'it's not a combat round. it's a self-defense round. '

[44 AMP]

Whats best is shaped by opinion and tactical situation

Any energy that is expended outside of the target is wasted as far as incapacitation is concerned. The potential for collateral damage due to over-penetration is also a concern. What am I missing here?

It comes down to how you look at it. There's no free lunch, everything's a trade off, and some other cliche's too.

The remaining energy of a bullet that completely penetrates the target is lost. True. "Wasted" depends on one major factor, and that is, did the bullet do its job on the way through? In terms of personal defense, did it stop the attack?

If it did, then the "wasting" of that energy is irrelevant. If it did not, then you have a right to question if that energy had not been "wasted" would it have stopped the attack? Thats a question no one can answer with assurance.

What about the "wasted" energy of a bullet that does NOT exit, and yet fails to stop the attack? My opinion, 100% of that bullet's energy was "wasted". Bullets are not magic death rays. They are just the most effective means to the desired end.

Expanding bullets don't, sometimes. Somtimes expanding bullets go all the way through. It is virtually impossible to create a round with just enough penetration with all the different sizes of people, angles of impact and obstacles in the way. And do it at differing ranges.

The round that is just enough in one situation falls short in another, and exits in a third. We have better bullets today than we did decades ago. They perform much more reliably. But they still fail on occassion, even when right "on target".

There is one constant about a bullet that exits. There are always TWO holes. Often one is much larger than the other. This always means a greater possibility of blood loss. And that can mean an end to the attack. Doesn't always, but I think it ups the odds in our favor.

Overpenetration! Big bad bugaboo these days. And more important to many folks than one might think. Living close to many other people, and in all directions, who are not behind something that stops bullets means its important where each bullet you fire stops.

The real safety problem in cities and really built up areas, the one that makes gun control so popular with some people is that no matter who is shooting or why, odds are higher that somebody will get hit. Somebody who was not meant to be hit. SO, if you are armed in that kind of population density, its rather important that you do what you can to see that your bullets do what you need them to do, and only that. And that's a two part thing. Only one part is the bullet's performance. The other part is the shooter's performance. Tremendous variables at work, the most important ones when discussing what is the "best" defensive round.

 

[K_Mac]

44 AMP, well said. Having a bullet that will effectively incapacitate the attacker without putting others at risk is not a simple problem. Having the skill to place it where needed in a stressful situation while maintaining situational awareness is also a complex issue.

My one issue with your post is the 'wasted' energy of a bullet that completely penetrates an attacker and stops the attack is not irrelevant if collateral damage is done by it.

 

[briandg]

With that said Briandg, I know many people who are intelligent, clear thinking and capable of making rational decisions based on the facts at hand. Some of us have served on juries and have done our very best to see that justice was done. There are many who fit your above description, but to paint all Americans with the same brush seems to be arrogant and close minded. I could be wrong. Having been a juror in the past maybe I don't understand the issue

yep, I get arrogant and closed minded at times. after having thought about it most of the day, I realized that I actually did know a few people who I would want on a jury.

You want to know the one sure way to know if a person is fit to be on a jury?

Ask them what they think about a high profile crime like OJ, amanda knox, or any other big, highly public case. If you hear them declare loudly that the defendant was either guilty or not guilty, well, they just blew it. They figuratively sentenced a defendant without even being in the court to hear the evidence.

My personal perception of the people is obviously pessimistic. For what it's worth.

 

[K_Mac]

My personal perception of the people is obviously pessimistic.

It is easy to get cynical in this crazy world. There are still many good folks around, but the idiots make most of the noise and get nearly all the attention. I like to go fishing or shoot some stuff to when I get that way. Hang in there man.

 

[DAS9mm]

Even though we did not sign the Geneva and Hague conventions we for the most part abide by them. That means except for some "Open Tip Match" rounds and a few other types being fielded right now for combat it's FMJ rounds. Except for states that don't allow them (and some exotic ammo) the bulk of self defense rounds are are JHP's. And with the best JHP's they are usually the best choice.

The US did not sign and ratify the Hague Conventions. We are signatories of the Geneva Conventions I and II and the follow up protocols. I think the US helped write the the redo after the second world war.

 

[DAS9mm]

There is one constant about a bullet that exits. There are always TWO holes. Often one is much larger than the other. This always means a greater possibility of blood loss. And that can mean an end to the attack. Doesn't always, but I think it ups the odds in our favor.

One of our last lectures in medical school was from a representative from the state (Oregon) medical examiner. One of her quips was that trauma surgeons are about 50% accurate in determining exit vs. entrance wounds.

 

[44 AMP]

While I readily agree that the entrance and exit holes of small caliber and non expanding bullets can be mistaken by someone looking only at the holes, when an expanding bullet exits (or a high energy bullet blows bone to fragments on its way out) there is seldom any confusion over which is entry and exit.

What I meant, primarily, was that it is the existance of two holes that always increases probability of blood loss. And one of the holes being bigger just goes further in that direction.

 

[Edward429451]

I do find the idea that there is no such thing as over-penetration challenging. Any energy that is expended outside of the target is wasted as far as incapacitation is concerned. The potential for collateral damage due to over-penetration is also a concern. What am I missing here?

What you are missing is that while over penetration does exist, it is so overblown as a problem so as to be moot. There are many other things worthy of our concern than over-penetration. Like being able to hit your target, having good judgement concerning shoot/no shoot, and so forth.

If I had to shoot in SD, I'd be more concerned about my misses than over-penetration. Not missing with ball ammo will keep more people safe than missing with premium anti-penetration ammo.

I do not believe over-penetration exists in a SD situation. Shoot/no shoot does. Penetration is our friend, and gives us options if they are behind barriers and an active threat. My job is make sure I do not miss, period. Is there anything else? The problem of over-penetration is absolved itself in the shoot/no shoot determination that is made, hasn't it?

 

[Nnobby45]

You want to know the one sure way to know if a person is fit to be on a jury?

Ask them what they think about a high profile crime like OJ, amanda knox, or any other big, highly public case. If you hear them declare loudly that the defendant was either guilty or not guilty, well, they just blew it. They figuratively sentenced a defendant without even being in the court to hear the evidence.

I understand the concern, but I don't think all is lost with such folks. What matters is how they feel after they'rve been instructed by the judge, heard the evident, and been in a room with other people who weigh the evidence in an objective manner. That will weed out the pre-conceived opionions of most of them.

Of course, there was the OJ case, but those jury members knew he murdered two people and acquited him anyway. It wasn't their opinions about his guilt that was the issue---it was deciding on their verdict right from the start.

 

[K_Mac]

I do not believe over-penetration exists in a SD situation. Shoot/no shoot does. Penetration is our friend, and gives us options if they are behind barriers and an active threat. My job is make sure I do not miss, period. Is there anything else? The problem of over-penetration is absolved itself in the shoot/no shoot determination that is made, hasn't it?

I agree that the peril of over-penetration is sometimes overstated, often by anti-gun folks who are generally opposed to the very idea that citizens have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves. I would also agree that having the judgment to quickly assess whether shooting is required to stop an attack, and the training and skills necessary to hit the target are fundamental to using a firearm for self defense.

The notion that "penetration is our friend" is true, right up to the point it is not. A bullet that will remain substantially intact with enough energy to assure an exit wound after penetrating a barrier, or barriers, in a self defense situation is likely pushing that limit in my opinion. What are you shooting through? Glass? Wood? Steel? Sheet rock? Trees? Bricks? Concrete?

The idea that concerns about over-penetration are "absolved" once the decision that shooting is required has been made is an over simplification IMO. This seems to be premised on the idea that the shooter can "make sure" he/she doesn't miss. Even if that were true, wouldn't there still be limits on caliber/ammo in a self defense situation? The reality is that a high percentage of rounds fired for the purpose of self defense do not hit their target. This means that possibility must be considered in the shoot/no shoot decision and in the weapon/ammunition used, doesn't it?

Just for the record, I am not advocating the use of the Glaser rounds. A quality JHP in 9mm or .38 special meet all of my HD/SD needs.

 

[briandg]

over penetration of human target and penetration of barriers just rockets downward as weight and Sectional density are reduced.

Probably nothing will penetrate worse than a round musket ball Soft lead, worst possible SD that can reliably fire. just adding enough lead to square off the base will enormously improve the SD and penetration. Taking it to greater extremes, if a 12 gauge saboted slug was swaged down to a 4 inch long bronze penetrating punch and fired at the same velocity, about the only thing that will stop that thing is if it keyholes in between objects and hits sideways.

Heavier bullets, higher SD numbers, equivalent velocity numbers, will give deeper penetration if expansion is controlled to approximately the same amount.

I've said before, I don't want to fire high SD rounds in a home defense situation, because I don't want to take deliberate risks with my neighbor's lives and property. Same thoughts on almost any type of public space. I won't pull the trigger in a situation where there are people downrange, unless it is an absolutely clear cut case of life and death for another.

My 9mm/38 rounds are in the 115 and 125 grain range. these are almost certain not to through and through, and will jam up in construction materials quickly.

I'll take that risk. With a little bit less to worry about, such as more sparsely populated areas, I believe that moving up to higher penetration is totally appropriate.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I consider "combat" rounds to be full metal jackets. Self defense rounds are hollow points in my opinion.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't want to fire high SD rounds in a home defense situation, because I don't want to take deliberate risks with my neighbor's lives and property. Same thoughts on almost any type of public space. I won't pull the trigger in a situation where there are people downrange, unless it is an absolutely clear cut case of life and death for another.

A perfectly reasonable viewpoint for a city/urban situation. However, you must be ok with the balance of risk. Risk of a penetration (misses are a separate subject) injuring someone else vs risk of the round not penetrating to the vitals and your attacker is not stopped.

Leaving aside having to shoot through a barricade (door, etc), glass, car body, whatever, you need a round that will go though a heavy coat, and arm (worst likely case) and still get to the vitals in the torso to be certain. And a round that will reliably do that might exit if shot straight on frontal torso through a t-shirt.

One of the basic safety rules is "know your target, and what is behind it". And this even applies to self defense, to a degree. Just don't get so focused on collateral damage that you don't shoot when you have to.