good penetration, vs. overpenetration
- Thread starter headbangerJD
- Start date
Edward429451
Moderator
All those casulties for police shooting...are those bonafide overpenetrations or uh, a lot of misses? 
Missing is a bigger problem than over penetration. Rule #4 still applies but let's face it, the scenario is exigent circumstances where ones life is danger where one literally has to draw a gun to save themselves. Maybe the police get away with mur-uh missing but we can not as citizens! I will practice so I don't miss but circumstances will have to dictate the decision to shoot/no shoot. Consdering the ferocity of the attack, wether the back drop is one adult walking or an entire kidnergardner field trip class?? A question unable to be answered on a forum board conclusively.
Missing is a bigger problem than over penetration. Rule #4 still applies but let's face it, the scenario is exigent circumstances where ones life is danger where one literally has to draw a gun to save themselves. Maybe the police get away with mur-uh missing but we can not as citizens! I will practice so I don't miss but circumstances will have to dictate the decision to shoot/no shoot. Consdering the ferocity of the attack, wether the back drop is one adult walking or an entire kidnergardner field trip class?? A question unable to be answered on a forum board conclusively.
Qwiks draw
Moderator
The links are not on the Internet. There're in the Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery that comes out in annually. Chuck Karwan and Mas Ayoob are and have been the authors over the last few decades.
Another source is Gun Digest Concealed Carry.
Pages 86-92 are what to look for.
For know those are the sources.
Another source is Gun Digest Concealed Carry.
Pages 86-92 are what to look for.
For know those are the sources.
Them NY cops miss more than over penetrate and this is documented.
I use FMJ and want penetration, they also feed in my semi autos. Tried and true.
Where I live it wont be a pistol, I use a 12 ga with sabot slugs in a rifled barrel. Exit wound can be huge, it is on deer. It will bust thru both sides of a deer going thru 2 rib cages so I know it will do the job.
All this argueing over this is juvinile. See these here all the time, folks puff up and trounce on others just to prove what?
Ammo wars are a waste of time, but they tend to come around here a lot.
I use FMJ and want penetration, they also feed in my semi autos. Tried and true.
Where I live it wont be a pistol, I use a 12 ga with sabot slugs in a rifled barrel. Exit wound can be huge, it is on deer. It will bust thru both sides of a deer going thru 2 rib cages so I know it will do the job.
All this argueing over this is juvinile. See these here all the time, folks puff up and trounce on others just to prove what?
Ammo wars are a waste of time, but they tend to come around here a lot.
KingEdward
New member
Much of the "which ammo" decision depends on the purpose.
In the apartment, there is one unit next door to me but no units on the other
3 sides. It is fairly unlikely based on the location of the only entrance that
I would be firing shots towards my neighbors unit. None the less with a
Smith 686P 3" I choose to use the Speer Gold Dot ammo in .38 special. I have both +P and standard pressure.
I also keep a 20 gauge at the ready but only if there's a real need to hole up
in the bedroom and keep something out. It is loaded with #4 steel shot (heavy turkey). The reason is mainly, I have about 300 rounds and I am
not putting money into any other loads right now.
I carry a colt detective special loaded with the federal 125 gr nyclads.
I have some rifles and other things but I am comfortable with what I've chosen for a medium size apartment and the street based on my risk
and situation.
I may be moving to a larger house with sparsely scattered neighbors (other houses) so other choices related to a lack of over pent. concerns will probably
be made. I.E. buckshot / .357 hollow points / and some higher caliber rifle
ammunition.
But not in the apartment.
In the apartment, there is one unit next door to me but no units on the other
3 sides. It is fairly unlikely based on the location of the only entrance that
I would be firing shots towards my neighbors unit. None the less with a
Smith 686P 3" I choose to use the Speer Gold Dot ammo in .38 special. I have both +P and standard pressure.
I also keep a 20 gauge at the ready but only if there's a real need to hole up
in the bedroom and keep something out. It is loaded with #4 steel shot (heavy turkey). The reason is mainly, I have about 300 rounds and I am
not putting money into any other loads right now.
I carry a colt detective special loaded with the federal 125 gr nyclads.
I have some rifles and other things but I am comfortable with what I've chosen for a medium size apartment and the street based on my risk
and situation.
I may be moving to a larger house with sparsely scattered neighbors (other houses) so other choices related to a lack of over pent. concerns will probably
be made. I.E. buckshot / .357 hollow points / and some higher caliber rifle
ammunition.
But not in the apartment.
Shawn Dodson
Moderator
CWPinSC writes:
Extract from “Wound Ballistics Misconceptions.” (Duncan MacPherson, Wound Ballistics Review, 2(3): 1996; 42-43)
Extracts from “The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation.” (Martin L Fackler, MD, Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 1994; 12-19)
Why No Gelatin Tests Involving Bone? Shawn Dodson, http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm
Why Four Layers of Denim Cloth? Shawn Dodson, http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/02/0604-02a.htm
Cheers!
Extract from “Wound Ballistics Misconceptions.” (Duncan MacPherson, Wound Ballistics Review, 2(3): 1996; 42-43)
When a bullet is penetrating any material (tissue, water, air, wood, etc.), the total force the bullet exerts on the material is the same as the total force the material exerts on the bullet (this is Newton’s Third Law of Motion). These forces may be represented as a combination of shear forces and inertial forces (don’t be concerned if these words sound too technical – the concepts are easy). Shear force may be thought of as the force that resists deformation; if you push on a wall you are creating shear forces in the wall material that resist your push. If you push your hand down very slowly on a water surface, you feel no resisting force; this is true because a liquid cannot support a shear force….
You can fan your hand back and forth in air quite rapidly because there seems to be no resistance, but a similar fanning motion cannot be done nearly as rapidly underwater because moving the water can take all the strength you can muster. The forces that resist the movement of your hand in water are inertial forces….
A bullet penetrating a soft solid (tissue or a tissue simulant like gelatin) meets resistance that is a combination of shear forces and inertial forces….
…Anyone who has worked with gelatin knows that a finger can be pushed into gelatin with a force of only a few pounds; this force is similar to the resistance to a finger poked into the stomach, but the tissue does not fracture as easily as gelatin does. A finger poked into water does not meet this kind of resistance, which is due to shear forces. Penetration of a 9mm bullet at 1000 ft/sec is resisted by an inertial force of about 800 pounds; it is obvious that the presence or absence of a 3 to 5 pound shear force makes no practical difference in the penetration at this velocity. This also explains why the fact that gelatin fractures more easily than tissue does is not important.
The extension of these dynamics to soft tissue variation is obvious. Different types of tissue present different resistance to finger probing by a surgeon, but the surgeon is not probing at 1000 ft/sec. Different tissue types do have differences in the amount of shear force they will support, but all of these forces are so small relative to inertial forces that there is no practical difference. The tissue types are closer to one another than they are to water, and bullet expansion in water and tissue are nearly identical at velocities over 600 ft/sec where all bullet expansion takes place (See Bullet Penetration for a detailed explanation of bullet expansion dynamics).
Since inertial forces depend on accelerating mass, it makes sense that these forces should be lower at lower velocities (because the penetrated material cannot be accelerated to a velocity higher than the bullet). Shear forces have little velocity dependence, and as a result, shear forces are a much larger fraction of the total when bullet velocity is below the cavitation threshold. This low velocity effect is the reason that total bullet penetration depth is much different in water and in tissue or a valid tissue simulant.
As a result of the penetration dynamics, most soft solids with a density very near soft tissues (i.e., near the density of water) are satisfactory tissue simulants when shear forces are not important. However, total penetration depth depends significantly on dynamics at velocities below 400 ft/sec, so most materials do not properly simulate penetration depth. The total bullet penetration depth in tissue and a valid tissue simulant should be the same; standard practice is to use calibrated gelatin to insure this. In effect, gelatin calibration is done to ensure that the shear forces in the gelatin are the same as in typical soft tissue (as described in Bullet Penetration, the technical parameter used in the dynamic is viscosity).
You can fan your hand back and forth in air quite rapidly because there seems to be no resistance, but a similar fanning motion cannot be done nearly as rapidly underwater because moving the water can take all the strength you can muster. The forces that resist the movement of your hand in water are inertial forces….
A bullet penetrating a soft solid (tissue or a tissue simulant like gelatin) meets resistance that is a combination of shear forces and inertial forces….
…Anyone who has worked with gelatin knows that a finger can be pushed into gelatin with a force of only a few pounds; this force is similar to the resistance to a finger poked into the stomach, but the tissue does not fracture as easily as gelatin does. A finger poked into water does not meet this kind of resistance, which is due to shear forces. Penetration of a 9mm bullet at 1000 ft/sec is resisted by an inertial force of about 800 pounds; it is obvious that the presence or absence of a 3 to 5 pound shear force makes no practical difference in the penetration at this velocity. This also explains why the fact that gelatin fractures more easily than tissue does is not important.
The extension of these dynamics to soft tissue variation is obvious. Different types of tissue present different resistance to finger probing by a surgeon, but the surgeon is not probing at 1000 ft/sec. Different tissue types do have differences in the amount of shear force they will support, but all of these forces are so small relative to inertial forces that there is no practical difference. The tissue types are closer to one another than they are to water, and bullet expansion in water and tissue are nearly identical at velocities over 600 ft/sec where all bullet expansion takes place (See Bullet Penetration for a detailed explanation of bullet expansion dynamics).
Since inertial forces depend on accelerating mass, it makes sense that these forces should be lower at lower velocities (because the penetrated material cannot be accelerated to a velocity higher than the bullet). Shear forces have little velocity dependence, and as a result, shear forces are a much larger fraction of the total when bullet velocity is below the cavitation threshold. This low velocity effect is the reason that total bullet penetration depth is much different in water and in tissue or a valid tissue simulant.
As a result of the penetration dynamics, most soft solids with a density very near soft tissues (i.e., near the density of water) are satisfactory tissue simulants when shear forces are not important. However, total penetration depth depends significantly on dynamics at velocities below 400 ft/sec, so most materials do not properly simulate penetration depth. The total bullet penetration depth in tissue and a valid tissue simulant should be the same; standard practice is to use calibrated gelatin to insure this. In effect, gelatin calibration is done to ensure that the shear forces in the gelatin are the same as in typical soft tissue (as described in Bullet Penetration, the technical parameter used in the dynamic is viscosity).
Extracts from “The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation.” (Martin L Fackler, MD, Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 1994; 12-19)
The test of the wound profiles’ validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile’s course. Shots traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close approximation to the wound profiles.
The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency…a good reason was found and when the exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a valid tissue simulant.
The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency…a good reason was found and when the exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a valid tissue simulant.
Why No Gelatin Tests Involving Bone? Shawn Dodson, http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm
JHP handgun bullets are designed to expand in soft tissues. In a defensive shooting the kinds of tissues we’re trying to destroy are all soft tissues. These are reasons why bone isn’t normally used to test JHP bullet performance because: 1) JHP bullets aren’t designed to expand in bone – they just deform, and 2) the bullet’s terminal performance characteristics are entirely dependent on factors that cannot be controlled by the shooter (what bone is hit, where it is hit, angle of impact, depth of location along the wound track, bone density/thickness, etc.). The only terminal performance desired in bone, at least that I can think of, is for a bullet to blast through to reach vital tissues. Quite simply, performance in bone is what it is.
Why Four Layers of Denim Cloth? Shawn Dodson, http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/02/0604-02a.htm
There continues to be misunderstanding about testing JHP handgun bullet expansion using gelatin blocks covered with four layers of heavy denim cloth.
The four-layer heavy denim test was jointly developed by engineer Duncan MacPherson and California Highway Patrol to force manufacturers to design bullets that will expand more reliably when heavy clothing is encountered in actual shooting events. According to MacPherson:
The test protocol was established in 1998 by IWBA, which recently disbanded as an organization. It is superior to the FBI Heavy Clothing test event.
As described in IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification Supplement, section 6.2:
Properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is the most accurate realistic soft tissue simulant currently available. It provides a reasonable indication of how a bullet can be expected to perform in soft tissues. All other barrier materials aside, clothing and bone are the primary reasons why a bullet recovered from a human body may not resemble one fired into a block of gelatin.
A well-designed bullet exhibits little difference in expansion and penetration between the bare gelatin test and four-layer heavy denim test. In actual shootings, performance usually falls between results exhibited in these two tests, unless bone is hit early in the penetration path. Thus bullets that expand reliably in four-layer denim testing perform well on the street.
Most modern, premium JHP handgun ammunition from U.S. manufacturers is designed to perform well against the IWBA four-layer heavy denim test.
Nowadays, unless the bullet hits bone or an intervening obstacle, or impacts the body at an extreme angle, it is more likely to perform in human soft tissues almost exactly as it performs in standard ordnance gelatin. More often than not, a bullet designed to perform well in the IWBA four-layer denim test that is recovered from a body looks like the same bullet fired into a block of gelatin. It did not used to be that way a decade ago, and criticism about the limitations of gelatin testing was valid indeed.
References:
MacPherson, Duncan: “Improved Handgun Ammunition.” Wound Ballistics Review, 3(3), 1998; pp. 12-21.
The four-layer heavy denim test was jointly developed by engineer Duncan MacPherson and California Highway Patrol to force manufacturers to design bullets that will expand more reliably when heavy clothing is encountered in actual shooting events. According to MacPherson:
Modern JHP handgun bullet designs perform very reliably in testing; expansion failures are rare. It seems likely that occasional expansion failures in service are inevitable, but the number of failures in [actual California Highway Patrol shooting incidents] appeared excessive to me even though they were a relatively small fraction of all shootings. The unavoidable conclusion seemed to be that these expansion failures were a result of the fact that the expansion of existing JHP bullet designs were not robust; in engineering terminology, lack of robustness simply means that small changes in conditions are likely to cause failure. Initially, this conclusion seemed surprising because “heavy clothing” stages have been common in handgun ammunition testing protocols ever since this approach was initiated by the FBI handgun ammunition test protocol defined in 1989, and the best modern JHP bullet designs have almost no failures either in these stages or against bare gelatin. A little more thought made this seem less surprising, because the “heavy clothing” stages in various tests seem to have been selected to represent specific clothing without any systematic investigation directed at evaluating what aspects of the cloth were critical.
A thoughtful investigation of the effects of soft barriers (e.g., clothing, as opposed to the hard barriers represented by building materials and automobile glass) seemed to me to be overdue. [California Highway Patrol Firearms Training Unit Lieutenant] Ed Fincel agreed with this assessment, and he, State of California Associate Procurement Engineer Nick Miloskovich and I set about implementing this investigation in the last quarter of 1996. This activity was very successful, and has led to a new ammunition test protocol [International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) Handgun Ammunition Specification]; ammunition satisfying the requirements of this test protocol has been developed [Winchester Ranger T] and is now commercially available in .40 S&W. This new ammunition has much more reliable expansion after penetrating soft barriers than any ammunition previously available in this caliber. Improved .45ACP and 9mm ammunition designs are in the final development stages.1
(MacPherson’s article presents 3-4 pages of additional, detailed information about how four layers of denim cloth was selected.)A thoughtful investigation of the effects of soft barriers (e.g., clothing, as opposed to the hard barriers represented by building materials and automobile glass) seemed to me to be overdue. [California Highway Patrol Firearms Training Unit Lieutenant] Ed Fincel agreed with this assessment, and he, State of California Associate Procurement Engineer Nick Miloskovich and I set about implementing this investigation in the last quarter of 1996. This activity was very successful, and has led to a new ammunition test protocol [International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) Handgun Ammunition Specification]; ammunition satisfying the requirements of this test protocol has been developed [Winchester Ranger T] and is now commercially available in .40 S&W. This new ammunition has much more reliable expansion after penetrating soft barriers than any ammunition previously available in this caliber. Improved .45ACP and 9mm ammunition designs are in the final development stages.1
The test protocol was established in 1998 by IWBA, which recently disbanded as an organization. It is superior to the FBI Heavy Clothing test event.
As described in IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification Supplement, section 6.2:
Most expansion failures of JHP handgun bullets reported in actual shootings where hard barriers are not involved are probably due to factors that effectively plug up the hollow point cavity and reduce pressure in this area, although the dynamics model that occasionally leads to this result is not completely known in detail. This requirement in the IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification is designed to force JHP bullet designs that expand much more reliably against soft barriers (hard barriers are discussed in more detail below). This requirement was selected after experimentation to provide a standardized, inexpensive, and precisely defined soft barrier that was a stressing but reasonable protocol for ammunition evaluation; it does not represent a simulation of specific clothing. The JHP bullet design features required to satisfy this requirement are well understood, and ammunition having these design features expands much more consistently and reliably against soft barriers than ammunition without these design features....
Therefore the four-layer heavy denim test is NOT intended to simulate any type of clothing; it is merely an engineering evaluation tool to assess the ability of JHP handgun bullets to resist plugging and expand robustly.Properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is the most accurate realistic soft tissue simulant currently available. It provides a reasonable indication of how a bullet can be expected to perform in soft tissues. All other barrier materials aside, clothing and bone are the primary reasons why a bullet recovered from a human body may not resemble one fired into a block of gelatin.
A well-designed bullet exhibits little difference in expansion and penetration between the bare gelatin test and four-layer heavy denim test. In actual shootings, performance usually falls between results exhibited in these two tests, unless bone is hit early in the penetration path. Thus bullets that expand reliably in four-layer denim testing perform well on the street.
Most modern, premium JHP handgun ammunition from U.S. manufacturers is designed to perform well against the IWBA four-layer heavy denim test.
Nowadays, unless the bullet hits bone or an intervening obstacle, or impacts the body at an extreme angle, it is more likely to perform in human soft tissues almost exactly as it performs in standard ordnance gelatin. More often than not, a bullet designed to perform well in the IWBA four-layer denim test that is recovered from a body looks like the same bullet fired into a block of gelatin. It did not used to be that way a decade ago, and criticism about the limitations of gelatin testing was valid indeed.
References:
MacPherson, Duncan: “Improved Handgun Ammunition.” Wound Ballistics Review, 3(3), 1998; pp. 12-21.
Cheers!
Didn't say anything about a prosecutor, though that's a possibility.
Maybe all that stuff about being responsible for every bullet we launch is a bunch of hooey. Wonder how the civil jury will react--only needing a 2/3 majority to award the family of the deceased your life savings.
Guess I shouldn't just pick on ammo that over penetrates, since we're responsible for all shots we fire with any ammo---and that includes misses. Over penetration is just a part.
The bigger and shallower vs. longer and smaller is a "deep" subject.
That's funny! I believe the NYPD statistics are that only one in 15 rounds even hits the intended target!
I know of one incident locally where one cop fired 21 rounds. The only thing he hit was a neighbor's tv
It always amazes me how people are so worried about a very slow moving bullet that has penetrated through the target but don't think about the full speed rounds zipping past the target!
If you read the FBI report on wounding ballistics, the ONLY way to make an immediate stop is to hit the central nervous system (brain or spinal cord). Hitting an artery or other internal organ will not result in an immediate stop. You need deep penetration all the way through to hit the spinal cord. A person can still kill you even if you put a bullet in his heart.
I know, we all think we are great shots that can put every round into COM. Police can't do it and I'll bet that most of us are no better in a real emergency with someone attacking us.
Oh, tell me what ammunition you've found that overpenetrates in .380? .32? .38? I don't think the debate even starts until you get past those calibers.
Ken
Qwiks draw
Moderator
I gave you the source. Please check it out.
Most LEOs are not gun aficionados like most of us, and many only practice in their yearly or semi-yearly qualifying. A lot of us shoot weekly. I'll put at least 50 rounds through my carry piece at least twice a month, if not more often. Now, I'm not saying I'm a trained gunfighter, but that at least gives me a decided advantage over someone who only shoots occasionally.
Originally posted by Qwiks Draw
I tried. I did an internet search for "Massad Ayoob" and "overpenetration" and the results didn't really offer much help. Most of what I found basically amounted to posts such as yours on other forums with people saying that Ayoob documented several cases, but only one possible documentation directly attributed to Ayoob himself. The one that I found was from a poster on another forum that was apparently corresponding with Ayoob via e-mail (due to the anonymous nature of internet forums this is about impossible to verify).
Supposedly, Ayoob referenced one case in Arizona in which a 9mm 147grn JHP passed through a suspect and struck another officer (no mention was made as to the extent of the officer's injuries). Ayoob supposedly also said that there had been several incidents of overpenetration with the NYPD, but said that was most likely attributable to that agency's long reluctance to use anything but 9mm FMJ.
Most of the other accounts I found were secondhand and quite short on details (usually no info about caliber, bullet selection, or shot placement) although one did reference a peripheral hit that overpenetrated (a shot through an arm to be exact).
This is why I asked for links. I have been unable to find much detail about these supposed documented cases of overpenetration and, if in fact they are out there, I'd be very interested to know the details of them.
Also, Ayoob posts on this forum occasionally. Because of this, I did a quick search in an attempt to find out if he's personally addressed overpenetration here. The only thing I could find was this post from 2007
Originally posted by Mas Ayoob
While I suppose he could have been referring to overpenetration, there are several ways in which that statement could be taken (safer for everyone because it is more effective agains the BG for example). Regardless, Ayoob was more directly addressing how to handle an overly zealous prosecutor who is trying to villify you for using JHP's in self-defense. Most of the posts that Mr. Ayoob has made here regarding ammunition have been to admonish against the use of handloads for SD. I have also yet to see Ayoob reccomend particularly shallow penetrating ammunition. Most of the ammunition I've seen him speak highly of either meets or exceeds the FBI's penetration standards including Winchester 9mm Ranger 127grn +P+, Speer 9mm 124grn Gold Dots, .38 Special +P 158grn LSWCHP "FBI Loads" from various makers, and both Remington and Federal .357 Magnum 125grn SJHP.
If Mr. Ayoob would care to weigh in on the subject at hand, his input would certainly be welcome.
I tried. I did an internet search for "Massad Ayoob" and "overpenetration" and the results didn't really offer much help. Most of what I found basically amounted to posts such as yours on other forums with people saying that Ayoob documented several cases, but only one possible documentation directly attributed to Ayoob himself. The one that I found was from a poster on another forum that was apparently corresponding with Ayoob via e-mail (due to the anonymous nature of internet forums this is about impossible to verify).
Supposedly, Ayoob referenced one case in Arizona in which a 9mm 147grn JHP passed through a suspect and struck another officer (no mention was made as to the extent of the officer's injuries). Ayoob supposedly also said that there had been several incidents of overpenetration with the NYPD, but said that was most likely attributable to that agency's long reluctance to use anything but 9mm FMJ.
Most of the other accounts I found were secondhand and quite short on details (usually no info about caliber, bullet selection, or shot placement) although one did reference a peripheral hit that overpenetrated (a shot through an arm to be exact).
This is why I asked for links. I have been unable to find much detail about these supposed documented cases of overpenetration and, if in fact they are out there, I'd be very interested to know the details of them.
Also, Ayoob posts on this forum occasionally. Because of this, I did a quick search in an attempt to find out if he's personally addressed overpenetration here. The only thing I could find was this post from 2007
Originally posted by Mas Ayoob
While I suppose he could have been referring to overpenetration, there are several ways in which that statement could be taken (safer for everyone because it is more effective agains the BG for example). Regardless, Ayoob was more directly addressing how to handle an overly zealous prosecutor who is trying to villify you for using JHP's in self-defense. Most of the posts that Mr. Ayoob has made here regarding ammunition have been to admonish against the use of handloads for SD. I have also yet to see Ayoob reccomend particularly shallow penetrating ammunition. Most of the ammunition I've seen him speak highly of either meets or exceeds the FBI's penetration standards including Winchester 9mm Ranger 127grn +P+, Speer 9mm 124grn Gold Dots, .38 Special +P 158grn LSWCHP "FBI Loads" from various makers, and both Remington and Federal .357 Magnum 125grn SJHP.
If Mr. Ayoob would care to weigh in on the subject at hand, his input would certainly be welcome.
Last edited:
True, but you gotta learn the basics before you even have a chance at the hard stuff. Someone who has practiced constantly will do better under the same circumstances than someone who hasn't. Also, the LEOS are supposed to be trained to react to the situation you mention - so why do they miss so much.
Its been said here and other places. More rounds miss than over penetrate Those are the really dangerous ones
Most gun owners don't go to range every week . They don't know about all the latest and greatest HP's They buy a gun and box of ammo .That dealer suggest , load and put it away. Just in case . Those are majority of Gun owners not those here on the gun boards . I see them in the gun shop every day .
People in this country defend them selves every day. Most probably never practice or shoot tin cans. Some likely have never fired a gun Have one just in case . Yet they have better shots fired to hits than so called trained police . Most SD shootings are close up so if you can point and pull trigger you stand good chance of a hit. The will to live is more important than all that paper punching . At that point.
Most gun owners don't go to range every week . They don't know about all the latest and greatest HP's They buy a gun and box of ammo .That dealer suggest , load and put it away. Just in case . Those are majority of Gun owners not those here on the gun boards . I see them in the gun shop every day .
Last edited:
Straightshooter629
New member
WebleyMkV, I must take exception with that statement. I think there are times when the adjustment is best made through equipment. I serve on the security ministry at my church and that is a situation where over-penetration in a crowed sanctuary is a primary concern. In that enviroment, I utilize Glazer Safety Slugs, which I feel is the best solution for addressing that situation. There can always be alternatives.
Originally posted by Straightshooter629
While there may be a few very limited circumstances in which a reduced penetration round may be preferable, there are many others in which it's not. While your Glasers may work on a small to average sized BG in a frontal shot, I doubt that they would be so effective on a very large person and/or a shot at an oblique angle or through an extremity like an arm. It is much easier to acquire a different shooting position through actions such as taking a knee or moving to a different location than it is to change ammo during the middle of a fight. I have at least some control over where and how I take a shot, but I have no control over how the bullet behaves after it leaves my gun.
Also, most of the very shallow penetrating SD loads in major calibers (.38+P/9mm and larger) tend to be exotics like Glasers, Extreme Shock or Magsafes, very light in weight for the caliber, or both. This represents several problems.
First, exotics tend to be quite expensive even more so than premium JHP's. While it's not quite as big an issue in a revolver, a fair amount of your chosen SD ammo should be fired through your handgun to ensure reliable function before relying upon it. For most people, shooting 100-200 rounds of exotic ammo would be prohibitively expensive.
Secondly, very light bullets often to not shoot to point of aim as most guns come from the factory with their sights regulated to a more standard weight. While this is more easily addressed in a gun with adjustable sights, many SD oriented guns come with fixed sights. In this case, either modification/replacement of the sights or a good deal of "Kentucky Windage" would be required to ensure proper shot placement. IMHO, bullets not hitting where the sights are aimed is a much bigger risk than potential overpenetration in a crowded area such as that which you describe.
Finally, most of the exotics are produced by relatively new and/or small companies that that in and of itself presents a number of problems. Magsafe in particular has been plagued by QC issues and Extreme Shock is simply too new to have much of a reputation, good or bad, at all. Glasers are probably the best bet for those who want an exotic, but their lack of acceptance means that their reputation is severely limited and their availability (along with most of the exotics) is much more limited than a premium JHP. I would much prefer a proven loading that I have little trouble getting ahold of.
While there may be a few very limited circumstances in which a reduced penetration round may be preferable, there are many others in which it's not. While your Glasers may work on a small to average sized BG in a frontal shot, I doubt that they would be so effective on a very large person and/or a shot at an oblique angle or through an extremity like an arm. It is much easier to acquire a different shooting position through actions such as taking a knee or moving to a different location than it is to change ammo during the middle of a fight. I have at least some control over where and how I take a shot, but I have no control over how the bullet behaves after it leaves my gun.
Also, most of the very shallow penetrating SD loads in major calibers (.38+P/9mm and larger) tend to be exotics like Glasers, Extreme Shock or Magsafes, very light in weight for the caliber, or both. This represents several problems.
First, exotics tend to be quite expensive even more so than premium JHP's. While it's not quite as big an issue in a revolver, a fair amount of your chosen SD ammo should be fired through your handgun to ensure reliable function before relying upon it. For most people, shooting 100-200 rounds of exotic ammo would be prohibitively expensive.
Secondly, very light bullets often to not shoot to point of aim as most guns come from the factory with their sights regulated to a more standard weight. While this is more easily addressed in a gun with adjustable sights, many SD oriented guns come with fixed sights. In this case, either modification/replacement of the sights or a good deal of "Kentucky Windage" would be required to ensure proper shot placement. IMHO, bullets not hitting where the sights are aimed is a much bigger risk than potential overpenetration in a crowded area such as that which you describe.
Finally, most of the exotics are produced by relatively new and/or small companies that that in and of itself presents a number of problems. Magsafe in particular has been plagued by QC issues and Extreme Shock is simply too new to have much of a reputation, good or bad, at all. Glasers are probably the best bet for those who want an exotic, but their lack of acceptance means that their reputation is severely limited and their availability (along with most of the exotics) is much more limited than a premium JHP. I would much prefer a proven loading that I have little trouble getting ahold of.
Straightshooter629
New member
The biggest hitch in the acceptance of Glazers, IMHO, is the price. But in a situation such as the one that I have noted, you can not always predict when and where the "Sheeple" will place themselves. I am confident enough in my ability to place the shot and the ability of my chosen caliber (.357), I have no doubt that my choice is best for my situation, regardless of cost. Glazers have been around long enough that I don't think thier effectiveness can be questioned. I'm far from a balistics expert, but I go with what feels the most comfortable for my application.
While price is certainly a large factor, it is far from the only one. The FBI's penetration standards are 12-16" with 14" being ideal. While this may seem excessive for a frontal shot on a small to average sized individual, the reason is that they are also trying to be prepared for circumstances such as shooting through extremities or shooting through heavy clothing. Glasers, on the other hand, seem to penetrate in the neighborhood of 5-9". While this might be enough with a frontal shot on a small to average sized individual, a very large individual or one who requires a shot through an extremity or heavy clothing would likely require more penetration to quickly and reliably incapacitate. Also, JHP's behave more predictably than frangibles do. With a Glaser, you have multiple penetration depths and wound channels in varying directions. Regardless of whether you subscribe to kinetic energy or permanent crush cavity as your preferred wound ballistics theory (personally I think there is merit to both), the unpredictable nature of the idividual pellets of a Glaser is likely to reduce the effects of both.
While this is true (though I'm not particularly fond of the term "Sheeple"), you do have at least some control over how, when, and where you take a shot. This, along with the more predictable nature of JHP's, makes me favor them over Glasers and other frangibles.
Yet they have. While I don't agree with all of his conclusions, Martin Fackler dismissed them due to lack of penetration. Also the FBI (most LE agencies follow their reccomendations) rejected them for the same reason Fackler does: lack of penetration. Both the military and LE have used frangible ammunition for specific purposes (mainly safe training to reduce the risk of riccochet at indoor ranges) yet no major LE agency that I'm aware of has ever adopted any type of frangible ammo as standard issue.
If Glasers are what you're most comfortable with and you can afford to shoot them in sufficient quantity, by all means load your .357 with them. Keep in mind, however, their limitations and remember that there is no majic bullet.