Page 1 of 25 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 250

Thread: Let's talk about handgun FMJ effectiveness

  1. #1
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    USA

    Let's talk about handgun FMJ effectiveness

    So as a fairly uninformed guy I pretty much thought that no one in their right mind these days carried FMJ's on purpose, if they had other options. That is until I logged onto the Beretta Forum's Ammunition & Reloading subforum and started running across several participants who don't appear to be brain-dead (one is an EMT and claims several experiences with gunshot victims) and who are purposefully carrying FMJ's in service calibers 9mm and above.

    I asked them their reasons and was immediately overwhelmed by too much info for this welder / mechanic to digest. Here is a link to the thread.

    http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=120516

    Can somebody clear this up for me? I had thought the arguments for service caliber FMJ use died out 20 years ago or more. To the best of my understanding these guys are saying that JHP's fail to penetrate enough, that the standard of 12" penetration is too shallow and 18" should be used instead, and that a person who's been shot needs to be shot through-and-through, a job that FMJ's will get done if any design can.

    Here's a cut-and-paste of a section of the discussion:

    I could care less about plugged hollowpoints, as far as I am concerned anything that keeps a hollowpoint from expanding is a good thing.

    But raises arms can really not be dismissed as if you study autopsy results from police shooting you will see that a very large number of rounds, usually the majority of them, strike the victim in the arms, which is not surprising given that the natural fighting stance of most people places there arms over the center of mass.

    It should also be noted that in many cases 9mm and .40 caliber hollowpoints fail to exit the arm.

    To dismiss raised arms is to dismiss the fact that a person can usually completely prevent a hollowpoint pistol bullet from reaching their vital organs by simply blocking them with a bare arm.

    So, now that some facts and actual research have been laid down, lets tackle your questions one by one.

    Quote:
    Do you think it's a conspiracy theory?
    No,just marketing propaganda by companies who want to make money and goverment agencies that like to spend it.

    Quote:
    Do you think that the people who've made it their life's work to test ammo for effectiveness are a bunch of morons?
    No, I actually think that all of them who have actually studied the issue scientifically would agree with me, or rather I with them as its there work that has lead me to share there conclusions. Without them I would probably be carrying HP's to this day. This really is a question I should be asking you.

    Quote:
    Do you think they're all being paid off by the ammo companies to produce false results?
    No, because their results support my theory. I have yet to see any scientific studies that do not.

    Quote:
    Why do you discount permanent cavity size, which is a function of expanded bullet diameter and weight?
    I don't discount it, but I do not feel that it is worth sacrificing penetration in exchange for expansion, and I do not generally feel its worth sacrificing capacity for a initial larger caliber, although this is more debatable.

    I actually do carry HP's in one of my guns, my .44 magnum is loaded with 270 grain hollowpoints, a caliber that is capable of both fully expanding, transferring enough energy to create permanent wounding outside of caliber diameter and fully penetrating and exiting the target. A few other handgun calibers are capable of this as well and could also benefit from the expansion of hollowpoints, .357 mag for example. But the common defensive calibers, 9mm, 40 and .45 are not capable of this. They simply do not have the energy needed.
    Here's another cut-and-paste, with some details a doctor might understand but unfortunately this peon welder does not:

    Part II


    So far all of this is well established physics and really all I have done is repost the work of others.

    But now, if I may, I would like to go a step further than most and discuss the biological importance of exit wounds when it comes to killing people.

    First its important to establish that I do not believe in over-pentration. Its synonymous with over-effectivness as far as I am concerned. The FBI isn't too keen on it either:

    Quote:
    An issue that must be addressed is the fear of over penetration widely expressed on the part of law enforcement. The concern that a bullet would pass through the body of a subject and injure an innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of law enforcement shootings will reveal that the great majority of shots fired by officers do not hit any subjects at all. It should be obvious that the relatively few shots that do hit a subject are not somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss the subject entirely.
    Okay, so to understand where I am coming from on the next part you have to know that I am an EMT and have responded to many trauma cases over the past nine years, fatal and otherwise A handful have even been gunshots so although I am not a battlefield surgeon I do have first hand medical training and experience with trauma victims.

    If we assume that bleeding to the point where blood pressure falls and victim loses consciousness is the most realistic and reliable method of stopping a human target (head and spine shots of course are always instantly stopping but we can't assume we will always hit them) then it all comes down to blood loss.

    When you speak of blood pressure medically you are speaking of the three vascular 'containers' Inter vascular, fluid inside the veins and arteries, intercellular, fluid inside the cells themselves, and interstitial fluid, fluid in-between the cells.

    Except for the inside of the lungs and digestive tract ("hollow" organs), there is no empty space inside a human body. What isn't cellular tissue, bones, arteries etc. is filled with interstitial fluid, usually just a thin film that lubricates the outside of all the tissues and organs so they can move around without damage. This fluid is under mild pressure at all times.

    When you rupture a blood vessel internally the blood immediately starts flowing out into the interstitial space. We call this "third spacing" Because the vascular pressure is higher than the intercellular pressure the blood flows out rather than the interstitial fluid flowing in.

    But, the human body is prepared for this. Since there is no empty space for the blood to flow to as you bleed internally the interstitial pressure rises as your blood pressure decreases. Various membrane 'firewalls' divid the interstitial area into compartments of different sizes like water tight doors on a ship so that internal bleeding does not have to raise the pressure in the entire body, just the section that is breeched.

    Now, what this all means is that as you bleed internally that blood doesn't just go nowhere and and start filling up your feet, its trapped by hydraulic back pressure and compartment membranes, and when blood stops flowing it starts to clot almost immediately. Most people never get to see how blood clots on a large scale but its pretty amazing, an internal blood clot in a healthy person quickly becomes as hard as rubber and can be very large, the size of a softball or greater.

    This blood clot provides a semi-regid structure around the hemorrhage and applies back pressure to the ruptured artery. If allowed to form (not washed away by rapidly flowing blood) this clot will seal the wound both internally and external and stop this third spacing of blood and stabilize blood pressure.

    This is why applying pressure to even a deep wound usually works, its stops or slows down external flow of blood and forces it to back up in the tissue around the wound and clot. The effect is called 'tamponade'

    Now, wether this works or not depends on the rate of blood flow and the area where the bleeding is occurring, some places, like your abdomen can accommodate a great deal of blood before tamponade, while arteries embedded in muscle tissue, such as your thigh, are very effectively controlled by tamponade.

    The important thing ballistically though is that in order to defeat tamponade you have to give the blood somewhere to go, that is, out of the body. Internal bleeding is important but its also important that it has somewhere to go so it can keep moving and keep washing out the clots.

    This is all just a very detailed way of saying that in order to make someone bleed to death you need to put holes in them for the blood to flow out of and probably why the number of handgun wounds sustained is the single greatest predictor of mortality rather than placement or caliber.

    This means the more holes, the better. Exit wounds are like shooting them again without having to expend another bullet, not to mention the fact that due to the differences between the compressive puncture wound in skin and the tearing exit wound even FMJ bullets make larger exit wounds than entrance wounds.

    Now given bones, skin, tendon etc, even an FMJ bullet may fail to fully penetrate a target but it has a better chance than a bullet with less penetration. I believe that its only bullets which can be expected to reliably create exit wounds which should be tailored for controlled expansion to give the very slight edge provided by larger bullets but only if it does not prevent full penetration.

    For 9-40-45 calibers there isn't enough energy to do this and going with SWC's is about the best you can hope for when it comes to increasing permanent cavity without preventing full penetration.
    Could somebody explain to me if this fellow and his fellow believers are nuts, or do they have a point? I have their permission to quote them in this post, and I'm going to link to this thread so they'll see the discussion here. Would love to see this debated by people with experience on the subject. TIA.
    0
     

  2. #2
    Dot Driver Kyle Reese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Carry a proven & vetted JHP offering from DocGKR's List and you'll likely get sufficient penetration & expansion. I've carried FMJ handgun loads deployed, and while 9x19 FMJ has killed oodles of people from WWI-Present, I still want a modern JHP load for my defensive handguns.
    4
     

  3. #3
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    Right off the bat, the part about 9mms and .40s stopping in arms during police shootings is complete and utter bullshit.

    I think FMJs are more effective that people give them credit for, however, comma, IMHO only an asshole would carry a round for defensive use that is capable of penetrating three grown men in a row before coming to rest. FMJs also tend to ricochet off of bone far more often than JHPs, which tend to stick when they hit.

    The part about dude's theory on how to kill people better speaks for itself I think.
    Last edited by Chuck Haggard; 12-28-2015 at 07:09 PM.
    I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
    www.agiletactical.com
    8
     

  4. #4
    Yet another facet of the Gun Culture in which too many are stuck in the past.
    I'm surprised no one said "Hollow Points'll git ya kill't in the streetz!"
    Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
    “It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
    Glenn Reynolds
    1
     

  5. #5
    Do not listen to that shit.
    0
     

  6. #6
    Check out this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....f-Defense-Ammo

    A LOT of time and expense have been invested in improving handgun ammo over the last hundred-odd years. If FMJ was as good as those folks say it is, then every LEO and soldier in the country would carry it.

    But they don't.

    Make of that what you will.


    Okie John
    0
     

  7. #7
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by breakingtime91 View Post
    Do not listen to that shit.
    I've got a case of JHP's that are 'on the list' and those are my carry ammo. So I've got that covered and don't have plans to switch. But for the purposes of the discussion, what I don't have is numbers - just how bad *were* FMJ's back in the day, and is that info recent enough that there's an online study of modern JHP designs compared with FMJ bullets that I can link to?

    Setting aside overpenetration concerns as that isn't really what the discussion is about, and focusing on wound statistics of some type.... These guys have anecdotal evidence for their side (failure of JHP's to penetrate deeply enough), I've read plenty of anecdotal evidence for the JHP side, but where are the numbers? They have basically said, "Show me the numbers to prove we're wrong." As far as I knew the service-caliber handgun FMJ argument was dead 20 years ago...where are the numbers to back up what we all 'know'? Wound ballistics of some type (vs gel) would be preferable although I don't know enough to know what's available.

    It's not enough to know that someone is wrong, I want to know "why" they're wrong drawing from hard facts. Otherwise I'm just another parrot.
    Last edited by Welder; 12-28-2015 at 12:06 AM.
    1
     

  8. #8
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by okie john View Post
    Check out this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....f-Defense-Ammo

    A LOT of time and expense have been invested in improving handgun ammo over the last hundred-odd years. If FMJ was as good as those folks say it is, then every LEO and soldier in the country would carry it.

    But they don't.

    Make of that what you will.


    Okie John
    Thanks, Okie John. I linked to that thread in the discussion on BF, which turned to JHP's vs FMJ's when I started questioning the pro-FMJ thinking in Post #12. DocGKR's list is what I went by when I chose the 147 GD's I carry.

    I feel sure the pro-FMJ guys would answer your LEO / military facts by saying that reasons outside of wound ballistics (i.e. overpenetration concerns) could be the reason for the switch to JHP's. Thus my focus on the search for wound stats. I know they're out there, but where?
    Last edited by Welder; 12-28-2015 at 12:37 AM.
    0
     

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by TBone550 View Post
    I've got a case of JHP's that are 'on the list' and those are my carry ammo. So I've got that covered and don't have plans to switch. But for the purposes of the discussion, what I don't have is numbers - just how bad *were* FMJ's back in the day, and is that info recent enough that there's an online study of modern JHP designs compared with FMJ bullets that I can link to?

    Setting aside overpenetration concerns as that isn't really what the discussion is about, and focusing on wound statistics of some type.... These guys have anecdotal evidence for their side (failure of JHP's to penetrate deeply enough), I've read plenty of anecdotal evidence for the JHP side, but where are the numbers? They have basically said, "Show me the numbers to prove we're wrong." As far as I knew the service-caliber handgun FMJ argument was dead 20 years ago...where are the numbers to back up what we all 'know'? Wound ballistics of some type (vs gel) would be preferable although I don't know enough to know what's available.

    It's not enough to know that someone is wrong, I want to know "why" they're wrong drawing from hard facts. Otherwise I'm just another parrot.
    Where are they sourcing state side shootings that involve FMJs? I don't know of any law enforcement agencies that carry fmj in their guns (that is a clue!). I know a lot of street crimes involve FMJs but often the performance is lack luster. But we do have plenty of data surrounding police shootings that involve good hollow points that penetrate and expand. FMJs suck. They penetrate, often over penetrate resulting in down range issues and they dont expand. Not a huge issue unless you think about what the tearing and expansion that a round does when it hits the target. You want your rounds to reach vital organs and create damage when they get there, so expansion and sharp pedals=mo betta.

    Quoted from Docs article when discussing plain vanilla 7.62x39 ammo that over penetrates/doesnt yaw or expand:
    We also have extensive law enforcement data, as this cartridge has been used extensively in illicit activity. For example, in the 17 January 1988 Stockton school shooting, 30 of 35 kids who were shot lived. Of the five that died, all were shot in critical structure--head, heart, spine, aorta and none had damage to any organ not directly hit by a bullet.

    You might be saying "how does that apply to pistols". It is widely known/accepted that rifles offer better ballistics/terminal effect and if a shitty non expanding/over penetrating rifle round struggles to do significant damage, why do they think a pistol round that is going slower/smaller will?

    good read:
    https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....formance-Facts
    Last edited by breakingtime91; 12-28-2015 at 01:22 AM.
    2
     

  10. #10
    We had a thread about this before right?

    My take on it...when you know 100% that you'll be shooting people then yes jhp is probably good to go.

    However we are rarely faced with a non barriered threat, there is usually the potential for shooting through doors, vehicles, etc and jhp dont do that great on any of that, but fmj do.
    VDMSR.com
    Chief Developer for V Development Group
    Everything I post I do so as a private individual who is not representing any company or organization.
    0
     

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •