I carry 9mm ball ammo. Do you think that is irresponsible?

[Malamute]

...what would you call it then?

Tissue damage.

 

[Mike38]

dogtown tom wrote: There is no such thing as "energy dump"

Interesting, I’ve seen that comment before. Please educate me.

Some random thoughts open for critique….

When a bullets enters an object, resistance starts to slow it down at a rapid rate. If the object is softer than the bullet, the resistance is low. If the object is harder than the bullet, the resistance is high. Even air causes resistance. Any will cause energy loss (energy dump) of the forward moving projectile. Also, taking into consideration the theory of “temporary wound channel” this energy loss / energy dump disperses outward and larger than the bullet diameter. The forward energy of the bullet is being “dumped” (lost) into the object. No?

If a bullet enters an object with 100 foot pounds of energy, then exists the object with 50 foot pounds of energy, that energy got “dumped” into the object. It had to go somewhere! It wasn’t all focused onto the exact diameter of the bullet, the energy was dispersed / dumped into the object. No?

If given a choice of one of two, get shot with a FMJ out of a .223, or get shot with a ballistic tip varmint bullet out of a .223, give me the FMJ. The FMJ will retain some of it’s energy with it as it passes threw me. The varmint ballistic tip disperses all of it’s energy in me, because it breaks apart and never exists, or energy dump. No?

 

[Frank Ettin]

dogtown tom wrote: There is no such thing as "energy dump"

Interesting, I’ve seen that comment before. Please educate me.

Okay, the short answer is the at the velocity of most handgun cartridges the energy involved is not sufficient to be an independent factor. The issue at those velocities is tissue damage attributable to the physical crushing effect of the bullet.

Here's the long answer:

Consider that there are reasons why today virtually all law enforcement agencies use JHP ammunition.

As I've said before:

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. But we keep getting into these "ring-around-the-rosie" discussions because, I guess, a lot of people are dissatisfied that there really is no definitive answer.

Perhaps the real conclusion(s) with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

I've posted the following before and might as well post it again here:

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  
  • 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; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  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.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  
  • this study by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates:
    
    
    
    ​
    
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    
    
    1. There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
       
       
       • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
         
         
       • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
         
         
       • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
         
         
       • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
         
         
       • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
    2. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
       • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
         
         
       • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
       
       
    3. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
       
       
    4. From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  
  
• Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

  ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
  
  The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

• And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
  
  
  • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

    In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

    The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

    Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  
• And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

  
  
• But take special note of the quote in the third bullet point in item V., above:
  
  
  • In In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, with my emphasis):

    ... the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

    
    
  • And that leads us to prefer expanding bullets.

 

[Sarge]

If you're taking about conventional service pistols, the energy gets converted into a poked hole. We could argue endlessly about this or that projectile being most efficient, but in the end a poked hole is what you get; and no fancy pistol bullet will make up for 2" of dispersion on where that hole goes. Location, location, location.

My personal preference is for at least a .40 caliber hole poked deep and hard enough to disrupt the spinal column, should I be fortunate enough to land one in line with it. Such a load is going to penetrate the body more often than not. I don't care. Hunting with a handgun has convinced me that large living organisms tend to get sicker quicker when they have in/out leakage from two holes, rather than one.

 

[Sarge]

Frank, I was apparently typing my reply when yours got posted. I think we agree on more than we disagree on.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"How much energy is there in a handgun bullet if it over penetrates and exits?"

It all depends on what velocity it retains when it exits.



"the normal human body is 8 inches thick."

That would be great...

IF the person you're shooting at is standing still, completely vertical, AND facing you.

Which is incredibly unrealistic.

If your intended target has his arm up in front of him, vertical, and you hit him in the forearm just above the elbow, you've just added 4 to 5 more inches of penetration BEFORE you even start penetrating the chest.

If he's standing partially sideways to you and you hit him in the upper arm, that might be 6 or more inches of additional penetration before you get into the chest.

Penetration at an angle can also dramatically increase the amount of required penetration.

The FBI tests were developed for the worst case scenario.

During the Miami shootout a 9mm Silvertip round caught gunman Michael Platt in the upper arm, penetrated through the arm, and stopped about an inch short of his heart.

The wound would ultimately not have been survivable, but he was bleeding out at such a slow rate that he was able to kill two FBI agents before being taken out by agent Mirelles.

The 9mm Silvertip did everthing that it was intended to do -- penetrate and expand -- it just didn't penetrate enough (approximately 9 to 11 inches, IIRC).

That's why the FBI testing criteria set 12 inches as the MINIMUM penetration suitable for handgun bullets.

It's easy for bullets to work in the best case scenario. It's the worst case scenario, as evidenced by the Miami fiasco, that they are worried about.

 

[Derbel McDillet]

In reference to the Diallo shooting I cited earlier, Manta49 writes:

And there is no way of telling if the result would not have been the same if JHP ammo was used.

In reply to Manta49, Theohazard writes:

With a sample size of only one you never know exactly how much difference it would have made, and in which direction. There are always statistical outliers, so that's why using one shooting as an example doesn't make much sense no matter what the results were.

The Diallo shooting is merely one example of SEVERAL shooting incidents in which the poor terminal effects of 9mm FMJ convinced NYPD to change to JHP ammunition, specifically Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P, which has performed very well since.

What the bullet hits and damages as it penetrates determines rapidity of physiological incapacitation. An FMJ bullet is streamlined and elastic soft tissues simply stretch and "flow" around the bullet. An expanded JHP has a non-streamlined shape of greater diameter than an FMJ bullet of the same caliber. The expanded JHP bullet crushes more tissue producing more tissue damage. Depending on which structures the bullet encounters as it penetrates (and the location of this structure along the wound track), the expanded JHP also has the potential to produce substantially increased damage to non-elastic soft tissues (liver, kidney, spleen).

 

[manta49]

In that particular case a FMJ bullet could have reached his heart. Penetration is the most important factor without it everything else is useless.

The Diallo shooting is merely one example of SEVERAL shooting incidents in which the poor terminal effects of 9mm FMJ convinced NYPD to change to JHP ammunition, specifically Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P, which has performed very well since.

Is there any evidence of that, in shootings were the NYPD have used JHP instead of FMJ.

 

[Derbel McDillet]

In that particular case a FMJ bullet could have reached his heart. Penetration is the most important factor without it everything else is useless.

Indeed the one bullet that compelled Diallo to instantly collapse perforated the aorta and partially severed the spinal cord. It was one of the very last, if not the final, bullet that hit him.

Adequate penetration is most important. Once adequate penetration is achieved then the only way to substantially increase wound trauma is to use an expanding bullet, which when it expands increases soft tissue damage. Thus a hole in the heart produced by a streamlined FMJ bullet is smaller than the hole produced by an expanded JHP bullet. The larger hole leads to more rapid blood loss in both rate and volume, which in turn leads to faster physiological incapacitation.

A flat nose solid bullet also has the potential to crush more tissue than a round nose solid bullet - depending on the diameter of the flat nose.

Is there any evidence of that, in shootings were the NYPD have used JHP instead of FMJ.

NYPD's excellent experience with Speer Gold Dot 9mm +P is pretty much common knowledge. Suggest you Google "NYPD SOP 9" and research from 1994 (when 9mm FMJ was adopted by NYPD) to present (note: NYPD adopted 9mm JHP in early 1999).

 

[Hunter0924]

Here is my 9mm ballistic test, it will surprise you how much more 9mm ball penetrates than JHP.

http://rangehot.com/9mm-luger-ballistic-test/

 

[redhawk45]

Does the US military still use 9mm FMJ ball ammo?

 

[Theohazard]

^^^ Yes.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Does the US military still use 9mm FMJ ball ammo?

And it does so not because it's the best choice, but rather to comply with the Hague Accords.

 

[redhawk45]

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Mike Irwin]

It was a rhetorical answer.

 

[Theohazard]

It was a rhetorical question.

Like Frank said, the military uses FMJ ball, but not because it's the best choice. So what rhetorical point were you getting at?

 

[redhawk45]

The Hague is OLD. The USA did not sign the Accords. The military keeps using ball ammo in pistols for many reasons including: From a practical standpoint for military use?
1. FMJ feeds more reliably under adverse conditions.
2. It penetrates hard cover, & helmets and vests better then JHP.
3. It is cheaper to make.
4. Pistols do not win wars, no matter what you shoot in them.

The point is FMJ is ok to use.

 

[JeffK]

Old saying, better to wound someone with FMJ then to kill him instantly, because then you take him and two of his buddies out of action.

But actually I think the main reason is, it's cheaper and also better able to penetrate through shielding.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Hague is OLD. The USA did not sign the Accords. The military keeps using ball ammo in pistols for many reasons including: From a practical standpoint for military use?
1. FMJ feeds more reliably under adverse conditions.
2. It penetrates hard cover, & helmets and vests better then JHP.
3. It is cheaper to make.
4. Pistols do not win wars, no matter what you shoot in them.

The point is FMJ is ok to use.

Based on that analysis, yes, ball is okay to use for military, in theater applications. But those reasons don't really apply to the carrying of a sidearm by a private citizen (or an LEO) for self defense in a peacetime world.

 

[Theohazard]

Old saying, better to wound someone with FMJ then to kill him instantly, because then you take him and two of his buddies out of action.

I usually see that myth in reference to the 5.56 round. Either way, it's complete nonsense. In the Marine Corps, they taught us to kill the enemy, not wound him. You'll never hear a Marine say, "One shot, one wound."

Based on that analysis, yes, ball is okay to use for military, in theater applications. But those reasons don't really apply to the carrying of a sidearm by a private citizen (or an LEO) for self defense in a peacetime world.

I agree. All those are good reasons why the military uses FMJ, but none of those are good reasons for a civilian to carry FMJ.