I've seen online, mainly in Youtube videos, that basically advocates the most penetration as possible for your concealed carry handgun. Wouldn't extreme penetrating ammunition do less damage to the target and be more likely to over-penetrate the target than hollow point ammunition?
The more penetration the better?
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
disseminator
New member
It depends. It's usually a matter of: if all else is equal, then more penetration is better.
Few will advocate FMJ over HP for example unless maybe in a really anemic caliber where there is not enough energy for both expansion and penetration. A criticism which is often leveled at some of the smaller calibers like 32 and 380.
This is why the FBI protocol is used as it ensures good penetration with decent expansion as well. Both are needed for optimal performance in a self defense application.
Few will advocate FMJ over HP for example unless maybe in a really anemic caliber where there is not enough energy for both expansion and penetration. A criticism which is often leveled at some of the smaller calibers like 32 and 380.
This is why the FBI protocol is used as it ensures good penetration with decent expansion as well. Both are needed for optimal performance in a self defense application.
JoeSixpack
New member
If you could some how size your load to be just powerful enough to go thru your target and then fall to the floor, that would be ideal.
But that's pretty much impossible to do.. so ya you want penetration.. but any energy that is left in the bullet after it exits the target is 1. wasted energy, and 2. potentially dangerous for bystandards.
This is why I would shy away from FMJ in most calibers and other calibers altogether..
FMJ will penetrate a lot deeper then a hollow point because it does not expand.. all it's energy is being put into penetration.
Other calibers like 44mag, 10mm and up those are probably going to over penetrate regardless of what type of bullet you have.. unless your attacker is say 400lbs wearing heavy clothing.
But that's pretty much impossible to do.. so ya you want penetration.. but any energy that is left in the bullet after it exits the target is 1. wasted energy, and 2. potentially dangerous for bystandards.
This is why I would shy away from FMJ in most calibers and other calibers altogether..
FMJ will penetrate a lot deeper then a hollow point because it does not expand.. all it's energy is being put into penetration.
Other calibers like 44mag, 10mm and up those are probably going to over penetrate regardless of what type of bullet you have.. unless your attacker is say 400lbs wearing heavy clothing.
10mm is not necessarily over penetrative with a good HP.
175 gr. Silvertip - about 16 inches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmNL30om6Eo&t=113s
165 DoubleTap bonded - about 15 inches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofCgLKpqt7c
180 gr. Hornady XTP - about 17 inches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X6vNZTbF7s
Penetration is not the sole & only goal.
The bullet needs to do as much tissue disruption during travel as is reasonably possible, coupled with a good degree of penetration.
Ideally, and I won't argue this with FMJ fans who think two holes (entrance & exit) are better than one, the most effective & efficient defensive handgun bullet for use against human threats produces enough penetration to reach vital organs, expanding sufficiently to maximize tissue damage, and dumps all of its energy internally, without exiting.
FMJs are generally poor choices, and penetration isn't everything.
Denis
The bullet needs to do as much tissue disruption during travel as is reasonably possible, coupled with a good degree of penetration.
Ideally, and I won't argue this with FMJ fans who think two holes (entrance & exit) are better than one, the most effective & efficient defensive handgun bullet for use against human threats produces enough penetration to reach vital organs, expanding sufficiently to maximize tissue damage, and dumps all of its energy internally, without exiting.
FMJs are generally poor choices, and penetration isn't everything.
Denis
Penetration is one criteria that must be balanced against others in selecting a self-defense load. You certainly need the round to penetrate whatever clothing your attacker is wearing and then penetrate deeply enough into the target to incapacitate them, but that's enough. But a bullet that penetrates the clothing, the body and then travel for another half mile wasted all that energy that could have gone into incapacitating the assailant, so, yes, there is such a thing as overpenetration and it is not good. Gel tests are used because they provide a consistent basis for comparison, but the human body is not ballistic gel, it has bones, organs, muscle and even empty spaces, so don't assume a shot into a block of gel is how the round will act in practice.
TruthTellers
New member
When I hear people on the internet explaining why they love the Lehigh Extreme Penetrator bullets and other such ammo is they're under the belief that they perform excellent when you have to shoot through objects, when they hit bones in the aggressor, they won't deform and keep penetrating, that they cause great damage to tissue and such.
Thing is, you can find hollow point ammo if you research enough that penetrates well, but not too much in the body, expands and causes much more damage, and can still perform well after going through objects.
As others here said, penetration is generally more important with .22, .25, .32, and .380 to some extent. For anything under .380, I think FMJ or basically any non-hollow point is the best choice. In .380, that's where some JHP's will expand a lot, but fail to penetrate deep enough and others will expand very little and penetrate well.
So, no, penetration isn't the answer to every question, but it is important, you have to have penetration, but it is absolutely not the maximum amount.
Thing is, you can find hollow point ammo if you research enough that penetrates well, but not too much in the body, expands and causes much more damage, and can still perform well after going through objects.
As others here said, penetration is generally more important with .22, .25, .32, and .380 to some extent. For anything under .380, I think FMJ or basically any non-hollow point is the best choice. In .380, that's where some JHP's will expand a lot, but fail to penetrate deep enough and others will expand very little and penetrate well.
So, no, penetration isn't the answer to every question, but it is important, you have to have penetration, but it is absolutely not the maximum amount.
Despite "wasted" energy and possible risk to bystanders, having too much penetration is better than not having ENOUGH!
The now classic example is the 1986 FBI Miami shootout.
The 9mm HP met the FBI's required penetration standards, but tragically in that real world shootout, stopped just short of an instantly fatal wound. A deadly wound, but not instantly fatal. The shooter lived about another minute, and killed a couple of FBI agents and wounded several others in that short amount of time.
Many other things went hugely wrong for the FBI agents that day, but the blame was dropped on the 9mm not penetrating enough.
the FBI dropped the 9mm and changed their standards.
Interestingly enough, they have now gone back to the 9mm.
Police agencies have a legitimate concern over excessive penetration, especially in urban settings. A large city PD sees more shootings in a month than you or I will experience in a lifetime, so the odds of bystanders being hurt if much higher from overpenetration. (the odds of bystanders being shot by poor marksmanship seems even higher, but we'll ignore that, for now
)
I'll be blunt, I don't care what suits police use best. I'm not the police, and I have different concerns. I want two holes, so that, in the worst case, where the bullet didn't hit a vital spot, blood loss is faster. The sooner the brain loses blood pressure, the sooner things stop.
Having more than enough penetration to shoot through an attacker "front to back" means a much higher likelihood of having ENOUGH penetration when you have to shoot at an angle, when their arm is in the way, or through some kind of cover. Not a guarantee, there are none. But an increase in the odds in your favor.
Personally, I'm in a situation where I could use .30-06 AP ammo and the odds of endangering my neighbors are between slim and none, and Slim's out of town..
Most people aren't in that situation, and if you live in a crackerbox, surrounded by other crackerboxes in every direction (including up and down), your choices should be different than mine.
Until someone comes up with a defensive bullet that holds together while passing through, then turns to dust the instant it exits an attacker, you're going to have to make compromises between enough penetration to do the job under all possible conditions and something that might not.
The now classic example is the 1986 FBI Miami shootout.
The 9mm HP met the FBI's required penetration standards, but tragically in that real world shootout, stopped just short of an instantly fatal wound. A deadly wound, but not instantly fatal. The shooter lived about another minute, and killed a couple of FBI agents and wounded several others in that short amount of time.
Many other things went hugely wrong for the FBI agents that day, but the blame was dropped on the 9mm not penetrating enough.
the FBI dropped the 9mm and changed their standards.
Interestingly enough, they have now gone back to the 9mm.
Police agencies have a legitimate concern over excessive penetration, especially in urban settings. A large city PD sees more shootings in a month than you or I will experience in a lifetime, so the odds of bystanders being hurt if much higher from overpenetration. (the odds of bystanders being shot by poor marksmanship seems even higher, but we'll ignore that, for now
)I'll be blunt, I don't care what suits police use best. I'm not the police, and I have different concerns. I want two holes, so that, in the worst case, where the bullet didn't hit a vital spot, blood loss is faster. The sooner the brain loses blood pressure, the sooner things stop.
Having more than enough penetration to shoot through an attacker "front to back" means a much higher likelihood of having ENOUGH penetration when you have to shoot at an angle, when their arm is in the way, or through some kind of cover. Not a guarantee, there are none. But an increase in the odds in your favor.
Personally, I'm in a situation where I could use .30-06 AP ammo and the odds of endangering my neighbors are between slim and none, and Slim's out of town..
Most people aren't in that situation, and if you live in a crackerbox, surrounded by other crackerboxes in every direction (including up and down), your choices should be different than mine.
Until someone comes up with a defensive bullet that holds together while passing through, then turns to dust the instant it exits an attacker, you're going to have to make compromises between enough penetration to do the job under all possible conditions and something that might not.
JoeSixpack
New member
FBI shoot out the wound you're talking about is where it came just short of hitting his heart right?
IIRC didn't that shot come sideways going thru his arm first?.
Meh regardless I'd rather be at the low end then the high end of the power scale.
As far as misses are concerned ALL calibers are dangerous to bystanders if missing the target..
Although we could argue a lower velocity round would be safer due to it's shorter range, or we could argue that it's better to miss with a 22 then it is with a 357.
The only time the discussion of missing your target and what we can do about it besides simply NOT missing.. is perhaps shotguns.. where I find #4 buck to be a better choice then 00.. the 4 will loose energy quicker but still quite effective at typical 10-15 yard range with a cylinder choke.
For the most part we can't concern our selves with the possibility of a miss.. We can only really discuss hits.
I guess you gotta find your comfort level, for me it's 9mm and 38spl +P and if im at the lower end of the scale so be it.
Im not counting on that magical 1 shot stop anyway.
IIRC didn't that shot come sideways going thru his arm first?.
Meh regardless I'd rather be at the low end then the high end of the power scale.
As far as misses are concerned ALL calibers are dangerous to bystanders if missing the target..
Although we could argue a lower velocity round would be safer due to it's shorter range, or we could argue that it's better to miss with a 22 then it is with a 357.
The only time the discussion of missing your target and what we can do about it besides simply NOT missing.. is perhaps shotguns.. where I find #4 buck to be a better choice then 00.. the 4 will loose energy quicker but still quite effective at typical 10-15 yard range with a cylinder choke.
For the most part we can't concern our selves with the possibility of a miss.. We can only really discuss hits.
I guess you gotta find your comfort level, for me it's 9mm and 38spl +P and if im at the lower end of the scale so be it.
Im not counting on that magical 1 shot stop anyway.
Bill DeShivs
New member
Two holes- entry and exit have little to nothing to do with blood loss. Most blood loss is internal.
JoeSixpack
New member
Had not thought about that... But really I guess that makes sense, the organ does not care where the blood is going it's loosing it either way..
Still seems like 2 holes would be better then one.
Still seems like 2 holes would be better then one.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Here's a nice bit on the problem: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/09/penetration/
There are courses out there that teach aiming points on 3D targets to hit critical areas.
Here's an AAR :
https://blog.hsoi.com/2015/12/07/aar-shooting-with-xray-vision/
Worth taking.
There are courses out there that teach aiming points on 3D targets to hit critical areas.
Here's an AAR :
https://blog.hsoi.com/2015/12/07/aar-shooting-with-xray-vision/
Worth taking.
In a defensive shooting, you're not looking for a relatively slow blood loss incapacitation that doesn't offer a fast cessation of the threat.
You're looking for max tissue & nervous system disruption, and a STOP RIGHT NOW, which a through & through doesn't necessarily provide.
Again- defensive threat response & hunting are two different scenarios.
Denis
You're looking for max tissue & nervous system disruption, and a STOP RIGHT NOW, which a through & through doesn't necessarily provide.
Again- defensive threat response & hunting are two different scenarios.
Denis
JoeSixpack
New member
DPris ideally but lets face it sometimes you gotta get what you can get.
A 22lr to the head will stop the target but how many carry a 22lr with that idea in mind?
A 22lr to the head will stop the target but how many carry a 22lr with that idea in mind?
If we could get penetration for "free" AND if there was never any chance that a round that went through the target could damage something unintentionally on the other side of the target, then it would be true that more penetration is better.
But penetration isn't free. If you hold everything else exactly equal (same target medium, same bullet expansion, same bullet diameter) but want to increase the penetration, the only way to do that is to increase the momentum of the bullet. That means increasing the velocity or the mass, or both. And doing any of those things will increase the recoil since recoil is a function of conservation of momentum. Recoil is undesirable because it slows the shooter's ability to make accurate follow-up shots (we want to be able to make rapid accurate shots if we are shooting for our lives) and because it can make practice uncomfortable, or even counterproductive. Not enough practice, or counterproductive practice also makes it unlikely that we will be able to make rapid accurate shots in a pinch. That's bad.
And it isn't true that we can shoot through our targets without worrying about what's on the other side. Clearly sometimes (even often in some environments) there are things on the other side of the target that we wish to leave unharmed.
Since penetration isn't all positive--it costs us something in terms of recoil and increases the possibility of unintentional damage/injury beyond the target--then maybe we want to minimize penetration.
Unfortunately, that won't work either. Clearly if the bullet doesn't penetrate enough, it won't reach anything vital/critical and if that happens then we have to hope that the attacker stops attacking because he doesn't like loud noises. Obviously that's not a good situation.
Well then, it sounds like we want to find a level of penetration that guarantees our bullets can get deeply enough into the target to damage vital/critical parts of the target but without making us worry too much about what is going on behind the target, and without making us pay too high a penalty in terms of recoil.
That's not such an easy problem to solve, but organizations with lots of money and lots at stake have devoted considerable effort coming up with an answer.
Right now, the most commonly accepted answer (kindly provided for us by the FBI) is that we want expanding ammunition for our self-defense handguns that will penetrate 12" to 18" into a target medium designed to mimic human tissue. Notice that in keeping with our concerns about too little penetration there's a lower limit. And there's an upper limit so we can place an upper limit on handgun recoil and also cut down our level of worry about what's going to happen behind our target if we have to open fire.
That's the most commonly accepted answer, but it's not the only answer. There are people willing to accept less than 12" of penetration in return for being able to carry a lighter, smaller handgun and/or to deal with less recoil. And there are people who are concerned (and not totally without basis in fact) about being attacked by humans who are much larger than average size and want more than 18" of penetration.
But penetration isn't free. If you hold everything else exactly equal (same target medium, same bullet expansion, same bullet diameter) but want to increase the penetration, the only way to do that is to increase the momentum of the bullet. That means increasing the velocity or the mass, or both. And doing any of those things will increase the recoil since recoil is a function of conservation of momentum. Recoil is undesirable because it slows the shooter's ability to make accurate follow-up shots (we want to be able to make rapid accurate shots if we are shooting for our lives) and because it can make practice uncomfortable, or even counterproductive. Not enough practice, or counterproductive practice also makes it unlikely that we will be able to make rapid accurate shots in a pinch. That's bad.
And it isn't true that we can shoot through our targets without worrying about what's on the other side. Clearly sometimes (even often in some environments) there are things on the other side of the target that we wish to leave unharmed.
Since penetration isn't all positive--it costs us something in terms of recoil and increases the possibility of unintentional damage/injury beyond the target--then maybe we want to minimize penetration.
Unfortunately, that won't work either. Clearly if the bullet doesn't penetrate enough, it won't reach anything vital/critical and if that happens then we have to hope that the attacker stops attacking because he doesn't like loud noises. Obviously that's not a good situation.
Well then, it sounds like we want to find a level of penetration that guarantees our bullets can get deeply enough into the target to damage vital/critical parts of the target but without making us worry too much about what is going on behind the target, and without making us pay too high a penalty in terms of recoil.
That's not such an easy problem to solve, but organizations with lots of money and lots at stake have devoted considerable effort coming up with an answer.
Right now, the most commonly accepted answer (kindly provided for us by the FBI) is that we want expanding ammunition for our self-defense handguns that will penetrate 12" to 18" into a target medium designed to mimic human tissue. Notice that in keeping with our concerns about too little penetration there's a lower limit. And there's an upper limit so we can place an upper limit on handgun recoil and also cut down our level of worry about what's going to happen behind our target if we have to open fire.
That's the most commonly accepted answer, but it's not the only answer. There are people willing to accept less than 12" of penetration in return for being able to carry a lighter, smaller handgun and/or to deal with less recoil. And there are people who are concerned (and not totally without basis in fact) about being attacked by humans who are much larger than average size and want more than 18" of penetration.