Great blog post on handgun round choice.

[just Warren]

Tam gets a shoutout in the post. And it was a post of her's that had the link in the first place.

This is the sort of thing that should end caliber wars, but it won't.

[MillCreek]

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

I still like this testing series.

[just Warren]

Caliber shouldn't matter if you're choosing from among the majors since they all have rounds that can do what you want.

However you can still argue about ideal penetration or expansion.

Or move on to the platform and argue about size, weight, manual-of-arms, or round count.

See, still plenty left to waste electrons on.

And maybe even this, as one Steve Belden in the comments section pointed out:

I'd like to see you add how clean (or filthy) each OEM's loads are. it's unlikely anyone in this forum will ever have to fire live rounds at someone, but it's extremely likely we will all clean our guns occasionally. i can get that info from youtube but i'd rather get it from the guys from whom i buy the ammo

If a round does what you want do you care how dirty it is?

[lee n. field]

Tam gets a shoutout in the post. And it was a post of her's that had the link in the first place.

This is the sort of thing that should end caliber wars, but it won't.

No, it won't end.  And I'm pretty tired of it all.  Most everyone is defending their own investment in their personal choices.

I've come to think folks are trying to squeeze the last few percentages of optimization out of something that really can't be optimized.  They try to juggle minor tradeoffs that probably won't make a difference.  If 12 rounds of .40 won't fix the problem, do you think 15 rounds of 9 will?  "Have a gun" is the main hurdle.  After that, "good enough" is good enough.

It really doesn't matter that cops and the military are "going back to 9mm".  They have reasons, rules, special roles and situations that feed into that decision, that just don't apply to the private individual armed for his own defense.  NATO compatibility and supply chain logistics?  Irrelevant.

My own rule is "Standard ammo, 9mm or above, that I can buy at Walmart if I have to and can handload my own practice ammo."  (Though, per Ellifritz' own work, that rule probably ought to be ".380 and above, etc.")

[230RN]

Something seems fishy with that testing, but I can't put my finger on it.  

From lee n. field:

I've come to think folks are trying to squeeze the last few percentages of optimization out of something that really can't be optimized.  They try to juggle minor tradeoffs that probably won't make a difference.  If 12 rounds of .40 won't fix the problem, do you think 15 rounds of 9 will?  "Have a gun" is the main hurdle.  After that, "good enough" is good enough.

I've been heading that way in my own thinking for a long time.  My sense is, "Get as close to a .357 as you comfortably can, with a gun you can comfortably carry, with ammo that unfailingly goes bang," but there are holes in that logic as well.

I read about the bullet track in Lee Harvey Oswald's body from Jack Ruby's little .38 and that son of a gun bullet at close, possibly contact, range really whipped around in there.  He was apparently wearing a shirt and sweater and possibly a tee shirt under it all.  

Compare it to the almost-consistent 16" penetration without expansion, but through two layers of denim in OP's cited article.

I guess the only test is really, after a legitimate SD encounter, did you stop the threat and be able to walk away?

Maybe there's something to be said for "Dutch loads," variously called "New York loads" and "German loads."  At SD ranges, trajectories and accuracy are kind of side issues.



Terry

[zahc]

Tam cites statistics about the number of shots needed to incapacitate vs. caliber.

.45 is like 2.1 and 9mm is like 2.5.

Anyone else wonder if this discrepancy is due simply to the higher rate of fire for 9mm? I know that in a given span of time I can get off more 9mm rounds than .45 rounds.

[Ben]

Slight veer to Millcreek's link. I've been using Federal Hydra Shok in my .45s for probably fifteen years. I was quite surprised to see the lack of expansion in the tests at that link.

[230RN]

^
"I was quite surprised to see the lack of expansion in the tests at that link."

Only thing I can think of is the denim is clogging the hollow point.

When I got my super plastic mini-9 I decided I couldn't really afford to run 200 rd of expensive top-of-the line hollowpoints through it for verification, but I wrung (wrang? wringed?) it out with FMJs.  All good, both magazines.

What to do, what to do?

Decided to keep a top-of-the line expensive hollowpoint in the chamber, and the rest well-tested inexpensive FMJs.

The chambered hollowpoint would not have to feed at all.

You do what you gotta do, I guess.

[mtnbkr]

I have two carry guns, a J-frame 38 and a Glock 19.

The j-frame gets Speer 135gr "Short Barrel" ammo.  It has a good reputation and I was able to stock up on the less expensive 50cnt boxes (less expensive per round).

The Glock gets Federal 147gr HST Standard Pressure, which also does well in testing and is relatively inexpensive in the larger "LEO Only" boxes.

I've been considering changing the 38 to wadcutters, but not all wadcutters are created equal and any wadcutter load is hard to find and no less expensive to shoot than the Speer ammo.  I could cast/handload my own, but that causes other issues.

Chris

[mtnbkr]

This would be a good j-frame choice, but it's so expensive!

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=111

Chris

[41magsnub]

The j-frame gets Speer 135gr "Short Barrel" ammo.  It has a good reputation and I was able to stock up on the less expensive 50cnt boxes (less expensive per round).

Chris

If you look at the lucky gunner link above, this ammo failed badly.  Poor penetration and no expansion to speak of on most of the test rounds.  I quit carrying it as a result.

[mtnbkr]

If you look at the lucky gunner link above, this ammo failed badly.  Poor penetration and no expansion to speak of on most of the test rounds.  I quit carrying it as a result.

Average penetration was 13.6".  Have you ever looked at the depth of the typical person?  They're not that thick front to back, even in obese individuals (chest area). 

This was one test.  I don't recall where I saw it, but reports of LEO-involved shootings with this ammo (BUGs presumably) indicated good performance.  Truth be told, there doesn't seem to be an ironclad consensus anywhere when it comes to SD ammo for 2" j-frames.  I stick with the Speer load because I have enough on hand to practice with, but once I get low, I'll look at alternatives (leaning toward wadcutters).

In that test, only two really looked good, the Winchester Ranger Bonded and Remington Golden Saber.  I've never seen either those on the shelf.

Then again, scarcity of *good* SD ammo is one of the reasons I've been working my way away from the j-frame for SD purposes.  I may very well end up with a Glock 43 or 26 for the role the J-frame plays.

Chris

[K Frame]

"Average penetration was 13.6".  Have you ever looked at the depth of the typical person?  They're not that thick front to back, even in obese individuals (chest area)."

That's assuming that if you ever have to light someone up they're going to be standing straight on facing you, you're not going to have to shoot through their arm, they're not in a contorted posture that serves to increase the penetration depth needed to reach vital organs...

[K Frame]

And this video claims to show that the 135-gr. bullet expanding perfectly through 4 layers of denim, but out of a 4" barrel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnhjGPhvsIo

[K Frame]

Personally, I'm going to stick with the Speer 135-gr. for my carry needs.

[mtnbkr]

That's assuming that if you ever have to light someone up they're going to be standing straight on facing you, you're not going to have to shoot through their arm, they're not in a contorted posture that serves to increase the penetration depth needed to reach vital organs...

Good point.  Still, most folks aren't that "deep" from a variety of angles as long as you're not talking about a Texas heart shot.  You may not get full penetration, but you'll hit something important.

I'm an average sized dude and 13" from my shoulder takes you more than halfway through my torso.

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

Good point.  Still, most folks aren't that "deep" from a variety of angles as long as you're not talking about a Texas heart shot.  You may not get full penetration, but you'll hit something important.

I'm an average sized dude and 13" from my shoulder takes you more than halfway through my torso.

Chris

I thought 13" in ordnance gel indicated slightly less penetration in bad guy.

[mtnbkr]

I thought 13" in ordnance gel indicated slightly less penetration in bad guy.

Depends on the gel.  There is one that is pretty close to flesh, but others are different.

Chris

[K Frame]

The minimum 12" penetration adopted by the FBI's testing protocol was adopted because of the failure of a 9mm Silvertip round to reach the target's heart during the Miami Shootout.

The round hit Mattix (I think it was him) in the upper arm and stopped just short of the heart. It was, ultimately, a fatal shot, it just wasn't fatal quickly enough, and Mattix did all of his damage with a Ruger .223 rifle after that wound.

The reason for a minimum 12" penetration isn't because people are that thick, it's because it's felt that if a bullet can penetrate that deeply consistently in testing, it will be able to penetrate deeply enough into the target to reach vital organs no matter what conditions are encountered during an actual shooting event.

Saying that that's unnecessary because people "aren't that thick" ignores or overlooks that critical concept.

Remember, at the time (1986) the 9mm Silvertip was lauded for its ability to expand when it hit flesh.

What people weren't thinking about yet, though, was consistent penetration.

[K Frame]

Depends on the gel.  There is one that is pretty close to flesh, but others are different.

Chris

There's a LOT of argument about whether shooting anything other than 10% calibrated ordnance gelatin is really meaningful in comparison to the FBI protocols.

[Hawkmoon]

Slight veer to Millcreek's link. I've been using Federal Hydra Shok in my .45s for probably fifteen years. I was quite surprised to see the lack of expansion in the tests at that link.

Hydra-Shok is one of the oldest JHP rounds still available, and has been known for unreliable expansion for years. There are many, many better choices today. I'm surprised Federal still sells the stuff, but I guess people still buy it.

[Hawkmoon]

When I got my super plastic mini-9 I decided I couldn't really afford to run 200 rd of expensive top-of-the line hollowpoints through it for verification, but I wrung (wrang? wringed?) it out with FMJs.  All good, both magazines.

What to do, what to do?

Decided to keep a top-of-the line expensive hollowpoint in the chamber, and the rest well-tested inexpensive FMJs.

The chambered hollowpoint would not have to feed at all.

You do what you gotta do, I guess.

What I've settled on is buying [relatively] inexpensive JHP bullets that have pretty much the same profile as my preferred carry ammo (Remington Golden Saber) and loading my own practice/test ammo for proving function. I subscribe to the advice that one should not carry hand-loaded ammo for self defense, but there's no reason I can't load ammo with the same shape bullets to test whether or not my pistol will feed them.

I've also found that Winchester USA and Remington UMC both offer low-end JHP "personal defense" ammo that's suitable for function testing (if your chosen carry ammo has the same bullet profile), and can be used as carry ammo if you're short on cash for the high-priced spread. Best case, it'll expand at least some. Worst case -- it can't be any worse than shooting FMJ.

[Ben]

Hydra-Shok is one of the oldest JHP rounds still available, and has been known for unreliable expansion for years. There are many, many better choices today. I'm surprised Federal still sells the stuff, but I guess people still buy it.

I'm going to hate having to run the gamut of defensive ammo to find a replacement with 99.9% reliability in all my .45s, to include the Micro-Compact, which is finicky.  Also my Walther in .40. I tried Critical Defense in it when I first got it, and it turned into a jamomatic, which  I thought was pretty extraordinary for a reliable Walther. Most everything else I've put through it, including reloads, feeds reliably.

 I find for my .45s (all 1911s), and especially the Micro-Compact, the most reliable ammo is always 230 grains with as close to round nose as a hollow point can get. The closer it gets to truncated cone, the less reliable I find the ammo. I'm guessing that's less of a problem in smaller diameter calibers - my Delta Elite works fine with truncated cone.

[Perd Hapley]

My Rock Island is quite reliable, but the one time it just choked was with truncated cones.

However, I was using hybrid-lipped magazines at the time. I returned to the range, and used Wilson 47 magazines (wadcutter lips), and the cones fed just fine. I'll probably, at some point, retire my hybrid-lipped carry magazines, and replace them with the other type.

[lee n. field]

My Rock Island is quite reliable, but the one time it just choked was with truncated cones.

However, I was using hybrid-lipped magazines at the time. I returned to the range, and used Wilson 47 magazines (wadcutter lips), and the cones fed just fine. I'll probably, at some point, retire my hybrid-lipped carry magazines, and replace them with the other type.

Well, alrighty then.  Last box of cast lead I bought was .45 TC.  We shall see.  I'm a ways yet from digging into it.