bystanders of overpenetration. I've never heard or read of him admonishing against FMJ because of a possible lawsuit from an attacker which was my point when I made the above-quoted statement.
You are correct. I had the distance at which Fish fired, and the distance at which the altercation began confused. Regardless, there were many other factors in Fish's conviction than just his gun and ammunition and that was my original point.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Much of the penetration after it entered Platt's chest was through his right lung. The lung is an air-filled organ and doesn't offer much resistance to penetration. The bullet also failed to strike any bone (the picture shows that it missed the humerus and appears to have gone between Platt's ribs) which would have further reduced its penetration. Under ideal laboratory conditions, the 115gr Silvertip penetrates just a bit over 10" in bare gelatin.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm
In a real-world shot than must travel completely through heavy muscle and/or bone, it is not unreasonable to expect the penetration of the bullet to be reduced by 2-4". I'm not saying that the FBI's logic is perfect, because it isn't. Even if the bullet had reached Platt's heart, there is no guarantee that he would've been instantly incapacitated.
I am aware that Ayoob reccomends JHP ammo but, to my knowledge, he does so for reasons of increased effectiveness and reduced risk to bystanders of overpenetration. I've never heard or read of him admonishing against FMJ because of a possible lawsuit from an attacker which was my point when I made the above-quoted statement.
You are correct. I had the distance at which Fish fired, and the distance at which the altercation began confused. Regardless, there were many other factors in Fish's conviction than just his gun and ammunition and that was my original point.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Much of the penetration after it entered Platt's chest was through his right lung. The lung is an air-filled organ and doesn't offer much resistance to penetration. The bullet also failed to strike any bone (the picture shows that it missed the humerus and appears to have gone between Platt's ribs) which would have further reduced its penetration. Under ideal laboratory conditions, the 115gr Silvertip penetrates just a bit over 10" in bare gelatin.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm
In a real-world shot than must travel completely through heavy muscle and/or bone, it is not unreasonable to expect the penetration of the bullet to be reduced by 2-4". I'm not saying that the FBI's logic is perfect, because it isn't. Even if the bullet had reached Platt's heart, there is no guarantee that he would've been instantly incapacitated.
The Platt shoot out was real world. Had the bullet hit the bone of the right arm and broken it the fight may have ended sooner. But it did not. A couple of more shots from that same round may have ended the fight sooner as well. But that did not happen either. The final round was from a 38 Spl. as I recall and Platt was bleeding out at that point. As widely understood these days there was no failure from that 9mm round on that day and to focus on that one round in the midst of all else that occurred would be a mistake.
One useful result from that shootout has been the frenzy of work that the ammo manufacturers unleashed in improving jhp ammo performance, both in it's penetration and expansion for all ammo used by law enforcement.
For the reasons explained by many here there is no better choice (with one exception that I'll mention) than a good jhp for self defense. It gives you the best chance of stopping a deadly threat coupled with the least chance of injuring others unintentionally.
But if you live in an area where jhp ammo is illegal for self defense use, and that legal matter binds you, than, imho, a good lead swchp or lead swc, or a flat nosed lead round is a good choice and a better one than hardball. In this case I avoid a hard cast round and look to a bit softer lead, one that is a bit more likely to deform. Such rounds can work well in many semis but work particularly well in wheelguns. The advantage of such are that they can expand some and thus limit penetration. This is a concern in the case of missed shots, or through and through shots, in urban areas where fmj rounds often penetrate exterior and interior walls of houses, automobiles and apartment buildings. There are a number of such loads available commercially for revolvers.
tipoc
There are some bureaucratic reasons the FBI focused on guns/ammunition after the Miami shootout:
1. They did not want to admit their training may have been faulty. This would be viewed as criticisem of The Bureau (there is even a book by a former agent titled "Don't Embarass the Bureau"!)
2. It is far eaiser to blame a 'thing', and then tell Congress you need more money to buy new 'things'.
3. I identified numerous failures of training and mindset (conditioning) of the agents, none of which was their fault, but a product of both their trainers and conditioning. I observed many of these same failures in my co-workers and other Federal Agents, and worked hard to change them.
Go to any group of professional LEO's and say:
"I need 8 guys to help me out. We are going to arrest two bad guys. We will have revolvers, semi-auto pistols, shotguns, body armor, and subguns. Who wants to come along?"
Everyone will volunteer - it sounds like overwhelming force. In the event, they were betrayed by the factors I mentioned - training & mindset.
1. They did not want to admit their training may have been faulty. This would be viewed as criticisem of The Bureau (there is even a book by a former agent titled "Don't Embarass the Bureau"!)
2. It is far eaiser to blame a 'thing', and then tell Congress you need more money to buy new 'things'.
3. I identified numerous failures of training and mindset (conditioning) of the agents, none of which was their fault, but a product of both their trainers and conditioning. I observed many of these same failures in my co-workers and other Federal Agents, and worked hard to change them.
Go to any group of professional LEO's and say:
"I need 8 guys to help me out. We are going to arrest two bad guys. We will have revolvers, semi-auto pistols, shotguns, body armor, and subguns. Who wants to come along?"
Everyone will volunteer - it sounds like overwhelming force. In the event, they were betrayed by the factors I mentioned - training & mindset.
