Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

26
Wouldn't it also be a fairly safe bet that the person who lived through the 7 shots was hit with FMJ? It's part of why it's a military requirement, isn't it? A little less lethal if it's not breaking apart or blooming internally? It's why people who carry regularly DO carry JHP, to possibly use fewer shots and mitigate risk of through-and-through whether that's to the threat or a miss at a wall?
-Kat
Illinois Chapter President
LGC Certified Instructor, Intro to Pistol and Range Safety

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

29
This JAMA study looked at caliber.
The results here support the view that the intrinsic power and lethality of the weapon had a direct effect on the likelihood that a victim of a criminal shooting died. For Boston, in the period studied here, simply replacing larger-caliber guns with small-caliber guns with no change in location or number of wounds would have reduced the gun homicide rate by 39.5%. It is plausible that larger reductions would be associated with replacing all types of guns with knives or clubs.

The finding that the type of weapon is associated with fatality rate provides insight into the nature of homicide. Whether the victim of a serious assault lives or dies is to a large extent a matter of chance, rather than a question of the assailant’s intent. The probability of death is connected to the intrinsic power and lethality of the weapon. That suggests that effective regulation of firearms could reduce the homicide rate. That conclusion is relevant to the national debate over gun regulation, although insufficient in itself to demonstrate that any particular regulation would satisfy a cost-benefit test.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2688536

We know that shot placement is everything.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

30
My firearms lawyer trained me :-)

He said: "Never, ever talk about stopping power or lethality. You can simply PRESUME a model firearm with a decent caliber has both if shots are well placed."

He taught me this is the "We do not talk about Fight Club" rule. Even online when we can.

The REASON we carry hollow point ammunition is because it is SAFER. It has less risk of going through walls and less risk of hitting bystanders. Period.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... fer-to-use

So, of course, given the importance of firearm safety, I recommend to my brothers and sisters in arms here - practice with FMJ and some Hollow Point. Carry Hollow Point - it is safer for everyone.
Last edited by max129 on Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

32
max129 wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:11 pm My firearms lawyer trained me :-)

He said: "Never, ever talk about stopping power or lethality. You can simply PRESUME a model firearm with a decent caliber has both if shots are well placed."

He taught me this is the "We do not talk about Fight Club" rule. Even online when we can.

The REASON we carry hollow point ammunition is because it is SAFER. It has less risk of going through walls and less risk of hitting bystanders. Period.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... fer-to-use

So, of course, given the importance of firearm safety, I recommend to my brothers and sisters in arms here - practice with FMJ and some Hollow Point. Carry Hollow Point - it is safe for everyone.
One thing that always confuses me on YouTube demonstrations is when people talk about penetration. Why would I want penetration? There's nothing good that will come from a bullet exiting a target with enough energy to go into something else.

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

33
Bang wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:16 pm One thing that always confuses me on YouTube demonstrations is when people talk about penetration. Why would I want penetration? There's nothing good that will come from a bullet exiting a target with enough energy to go into something else.
Not a doctor but... we did just cover this a couple months ago at my CCW class. Penetration is important to the ability to incapacitate a threat. From a squared off front shot, your two best options for stopping a threat are the heart (which will incapacitate in several seconds due to cutting off oxygen to the cpu) or the spine which will incapacitate mobility immediately (but arms may still be working). The heart requires the projectile being able to get through the ribs or sternum and possibly the lungs. The spine requires the projectile getting through just about everything and retaining enough energy to impact it. Shots from the side have even more meat to pass through to get to incapacitation. Another incapacitating shot is the pelvis but it must be sufficient to shatter some big bones.

Unlike what we're taught in movies, handgun bullets are pretty poor at immediate incapacitation, from everything I've read. Yeah, the receiver may bleed to death without immediate medical treatment, but likely won't be stopped from further action until such time as they pass out.

And you're absolutely correct. Over penetration is bad, both for whoever is behind the recipient and for stopping a threat. A hole clear through is rarely fatal and "wastes" energy that could have better be applied within the cavity.

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

34
Band said:

Why would I want penetration?


Well you do want "enough" penetration. The FBI tests specify a couple layers of denim before the gelatin.

The idea is that some very low power ammo might not even make it past a thick coat.

So you do want enough penetration to transfer the energy of the bullet to soft tissue internally. Otherwise you may not stop the assailant.

Over penetration is almost as bad as under penetration (armor piercing ammo will always over penetrate for example - just pass right through). Over penetration has two problems:
1) Not enough shock caused to tissue to "stop" the assailant
2) Increased risk for bystanders

There are many opinions on how much penetration is ideal - I am an expert at seeing the wounds caused by military ammo, but not an expert on how much technical gelatin penetration would cause the many wounds I saw.

The very worst damage I ever saw to a wounded Marine had no exit wound - that pattern did not vary. Where there was a clean entrance and exit wound without a large exit diameter, the damage was less than with no exit wound.

My experience is limited to a very narrow time frame - the late Khmer Rouge field weapons. 90% of the wounds we saw were cause by battle rifles and carbines. The SKS cause the most damage. The KR has a hodgepodge of weaponry, and in our part of the Country, there were even some 1903 Springfields.
Image

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

36
Bang wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:16 pm One thing that always confuses me on YouTube demonstrations is when people talk about penetration. Why would I want penetration? There's nothing good that will come from a bullet exiting a target with enough energy to go into something else.
as usual, it depends. back in the bad old days of linear tactics, if you could get on your enemy's flank (ideally with artillery), there's a nice straight line of them and over-penetration is the more, the merrier. in a civilian context, not so much. did you see my krag post with the spanish american war report? this sort of thing (bullets expanding and fragmenting) is exactly what it was talking about when they said the mauser round was more "humane", and iirc the geneva convention addressed this issue, also.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

37
lurker wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Bang wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:16 pm One thing that always confuses me on YouTube demonstrations is when people talk about penetration. Why would I want penetration? There's nothing good that will come from a bullet exiting a target with enough energy to go into something else.
as usual, it depends. back in the bad old days of linear tactics, if you could get on your enemy's flank (ideally with artillery), there's a nice straight line of them and over-penetration is the more, the merrier. in a civilian context, not so much. did you see my krag post with the spanish american war report? this sort of thing (bullets expanding and fragmenting) is exactly what it was talking about when they said the mauser round was more "humane", and iirc the geneva convention addressed this issue, also.
YouTube demos aren't about warfare, they're about carry ammo typically.

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

40
K9s wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:49 pm I love how a Best Ammo post turns to a discussion of the Spanish-American War on this forum.
compelling as history and the span-am war are, what really interests me is the ever-shifting relationship between technology and doctrine, or more specifically, the value of human life, both individually and en-mass.
i admit that i tend to go off on tangents. :whistle:
and oh, yeah. damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! :bananadance: (farragut at mobile bay, civil war.) doh. dewey was at manila, said "fire when ready, gridley".
Last edited by lurker on Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Not Another “Best Ammo” Post!? Srsly tho: 9mm

41
It's actually true that a very young (20) Col. George Washington actually started the French & Indian War, firing the first shots.

What I like about GW is that he wasn't a demi-god, a super-human, but a very human man with lots of flaws, who married "up" to a rich widow to improve his social standing. He was an auto-didact who suffered from an inferiority complex regarding his intelligence and education so much so that during the Constitutional Convention of which he was Chair, he said NOTHING because he didn't think he could add to these brilliant men. And yet he was arrogant in the field and believed that no bullet could hit him (none ever did). He lost almost every battle he ever fought, but never lost sight of the idea that as long as his army never surrendered, the battle could continue.

The Continental Congress never trusted him not to become a military dictator which is why they kept him on a starvation budget.

While he freed his slaves in his will, he only freed his, not Martha's (who had far more) and only on her death.

Yet, when offered ultimate power, to be King, perpetual leader, he rejected it, a rarity in human history. I can think only of Nelson Mandela and (former) King Juan Carlos of Spain who both rejected such power in favor of Democratic states.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest