Target rounds not good for protection?

[SilentStalkr]

Ok, I did not know exactly where to put this so if this is in the wrong place by all means move it to where it is appropriate. Basically, I have a question about types of rounds. I keep having people tell me that the FMJ's I use for plinking are not good for protection. Can someone explain this. I mean sure hollow points have their advantages and stuff, I am sure, as well as many other types of ammo. However, I would think getting hit with anything would be just as bad as getting hit with something others consider more for protection. I could be wrong but I am at a loss when it comes to the types of ammo out there and what is used for what. Can someone explain or send me to the right place to get some info on this? Thanks.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

FMJ's offer no expansion which means little energy transfer on target. Little energy on target means little temporary and permanent wound cavity. You also have to worry a lot more about over penetration and killing somebody else. A bullet that delivers more energy on target has less energy when it exits.

Expanding and fragmenting bullets put a lot more energy on target which means bigger temporary and permanent wound cavity.

IMO people that have FMJ's in their defense weapons are idiots. A GOOD hollow point should be carried in pistols, not a cheap target grade like Remington UMC or PRVI. They don't expand well or at all. Federal HST, Speer Gold Dot, and Winchester Ranger T series are the best. I try to avoid the T series in less than 40cal though due to unreliable expansion in 9mm, it just doesn't have a large enough cavity in the 9mm sizes to reliably expand every time. HST and GD are where it's at for 9mm. I typically use HST for everything, great bullet. Other bullets work ok too but those three are arguably the best.

For rifles a good soft point expanding bullet or fragmenting varmint bullet are where it's at. I like the Vmax's whether hand loads or factory loads from black hills or Hornady. They leave a nasty wound channel and penetrate well.

 

[SilentStalkr]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

What about the Hornady Amax's? I use those a lot.

 

[Mike B]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

Ball rounds in a .45 and 9mm seem to work fine for our millitary. Anything faster than a thrown rock is perfect IMO. I have carried the Talons, Gold Dots, Hydroshock in duty weapons that did not feed well on the ramp. Ball has never failed to climb the ramp. Find a round that shoots well in your gun.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

What rifle are you using AMAX's in? The .224 52gr and 75gr fragment pretty well though not as good as vmax's. In 308 they expand and over penetrate a lot.

 

[Coloradocop]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

HST and Gold Dot loads are about the best I've seen for defensive handgun use. I've attended the ATK Wound Ballistics seminar at my department before, and those bullets definitely outperformed the competition. I was personally impressed the most by the HST round, but Gold Dot still performs quite well (and is what my department uses).

FMJ rounds in a pistol will not generally expand in any appreciable way, and will leave you with the potential for ridiculous amounts of over penetration. At pistol-level velocities, the permanent (effective) wound cavity will really only be the size of the diameter of the bullet that went through the target (a cutting/crushing type wound). If an FMJ goes through a target at .45 or 9mm in diameter, that's the size of your wound cavity. On the other hand, if that bullet was replaced with a well-designed hollow point bullet, it might expand to, say, over one inch in size due to bullet design, and that larger wound cavity gives you a better chance of a quickly incapacitating wound on the subject. Both bullet styles will kill someone, but your goal isn't to kill them as much as it is to stop them NOW.

"Knock Down Power" is a term that a lot of folks throw around on this subject, and is little more than internet nonsense at pistol velocities. Also, the energy of bullets throughout the common defensive pistol calibers are all about the same. The key with a pistol bullet is to pick a design that will give you the best chance of creating a larger physical (permanent) wound cavity, while still providing for a penetration of approximately 12-18 inches, especially if the shot needs to be taken through some type of intermediate barrier (heavy clothing, wall board, windshield glass, etc).

Rifle velocities are a game changer in ballistics, and create a much larger wound cavity regardless of bullet design. If you want to see what I'm talking about, go get some ballistic gelatin, then shoot it with whatever pistol loads you are considering. Then give it a shot with a .223 using whatever bullet you want. Big difference. Nevertheless, my agency still issues an expanding bullet for our AR platform, since the FMJ's result in far too much penetration for urban operations where a single threat is often surrounded by multiple innocents. We carry an expanding bullet (a Gold Dot) in these rifles specifically to prevent over-penetration. An FMJ in a high-velocity rifle is still very lethal.

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

something is better than nothing.

FMJs don't expand or fragment like HPs and other defense type ammo.

FMJs make a small hole going in and going out, while defense ammo makes a much larger wound channel between point A and point B, moving more tissue and vital organs.

watch some ballistic gel videos, you'll see the diff.

plus alot of the defense rounds fragment or don't come out at all, to reduce stray rounds going through walls and windows potentially hitting friendlies.

 

[Radar360]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

That's right. FMJ are not designed to expand, frag., or otherwise mushroom. They tend to want to "pass" through their target intact (and keeps the shooter liable for anything it hits, kills, and/or damage beyond their intended target, i.e. over penetration can also cause lots of damage!)

But FMJ's, depending on the target, can do enough damage if it happens to hit the heart, brain, major blood vessel, major bone structure, etc. But keep in mind that it offers nothing as to expansion, so one shouldn't expect it to expand and be a one shot stopper. It's no day in the park being hit by a FMJ, but the shooter shouldn't expect a drop dead shot from it either.

You've asked for somewhere to read up on the various types. Here is a decent article which explains various types of bullets. Search for "bullet types" and you'll come up w/other decent articles.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullets_beginners.htm

 

[Mike B]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

Try some semi-wadcutters in plain old fashion lead. They flatten out real quick, they wont over penetrate and have killed alot of cowboys and indians. The rock that hit Goliath wasn't a Gold Dot or hydroshock.....It comes down to placement.

 

[Triad]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

I think its not fair to over generalize this.

The performance of a 5.56 55fmj, is not going to be anything like that of a .45acp 230 fmj. One will poke a big single hole, one will tumble and likely to fragment.

Ive seen 168smk turn base forward and pass through a target like its not even there, and Ive seen the same bullet break in two and it looked like a grenade went off in there.

Bullet performance should at least be narrowed to a caliber, and discussed from there.....

 

[Guest]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: redneckbmxer24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO people that have FMJ's in their defense weapons are idiots. </div></div>
How many gun or firefights have you ever been in?

 

[Jig Stick]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

Getting hit in the nose with a FMJ or hollow point is going to drop the target. Shot placement is the key. Sure, the hollow point is going to expand and transfer more energy into the target. But if you are shooting the heart, lungs, brain, brain stem, it really shouldnt matter. Target is going down.

 

[Killer Spade 13]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

Shoot 'im in the head and they'll work just fine.

 

[Jethro21]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

Whoever posted that fmj works for the military should remember that they use fmj out of obligation due to a treaty, not because of superior performance.

I will give this observation as a police officer. I see a lot of bad guys who get shot multiple times and live. I truly believe one reason is that most bad guys are shot by other bad guys who have neither the understanding or the money to buy good quality defensive ammo. Most guns I encounter on the street contain a mixed bag of fmj. The only exceptions are typically stolen handguns whose owners bought good ammo.

Remember too, handguns are poor at killing people. Give yourselv an edge and buy some quality defensive ammo. I have been impressed with Gold dots.

 

[Dracozny]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

my Perspective: hollow points violate the Geneva convention. why would the use of a round against a perpetrator be ok, but not against a hostile force in war? over penetration, well considering that when I started keeping a firearm in my home, home invasions were happening very frequently in the area I lived and many of them happen to be wearing soft body armor. just my point of view, right or wrong.

 

[Coloradocop]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dracozny</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my Perspective: hollow points violate the Geneva convention. why would the use of a round against a perpetrator be ok, but not against a hostile force in war? over penetration, well considering that when I started keeping a firearm in my home, home invasions were happening very frequently in the area I lived and many of them happen to be wearing soft body armor. just my point of view, right or wrong. </div></div>

But, you can't really compare interpretations of international war treaties to your own defensive situation and expect that, in doing so, you'll pick the best tool for the job. When the chips are down, do you really care about the politics of bullet selection for the military?

Modern defensive handgun bullets (the majority of which are hollow point designs) are far more effective at stopping a threat than FMJ bullets in these guns. As someone else said, handguns are poor fight stoppers. You really ought to use the best bullet you can get.

Besides, FMJ or JHP makes little difference against soft body armor that is rated for that threat level. I've shot vests with both types of bullets through handguns, and the vests will stop both. Similarly, FMJ, JHP, or SP made no difference when shooting the rifles at the same vests: the soft (pistol rated) vests failed to stop bullets of each of these designs.

Granted, more research needs to go into choosing a bullet than just grabbing the first JHP you find. For a time my department (paranoid as they sometimes are) had us carrying a JHP 55 grain varmint bullet in our rifles. That bullet failed to penetrate as it should, due to a design that caused the bullet to fragment prematurely. We've now switched to a 62 grain Gold Dot, and that bullet performed much better across the entire spectrum of ballistic tests.

And, again, the capabilities of rifles and pistols are very different, as are the types of bullets that work best in them.

Nevertheless, it's your life, please do whatever you are most comfortable with!

 

[BigJohn141]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

My Home defense AR (pistol is first choice) mag is loaded with Hornady 5.56 TAP T2 75gr. red box and I also keep my 1911 loaded with Federal Premium Law enforcemnet 185 +P hydra-shok. If it is god enough for LEO use then its good enough for me.

 

[Armed Ferret]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: redneckbmxer24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO people that have FMJ's in their defense weapons are idiots. </div></div>

Good to know you have zero military experience, that at least helps.

 

[OptedOut]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SilentStalkr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I keep having people tell me that the FMJ's I use for plinking are not good for protection.</div></div>

Quit listening to people (and marketing ploys for that matter). Plain old lead and FMJs have killed hundreds of thousands of times more people and game than any other type of bullet.

Are their "ballistic studies" showing the advantages of other bullet types...sure but in the end, dead is dead, and that's all that matters.

 

[Coloradocop]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MSG Jano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SilentStalkr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I keep having people tell me that the FMJ's I use for plinking are not good for protection.</div></div>

Quit listening to people (and marketing ploys for that matter). Plain old lead and FMJs have killed hundreds of thousands of times more people and game than any other type of bullet.

Are their "ballistic studies" showing the advantages of other bullet types...sure but in the end, dead is dead, and that's all that matters. </div></div>

I don't think counting the dead is necessarily the best way to pick a bullet, if only because "dead" isn't the most desired outcome of a defensive shooting in the civilian world. Immediately stopping the threat would be a better stated goal. Now, I realize that sounds cliche, and I realize that most people would happily plant their home invader in the ground. The point, however, is that you want to quickly incapacitate the threat against you.

Whether that threat dies in a week or lives for twenty years is irrelevant... the threat needs to be stopped immediately, and stopping that threat requires rapid loss of massive amounts of blood, or severe damage to the central nervous system. For the reasons stated above in this thread, a well-designed JHP bullet is more capable of performing this role in a typical defensive pistol caliber.

In pistols, a well-designed JHP bullet is far more effective at stopping the threat than a FMJ due to the fact that they produce a bigger wound channel. Militaries carry FMJ rounds in pistols for treaty compliance, not because they are better at ending a gun fight. Soldiers in militaries also typically fight with rifles. Every police department in the country that I know of is carrying some type of controlled expansion bullet in their pistols (usually hollow points), because they are a better bullet choice for the job of stopping a human threat with a pistol bullet (remember, police departments use pistols as their primary weapon, not a secondary weapon like soldiers. They also aren't bound by military treaties).

But, again, pistols (collectively) are poor fight stoppers, and a high-velocity rifle loaded with any type of bullet is going to be superior a pistol loaded with the very best bullet. As such, the FMJ rifle round has and will continue to be very lethal; it just isn't always the best choice for defensive use in a crowded urban environment.

Personally, while I'm not trying to hijack this thread into something else, I think one of the best "fight stoppers" a person can use for home defense is a 12 gauge shotgun. When your target isn't wearing a ballistic vest, and is at close range (ex: in your house), a shotgun is simply devastating when using 00 buck/slugs. This whole hollow point debate is more of an issue for pistol shooters than anything else... trying to get the most out of an underpowered weapon.

 

[Graham]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

It's not about the bullet.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FMJ's offer no expansion which means little energy transfer on target. Little energy on target means little temporary and permanent wound cavity. </div></div>

If this were true shooting jugs full of water would not be so much fun nor would there be the damage we see.

If your shooting Amax you are not shooting FMJ's and this year’s mule deer would disagree that they dont kill with efficiency and over penetrate.

I do agree hollow points are a much better choice if your bullets are impacting at subsonic velocities (handguns) because you don’t have the same explosive shockwave a supersonic bullet would create. Hence the saying, a handgun is for fighting your way to a rifle.

 

[milo 2.0]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not about the bullet. </div></div>

I find these threads amusing, given the fact that 99% of us haven't shot at another person, we're supposed to know how a bullet will react. Yes some of us hunt and can somewhat compare, and we've all seen the gelatin crap on tv.
I qouted Graham because I believe he is an attorney, and question his response from a legal standpoint. If you live in a trailer park, or apartment complex and think you're going to light up your space without regaard for what's on the other side of your walls, I'd rethink it. I surely wouldn't have a rifle loaded with fmj's, pistol maybe. I'd want a bullet that would come apart sooner than later.
I remember reading gun rags years ago, guys like Massod Ayoob and others telling people never to use handloads in self defense, always manufactured ammo. Legal issues, I still would follow this advice.
That said, a target round still out preforms nothing!

 

[Rob01]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

Like anything, right tool for the right job. A FMJ in the head will make you as dead as a hollowpoint but why carry them when good hollowpoint technology is available today? Not like you needs hundreds of rounds of carry ammo. Enough to make sure it functions in the gun to be used and enough to carry. I wouldn't carry FMJ if I had a choice.

 

[edwin907]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

hollowpoint tech especially for pistol rounds is too good to ignore. I like Ranger T in 40 and 45.
Hornady rifle rounds, 5.56 T2 and 178 .308 have also worked well for me.
My only personal experience was with 45 hollowpoint, from a 4" Commander it worked superbly at 5 to 7 yards.

Did want to edit: Shot Placemet ie everything!

 

[Graham]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: milo-2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I qouted Graham because I believe he is an attorney, and question his response from a legal standpoint. If you live in a trailer park, or apartment complex and think you're going to light up your space without regaard for what's on the other side of your walls, I'd rethink it.</div></div>From a legal standpoint it's not about the bullet either.

 

[JohnnyC]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

Whoa, since people crossed the line into bring up war treaties and the Geneva Convention incorrectly, let's have a little history lesson so that all the armchair commandos quit stepping on their dicks.

First and foremost, the "Geneva Convention" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion. What you should have been saying in the first place, is that Declaration III of the First Hague Conference (1899, the Second was 1907 with the "unnecessary suffering" language) limits the "Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body." PLEASE quit with the gun store Geneva Convention dum-dum hollowpoint bullshit.

Also important to note is that the United States is not a signatory of the 1899 declarations. What does this mean? It means that the United States doesn't actually have to abide by any of that. The armed forces of the United States can use any bullet they so desire. The fact that the US generally abides by the articles as a matter of international politics is neither here nor there, but there's a lot of misinformation being thrown around this thread that needs to stop.

Second, MSG Juno and Graham are absolutely correct. If you'd like to get deep into internal ballistics look up the work of Doctor Gary K Roberts. His observations echo the postings of MSG Juno and Graham. It's not about the bullet, it's about stopping the function of the central nervous system and/or causing rapid exsanguination. The second readily causes the first. You can do that with a sharp stick if you have to, and will be just as effective.

I'll mention this again, it's not about the bullet. Use what you've got, because what you've got is perfectly capable and it's better than having nothing at all.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Target rounds not good for protection?

Walk out there about 500 yards, let someone put a match round into you, and come back and tell all of us here whether it hurts or not.

 

[SilentStalkr]

Wow. Thanks for all of the discussion on this guys. I did not expect this thread to take off that much. There is some good info in it though.

 

[snipe10]

I prefer not to get shot by anything, even a 22lr will take the biggest guy down, if in the right place

 

[Rob01]

Well thanks for checking back in to your post even if it is 8 months later

 

[TheGerman]

Post count +1

FMJ is still GTG

 

[azsugarbear]

In a perfect world where everybody hits their intended target with the first round, it's not about the bullet - it's about placement. In the real world, adrenalin-charged shooters rarely hit their mark with their first or even second shot when their life is on the line. My memory is a little vague on the exact statistics, but I believe it was the Phoenix police dept. that did a study on police-involved shootings. The typical encounter usually occurred within ten feet of the suspect, with an average total of seven rounds fired. Total time elapsed was about 3-4 seconds. Typically, the first two rounds from either shooter went wild before a third hit home. The average hit ratio for LEO's for all shots fired was about 34%. This was with LEO's who had training. In cases such as this, where things quickly become unhinged, the bullet can become an important factor. I know my data is at least ten years old, so perhaps a LEO could chime in and update.

 

[wilecoyote]

I agree about the "not-perfect-world" concept :
I have seen hollow pointed bullets being clogged by garment fibers, therefore passin' from the hollow-point to the recovered-clogged-point status_
that's happened at subsonic speed_ expansion: none_

 

[Shanerbanner10]

Dead is dead +1

.22lr - .45acp you shoot a well placed round or rounds and it will get the job done.

 

[Pester]

+1 on this. In talking with a friend (Bay Area police chief and former SWAT leader) about shot placement and local law enforcement, this last weekend, this conversation came up. Based on their input shot placement is key however, in both cases they said that statistics show shot placement for most people is pretty low when stressed. If my pistol feeds rounds equally I would carry hollow points for concealed carry/home defense. Everything else is ball ammo.

Although pretty soon the best defense in CA is going to be pot laced jello shooter to keep the crazy's away.....

In a perfect world where everybody hits their intended target with the first round, it's not about the bullet - it's about placement. In the real world, adrenalin-charged shooters rarely hit their mark with their first or even second shot when their life is on the line. My memory is a little vague on the exact statistics, but I believe it was the Phoenix police dept. that did a study on police-involved shootings. The typical encounter usually occurred within ten feet of the suspect, with an average total of seven rounds fired. Total time elapsed was about 3-4 seconds. Typically, the first two rounds from either shooter went wild before a third hit home. The average hit ratio for LEO's for all shots fired was about 34%. This was with LEO's who had training. In cases such as this, where things quickly become unhinged, the bullet can become an important factor. I know my data is at least ten years old, so perhaps a LEO could chime in and update.

 

[broylz]

ive seen that the fmj ammo is hit or miss whether it will be effective to stop a threat quickly. hits in the right place matter. ive seen a single 9mm fmj bullet stop a guy in his tracks as he doubled over and started screaming. saw another who took 11 rounds from a couple m4s before he finally took a good enough hit to make him dead.

that said, I still put good quality ammo in my personal defensive weapons as any little advantage helps. why not take advantage of it if you can?

 

[Cartman]

In a perfect world where everybody hits their intended target with the first round, it's not about the bullet - it's about placement. In the real world, adrenalin-charged shooters rarely hit their mark with their first or even second shot when their life is on the line. My memory is a little vague on the exact statistics, but I believe it was the Phoenix police dept. that did a study on police-involved shootings. The typical encounter usually occurred within ten feet of the suspect, with an average total of seven rounds fired. Total time elapsed was about 3-4 seconds. Typically, the first two rounds from either shooter went wild before a third hit home. The average hit ratio for LEO's for all shots fired was about 34%. This was with LEO's who had training. In cases such as this, where things quickly become unhinged, the bullet can become an important factor. I know my data is at least ten years old, so perhaps a LEO could chime in and update.

This is the reality I've read about. A lot of keyboard commandos and cops alike get off on the bullet placement concept, and that they're going to keep eating their hotdog, cool as can be, as they pop John Q Perp across the street like Dirty Harry. But from what I've read, even trained police miss like crazy. Here's an example of reality: Angel Alvarez: 'Swiss cheese man' shot 27 times by NYC police launches civil rights lawsuit | Mail Online That's not to say someone can't be calm and accurate...or get lucky.

That story also brings up the ongoing and never-to-be-settled debate over caliber selection. There is a crap load of information out there. And some attempts at serious controlled testing -- but controlled means shooting gelatin, which you'll likely never face in your living room -- including taking into account various barriers to penetration and their effects on hollow point expansion and bullet weight retention (things that effect bullet expansion like leather jackets and denim are important, IMO). Good luck sifting through it all.

I believe it is not a subject that can be settled with a glib one liner. Nor am I convinced that someone with experience can answer the riddles for you either. What kind of experience? How many people did they shoot? With what different kinds of ammo? Did they all hit the same place? Were the targets all wearing the same clothes? Were they the same age? Size? Physical health? Etc., etc., etc.

All I personally have to go on is having digested a lot of written information over the years and my personal BS detector. Personally, if I were to use FMJ I would want it in 230 grain .45 caliber form. With HP ammo I think you were steered in the right direction by others above when they suggested HST, Ranger, or Gold Dot. I have them all but am a fan of Gold Dot because I've found better deals on them (buying in bulk over the years) and they have a semi-rounded nose that has fed reliably in all my guns. And between FMJ and HP ammo I will pick HP ammo every time because it tips the scales that much more in my favour. Even though I, like the rest of you, imagine myself having ice running through my veins at the moment of truth; I'm experienced enough to not bank on that being the case.

If I can leave you with anything definitive -- and like pretty much everything I've said, I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one person who'll argue -- is that you should pony up for enough ammo to run through the gun in question to make sure the ammo is 100% reliable in that gun.

 

[Ring]

Originally Posted By: redneckbmxer24
IMO people that have FMJ's in their defense weapons are idiots.


How many gun or firefights have you ever been in?

not relevant....

3 people use FMJ for defence

1 poor
2 ignorant
3 .mil

FMJ in 9mm and up is ignorant...

excuses people use to justify FMJ use...
its feeds better... get a better gun
HP's may not expand.... thats great, so you pick a bullet that WONT expand over one that MIGHT not expand?
in the winter its better for people with thick jackets... unless that jacket is NIJ LVL 3, whats your point?
i want max penetration.... great,,, buy hard cast FP lead...


http://www.itstactical.com/warcom/ammunition/military-ammunition-failures-and-solutions/

 

[Ring]

Originally Posted By: SilentStalkr
I keep having people tell me that the FMJ's I use for plinking are not good for protection.



Quit listening to people (and marketing ploys for that matter). Plain old lead and FMJs have killed hundreds of thousands of times more people and game than any other type of bullet.

Are their "ballistic studies" showing the advantages of other bullet types...sure but in the end, dead is dead, and that's all that matters.

why dont hunters use FMJ?

after all dead is dead right?

because when i shoot someone, i want that dead NOW... not next week from a infection...

now, in a rifle, if you can drive the FMJ fast enough, it will frag, just look at the 556 tests,,, problem is, move out to 150+y, and now they blow goat... wound tracts are the same as a 22mag

Hollow Point vs. FMJ---CLEAR GEL TEST #1 - YouTube

When you overlay a low-AOA bullet on a human torso, you can see that this might mean the bullet won't begin it's yaw cycle and fragment until after it leaves the body, making a hole not much bigger than a conventional .22LR:

You could engage a target at one distance with a large AOA and great bullet performance, while a few yards more might mean a smaller AOA and poor bullet performance. When M855/193 fragment quickly, they can be very effective.

Unfortunately, they could just as easily exhibit poor performance without the end user really knowing how well his particular rifle/ammo performs.

same for HP match rifle ammo... SMK's a notorious for this...

AMAX on the other hand exploded like a grenade when it hits...

 

[BapZander]

I wear a FMJ for defense, I don't shoot em. Actually its an aluminum foil hat. And when I'm ultra paranoid, aluminum foil gonad cover as well.

 

[rookie101]

I like the hornady critical defense for my home pistol (I like to think I will be situationally aware, my wife, daughter and I have a plan, but still, don't want to shoot them through somebody and then a wall), if for some reason i can't get to the shotguns, #4's will do just fine, although I load with #3 buck. For carry I like the critical duty as they satisfy FBI protocol in .40. I will echo the folks saying that in a bad situation things change, few if any get "ice water" in their veins. Even the guys I knew that were in Vietnam got scared........a quality bullet could be the difference between life and death, if someone is not stopped definitively they can still punch holes in you while they are bleeding out.
As for those that are saying bullet type doesn't matter, I will disagree. I think the FBI requirements are stringent enough that only a good bullet will meet the qualifications, I suspect it is more science than smoke and mirrors and I suspect those requirements are there for a reason.
On the other hand any bullet is better than no bullet, I don't think anyone will argue with that.

 

[JaysonF]

Load as follows:
Hollopoint, Hollopoint then alternate Hollopoint and ball. You have the first two as the stopping rounds (if you get off a good double tap) and the following round sequence gives you the ability to punch through objects, cars doors etc

 

[Delta4-3]

For the record, I would not use fmj for home defense. I think the v-max for .223 is ideal. For 9 and .45 I use the ranger ST's.

 

[broylz]

so the graphic pic only adds to the shot placement argument...

 

[Graham]

Target rounds not good for protection?

Load as follows:
Hollopoint, Hollopoint then alternate Hollopoint and ball. You have the first two as the stopping rounds (if you get off a good double tap) and the following round sequence gives you the ability to punch through objects, cars doors etc

The 1980s called: They want their tactical advice back.

 

[Zebra1]

Also look into into the work of the International Wound Ballistics Association and Dr. Martin Facklers work. Also the Force Science Institute does good scientific research.

Some good info above, and expansion can play a large role in incapacitation, if it is properly designed expansion. A good explanation I've heard goes as follows:

Think of the human body as a hydraulic system. Short of an immediately disabling hit, i.e. Medula, you must cause as much 'leaking' of the hydraulic system as you can to eventually stop it. So, while expansion is important to increase the chances of hitting some organ/vessel carrying the fluid, it is the edges of that expansion that can cause the cutting of those organs/vessels in near misses. That is why so much design goes into modern bullets, such as the bullet opening into petals, with cutting edges.

Blunt edges, whether through a FMJ or poor expansion, tend to just push organs/vessels out of the way. Sharp edges cut them causing the system to leak, the more/faster the leaks, the faster the system shuts down.

Is shot placement important, absolutely, but experience shows that we as humans, generally speaking, fare poorly in shot placement when firing under stress, while target is moving and shooting back, cover used by the assaulter, etc. A properly designed bullet increases your chances of stopping the threat eventually given the average shooters performance under the worst scenario. As instructors, we always strive for accuracy and shot placement, but reality provides a different result.

The point really hit home for me after attending one of Dr. Facklers conferences. It's a demonstration I have used several times since as an instructor. You can probably find a copy of it on line somewhere. I can dig through my materials sometime to see if I can find pictures of it if someone wants it bad enough. Dr. Fackler (or colleagues at the institute) had an average shooter shoot a 9mm into a target as fast as they could. They then superimposed a clear, internal anatomically correct target over the shot target. The overlay showed organs, blood vessels, nerves, etc. You could visually see where the 9mm passed important organs/vessels. They then superimposed different caliber holes over the 9mm holes. Obviously, the larger calibers turned near misses into hits on the organs. Taking into account expansion with cutting edges, each increase in caliber increases your chances of stopping the threat if shot placement is not optimal.

Of course, you should not shoot any caliber you cannot reasonably control. I preach "One hit with a .22 is better than 6 misses with a .44 magnum."

If you absolutely have nothing else, a FMJ is better than nothing, but a properly designed hollow point is much, much better.

 

[JaysonF]

The 1980s called: They want their tactical advice back.

What works then, works now. many of the JHP which is made today does a great job expanding, but falls short going through walls and doors. You don't need to follow my advice, as I wasn't offering it to you. However in my experience, JHP falls short when it comes to power as it goes through a barrier. I'd rather have the ability and not need it, than need it and not have it. Ball hurts.
Besides, in the 80's guns killed the same way they do now...

 

[RHunter]

Shoot them in the head and they are dead no matter what you use. A nice double tap will also put them down.

 

[Graham]

Target rounds not good for protection?

What works then, works now.
...in the 80's guns killed the same way they do now...

That's a good argument for why loading different kinds of bullets doesn't matter.

Speaking of the 80s, did anyone mention that since about 1989 there has been no such thing as a 'double tap'?