Expansion vs. size?

nanney1 wrote:
If you can't always count on expansion in a self defense situation, shouldn't there be a consideration of using a larger bullet?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, No.

It seems to me that too many shooters suffer from a certain distemper that causes them to believe that they must carry a gun firing a round so devastatingly powerful that if it hits the target on their pinky finger, the impact will snap their neck. I don't believe that such powerful cartridges are reasonable or prudent choices for the vast majority of amateur shooters.

A big, powerful round you can't hit anything with is effectively useless.

A big, powerful round that goes through the target and wounds of kills someone in the house across the street may, in the long run, turn out to have been a worse choice than a smaller round - or not shooting at all.

Power, penetration, energy transfer, recoil, controllability, wound ballistics, comfort are all factors that a shooter must bring into balance in choosing a weapon for self defense. Choosing an extreme of any factor will seldom result in an optimal outcome.
 
agtman wrote:
In a gunfight, the edge always goes to the larger projectile...
Click to expand...

I don't agree. If the larger projectile has so much recoil it causes the shooter to flinch and thus disrupts their aim, the larger projectile could be a 16 inch naval gun for all the good it will do.

Now, if you want to say that provided all candidate cartridges can be handled by the shooter with equal proficiency, the larger projectile enjoys an advantage, I would agree, but not a blanket statement that bigger is always better.
 
This is an excellent article that is very informative;
http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

The short version is the most important factor in terminal ballistics is shot placement. Shot placement doesn’t just mean hitting the surface of the target where you aimed - it also means penetrating deeply enough to have the desired effect in a variety of circumstances.

There are a lot of variables at play. Even among expanding bullets, performance from one lot of the same type of bullet and the next lot can vary, sometimes by a lot. There is no perfect answer or that’s what we’d all use for every situation.
 
Two holes are better than one so penetration is key after shot placement. Still I'd rather not get shot with a hollow point.
 
* * * Shot placement doesn’t just mean hitting the surface of the target where you aimed - it also means penetrating deeply enough to have the desired effect in a variety of circumstances.
Click to expand...

No, that's exactly wrong.

Accurate shot placement and penetration are two different things.

An accurate shot puts the projectile where it needs to be (say, in the upper thoracic zone on a human target), but it is the penetrative ability of the round (i.e., its sectional density), plus material construction, plus it's velocity that determine how far the bullet will penetrate after surface impact.

Even with accurate shot placement, underpenetration has gotten folks killed.
 
Power, penetration, energy transfer, recoil, controllability, wound ballistics, comfort are all factors that a shooter must bring into balance in choosing a weapon for self defense. Choosing an extreme of any factor will seldom result in an optimal outcome.
Click to expand...

The reason many of us carry 9 mm is that based on the above, along with speed on target (which could fall under controllability) and capacity, we find the best ballance.

There are many studies of the efficacy of service calibers in stopping humans. I've never seen any objective study that shows significant difference in 9 mm, .40, or .45 caliber handguns. 357 magnum has a very slight edge but not enough to justify slower and less accurate follow-up shots for me, along with lower capacity and slower reloads.

With regular practice I shoot my 9 mm much better and with greater confidence than any other self-defense handgun. Find what works best and practice until you are proficient, comfortable and confident. Then add complexity and difficulty. Rinse and repeat. Size is far less important than the ability to repeatedly and quickly hit your target under pressure in adverse conditions.
 
An accurate shot puts the projectile where it needs to be (say, in the upper thoracic zone on a human target), but it is the penetrative ability of the round (i.e., its sectional density), plus material construction, plus it's velocity that determine how far the bullet will penetrate after surface impact.
Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing; but you misunderstood what I meant by shot placement.

You are aiming at the surface target; because that is what you can see. That isn't where you are trying to place the shot though. You are trying to hit a target you can't see. I can show you a shooting where the bad guy took one dead center - right in the A-zone; however due to the angle of the shot as he turned, it didn't even graze the skin (the above link has some great diagrams demonstrating this). It passed through his shirt dead center above his heart without ever touching him (his hand however looked like that scene from "The Crow.")

An arm in front of the torso, say from someone pointing a gun back at you, can reduce penetration or deflect a round. A subject can turn quickly or go prone, increasing the amount of penetration you need to hit the target.

Just being able to hit the target you can see accurately, doesn't guarantee good shot placement. This is why .22LR is rarely recommended for self defense even though it is very easy to shoot accurately.
 
Nanny1 you will soon find out that this topic is one that stirs passion in some, and everyone has an opinion.

For me 9 mm is my choice for self-defense. I use high quality ammo that I am confident will expand, and the lower recoil allows me to be faster and more accurate with follow-up shots. Another benefit is higher capacity vs a larger round.

Statistically there is little difference in 9 mm, .40, and .45 in defensive use. Choose the one you shoot the best is good advice, given by many professionals.

K-Mac

I am afraid I have to agree with you 100%. I honestly believe with bullet technology today 9mm, 40, 45acp all work great. When I first choose a carry gun I went with 9mm mainly for cost. I still carry 9mm most of the time but will pack a 45 acp from time to time.
 
Shot placement is important. With a hit to the central nervous system being a sure instant stopping shot. But is it really only accuracy? Yes, you need to be accurate, but with a running, jumping, moving attacker you also need some luck. That's a place where size can help some, but not a great deal. With all the modern bullets being so much better than the old hollow points, I wouldn't be all that concerned about size. Just shoot the round you shoot best with that works in a gun suitable for the purpose. Be it concealed carry, a vehicle gun, or home defense.
As to the keeping a gun in an unattended vehicle, at least get a good safe box that is securely attached to something in the vehicle like a seat frame. A car thief will get everything, but the more common smash and grab thug won't want to take the time to defeat a good car safe box.
 
K_Mac said:
...There are many studies of the efficacy of service calibers in stopping humans. I've never seen any objective study that shows significant difference in 9 mm, .40, or .45 caliber handguns...
Click to expand...

Just as there are no objective studies that show 9mm efficacy is equal to cartridges featuring larger caliber and heavier bullets. ;)
 
Ive never understood why so many people get so "stirred up" with this type conversation. I carry a few different guns/calibers including 9mm and 45 and am a fan of both. I do not draw a line a "fight" for either one. Honestly, being armed and alert is the most important aspect. Being well versed with whichever firearm you choose by way of practice comes next followed by a list of things. Bullet placement and design, how well and level headed you respond in the heat of battle etc. By the time you get to the diameter of the bullet, .35"-.45" is so inconsequential its laughable to have these endless debates. Especially the "you might miss a vital organ with you .35" bullet that i could strike with my .45" line." Really? If you rely on that hair size of a difference to save your life, wow.

Just be armed, be prepared. Stay alert and practice as often with your carry gun as you can with the bullet design that best fits your defensive needs. Try to avoid dangerous situations but be ready if one finds you. No matter which caliber you choose, plz dont rely on a micro difference in surface area going into something as big as a human to sway you or save you.
 
I have read, this bullet expands to X diameter.


If you want bigger, start bigger. I read above how bigger faster makes for less control including recover time. I find the 45 no more difficult to control than a 40.

They didn't come out with the double tap untill the 9 mm was popular.

To each his own.

David
 
Last edited:
Meh.

I've come to the conclusion that if it's a decent diameter and penetrate to the vitals, it's all in the shot placement. Expansion of an HP can increase the wounding but not enough to make up for a bad shot or one that can't get to the vitals.

Expansion is just a benefit and can also reduce, though not eliminate, over penet ration issues though that's a can of worms unto itself.
 
Y'all carry what you want...I carry these.

I have shot enough animals with them and done enough of my own testing to feel completely confident in their performance on critters...2 or 4 legged. They penetrate straight, they penetrate deep...if his arm gets in the way, it gets penetrated, too and they will still penetrate to any vital organ or area in the body. Also, they perform the same way, every time and expansion is not necessary. There is no supposition involved with the aforementioned...it is fact.

.44 Special 230gr(my alloy) full caliber wadcutter 900fps

fPt9hpO.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top