FMJ for self defense

While I don't rely on every handgun I own for self-defense, I do try to keep at least a couple magazines/cylinders full of what I consider to be decent SD ammo for the given caliber for each handgun I own. Of the 17 handguns in 11 different calibers that I own, there are three different calibers for which I opt for non-expanding ammunition as my SD ammo (though none of those calibers are regularly relied upon for self-defense). They are as follows:

.32 Automatic- There is no hollowpoint ammunition for this caliber that I trust to both expand reliably and penetrate adequately. Given an either/or decision between adequate penetration and expansion, I'll take the expansion. I'm not particularly worried about overpenetration in this caliber because, in the tests I've seen .32 FMJ seems to penetrate comparably to JHP's in larger calibers (usually 13-14" in bare 10% gelatin). My ammo of choice in this caliber is Fiocchi 73gr FMJ.

7.62x25 Tokarev- I choose FMJ ammo in this caliber because, quite simply, JHP ammo is not widely available. While the ballistics are certainly there to make the cartridge perform well with JHP, I think that FMJ ammo is better than no ammo at all. My ammo of choice in this caliber is Winchester 85gr FMJ.

.38 S&W (not .38 Special)- Hollowpoint ammo in this caliber is pretty much non-existant so non-expanding bullets are really the only option. Actually, this is one of the very, very few cases in which I feel that I can make handloads that are appreciably better than factory ammo since nearly all factory loadings use bullets too light to shoot to POA in my gun (its fixed sights are regulated for 200gr bullets). My ammo of choice in this caliber is a handloaded Lyman #358430 hardcast LRN.

In every other caliber I own, which includes .22 LR, 9mm Luger, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, 10mm Auto, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .45 ACP I use hollowpoint factory ammo though, to be perfectly honest, I don't expect the .22's to actually expand (the particular loading I choose seems to tumble rather than expand at handgun velocity).
 
Darker Loaf said:
"Q: Bullets are bullets, why does it matter? AND Misses are more dangerous than overpenetration, so why worry about FMJ overpenetration?

A: There are virtually no situations in which a modern, quality JHP will perform WORSE than FMJ, and the odds are pretty good that it will perform better."

And yet you brought up the one situation where penetration would have killed more effectively than expansion: a bullet stopping before someone's heart. That was 5% situation where you'd want an FMJ in the wound channel instead of a JHP. Heck, an FMJ would have gone through both his lungs and his heart.
Click to expand...

I understand that we are probably not actually disagreeing here, but I would just note that the Winchester Silvertip is not a modern hollow point. I am given to understand that it's reasonably effective in larger calibers than 9mm, but the 9mm Silvertip load wasn't exactly known for ultra-reliable performance. Recall that after the Miami shooting, the trend went toward higher-caliber semiautos, a trend that only started to reverse with the advent of truly modern JHP ammunition loads that performed acceptably in 9mm, like the HST, Gold Dot, and Winchester Ranger.

The other issue unaddressed here is that 9mm FMJ produces a very minimal wound track because of the round ogive. The wound may actually be a smaller diameter than the bullet itself because of the rounded tip's tendency to 'icepick' a wound with minimal tissue destruction. So while 9mm FMJ will always penetrate well, it may also do insufficient damage to what it penetrates to produce the desired effect.
 
Guys I have looked at 30+ years of parted-out people and a few thousand autopsy photos; many of whom were GSW or stabbing victims. Talked to lot of ME's and even had a well known one review my work.

Here's my take: Assuming a frontal shot, the difference in 'terminal effect' (a laughable term in its own right) between 380 ball and the best 357 JHP will not make up for 2" of lateral dispersion from the centerline of the body. And if that shootee is flailing his arms around and doing the chicken dance that often results from getting shot at, I'd rather have 45 hardball than either of them.
 
RE Madcap_Magician RE Miami Shootout

We aren't in disagreement at all, I said, "It does not do the job that modern JHP's do. Golden Sabers 147 grains or Hornaday Critical Dutys or Gold Dots would be fine."

I realize FMJ's create a smaller wound track, but theoretically speaking, if you were to shoot someone from above or while they were laying down, the total volume of the wound could be greater and/or pierce more organs. Just like Platt was shot through the side, not the front, that 11" of penetration only pierced one lung. Had both his lungs been pierced, he would not have lasted so long, and considering it would have skewered his heart, too.

I also realize I'm talking about that bad 5% of times where FMJ's might do better, but I'm also weighting the argument in my favor (because of Frank's comments using old JHP's in his example) because I'm comparing bad hollow points to FMJ's. Bad hollow points fill up and become FMJ-like (ice-picking) but lack the penetration and are the worst of all worlds. Good JHP's are the best of all worlds--it seems like you need heavier, slower expanding JHP's to really capture the best of all worlds though: bigger wound channels AND adequate penetration.

This is why I would opt for FMJ's in lower power pistol calibers: even modern hollow points in lower energy calibers seem to become FMJ-like anyway, so you might as well gain penetration and reliability at the loss of nothing.

And for the record: modern 9mm hollow points are what end up my defensive handguns.
 
Re Frank Ettin Re Language

What we have here is a difference in the way I'm using the word "killing." I was using it to mean actually "dead." Dead IS stopped, because dead is not alive, not moving, not threatening.

You are using killing to mean: "mortally wound." According to your use of language, you are correct, "stopping" is more desirable than "killing."

In the terms of this conversation, I can concede to your definition of the word "killing" and we can proceed with our discussion. My only beef with you at this point is that I think the distinction between "killing" and "stopping" is still moot. My reasoning is this: how do you hold your sight picture to "stop" instead of "kill?" Is it the same? I think so.

The only reason I can see to use the word "stop" instead of "kill" is to sterilize the language in order to make people who do not think about these things less afraid, and/or as a preventative if you were ever forced to "stop" a person, so the courts would look upon you more favorably. "Look, I was only trying to stop the threat." [Even though he is dead/stopped.] I just may have to borrow "stop" as a euphemism for "dead." My grandmother was "stopped" last week.... (j/k--I joke)

I did read your original post well enough and agree that many fights are stopped without the death of anyone. It's just our sight pictures would look the same, where I would be trying to "make dead" and you would be trying to "stop." We'd both be using JHP's, since we both agree they are more "deadly" (in my language) or more "able to stop a person" (in your language). And likely if our marksmanship fundamentals were good, both of our attackers would be dead at the end of the encounter.
 
Darker Loaf said:
What we have here is a difference in the way I'm using the word "killing." I was using it to mean actually "dead." Dead IS stopped, because dead is not alive, not moving, not threatening.

You are using killing to mean: "mortally wound." According to your use of language, you are correct, "stopping" is more desirable than "killing."

In the terms of this conversation, I can concede to your definition of the word "killing" and we can proceed with our discussion. My only beef with you at this point is that I think the distinction between "killing" and "stopping" is still moot. My reasoning is this: how do you hold your sight picture to "stop" instead of "kill?" Is it the same? I think so.

The only reason I can see to use the word "stop" instead of "kill" is to sterilize the language in order to make people who do not think about these things less afraid, and/or as a preventative if you were ever forced to "stop" a person, so the courts would look upon you more favorably. "Look, I was only trying to stop the threat." [Even though he is dead/stopped.] I just may have to borrow "stop" as a euphemism for "dead." My grandmother was "stopped" last week.... (j/k--I joke)

I did read your original post well enough and agree that many fights are stopped without the death of anyone. It's just our sight pictures would look the same, where I would be trying to "make dead" and you would be trying to "stop." We'd both be using JHP's, since we both agree they are more "deadly" (in my language) or more "able to stop a person" (in your language). And likely if our marksmanship fundamentals were good, both of our attackers would be dead at the end of the encounter.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is in intent. If I am shooting to kill someone, my goal is to kill them. If I am shooting to stop someone, my goal is to make them stop doing whatever it was that made me shoot them in the first place.

Thus, stopping=

1. Drawing a gun and having the assailant flee.
2. Firing a gun, missing, and having the assailant flee.
3. Firing a gun, hitting, and having the assailant flee.
4. Firing a gun, hitting, and having the assailant fall down or otherwise stop his attack.
5. Firing a gun, hitting, and killing the assailant.

All five are acceptable outcomes and successful 'stops.'

Whereas in shooting to kill, 5. is the only goal.
 
Right, but I still say this "killing" vs. "stopping" makes no difference in terms of FMJ vs. JHP debate because at that point in the confrontation, bullets are actually coming out of your gun and hopefully hitting someone. So... "kill" and "stop" becomes less important if your sight picture AND your training is over the vitals of the person.

I agree: if I am ever in court, I'll be saying I was shooting to "stop," not "kill," I just figured we could talk without parsing words since nobody here is on trial.

Before my finger is inside the trigger guard, I will be trying to "stop" the person: verbally, but as soon as I am making the decision to actually shoot a person "stop" and "kill" become the same thing in terms of my actions (shot placement and bullets fired). And hopefully, I never have to do that and if I do, I made the right decision.
 
Agreed. I'd rather not shoot a person if I can help it. Hell I'll run if that works. We may have stand your ground and no duty to retreat stuff here but I'll make that decision thank you.

I keep this in mind, "Every bullet has a lawyer on it."

Whether it's FMJ or JHP is moot.
 
Effective? Yes

Ideal? No

That said, I've never felt undergunned when carrying FMJ. But I rarely do that.
 
FMJ?

If that is what I got.. that is what I'd use.

Now FMJ will increase the overpenetration problem and increase the chance you will have to shoot some more to stop the threat.

BUT, hit 'em where it counts and it will do the deed.

My pocket .32 acp and .380s have FMJ cause they are such a low velocity round and need as much penetration as they can get in this 'supersizied people. world we live in.

And I can cough up the bucks for a fancy JHPs in the larger rounds I use.

But alot of people on Social Security may not have that luxury. If all they have is a Rossi .38 Spl with RNL, then that's what they have and it will work.

Deaf
 
very interesting!

what ever you shoot i think the most impotant thing is "hitting what you aim at''. thus i use the ammo i have the most experience with. kinda nice to know that its gona feed right, eject right, and i'm comfortable with the muzzle jump, and were the bullet will go, know its ability to penatrate.

i alway chuckle when someone shows me the mucco expencive ammo they bought for self deffence, i was one of them once. then i ask "so do you know if this works in your gun?" you bought this for the eventuality that you hope never happends, it would be good if it was a cartrige you have lots of experience with. then i ask have you ever shot your gun with out ear protection? cause its gona be lots louder and will probubly startle you.

as for the one that does the most damage? does not matter thats why we carry more than 1 round.

Joe
 
I agree: if I am ever in court, I'll be saying I was shooting to "stop," not "kill," I just figured we could talk without parsing words since nobody here is on trial.
Click to expand...
We're all on trial all the time - or at least we are when we're posting on public forums.
It's not just fellow firearms enthusiasts that use google, and one of the most effective arguments that the gun-control lobby uses is painting us all as a bunch of blood-thirsty wackos.
 
RE dayman

That's a good point. Which is why I am extremely careful of what I post on facebook or youtube, let's say. But I suppose there could be plenty of anti-gun people lurking hidden on tfl silently looking for quotes to make gun owners look like bloodthirsty freaks.
 
dayman said:
I agree: if I am ever in court, I'll be saying I was shooting to "stop," not "kill," I just figured we could talk without parsing words since nobody here is on trial.
Click to expand...
We're all on trial all the time - or at least we are when we're posting on public forums.
It's not just fellow firearms enthusiasts that use google, and one of the most effective arguments that the gun-control lobby uses is painting us all as a bunch of blood-thirsty wackos.
Click to expand...
Darker Loaf said:
That's a good point. Which is why I am extremely careful of what I post on facebook or youtube, let's say. But I suppose there could be plenty of anti-gun people lurking hidden on tfl silently looking for quotes to make gun owners look like bloodthirsty freaks.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to treat TFL any differently from Facebook or YouTube. All social media is public. What you post on social media is not private and can be used against you.

I have direct information that a certain Deputy Sheriff in a certain California Sheriff's Office monitors the Calguns Forum. I would suspect that many law enforcement agencies regularly monitor all gun forums and similar forums.

And see this article headlined "Bay Area prosecutors increasingly using social media posts in criminal cases" from the 16 August 2013 edition of the Contra Costa Times:
PLEASANTON -- A teenage driver originally accused of vehicular manslaughter now faces a murder charge in the death of a bicyclist, partly because prosecutors say he bragged on Twitter about driving dangerously.

His case is part of a growing trend of social media posts being used as evidence against suspects, authorities said Friday.

....

As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases, Bay Area prosecutors said.

In San Francisco, a cyclist in March fatally struck a 71-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk after speeding through three red lights in the Castro District. Chris Bucchere, who eventually pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, received a stiffer charge after he posted his explanation of the crash on a cycling group's website....
Click to expand...
 
Frank said:
There is no reason to treat TFL any differently from Facebook or YouTube. All social media is public.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. I figure anything I post online might just as well be on a big scrolling electronic billboard.
 
As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases.
Click to expand...

Loose lips sinks big ships. There's idiots abound and they don't get it.

Anything you say can and will be used against you. (sound familiar?)
 
I subscribe to the Buffalo Bore Theory of self defense ammo. I put six rounds of +p+ 147 grain hollow points up top because it approaches 40 caliber numbers. I fill the rest of my 18 rounds with +p+ 124 grain FMJ-FN penetrators because if I still need to shoot after the hollow points, it's because the BG has ducked behind something and is still shooting at me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top