2023: current thinking on defensive loads?

[Derek Zeanah]

I'd like to start with the statement that I'm not looking for a caliber war regardless of how fun those might be.

Really, I'm trying to update my understanding of appropriate cartridge based on modern research. I made some of my initial opinions in the 1980's and 1990's (as did my instructors) and things have changed quite a bit since then.

When I carry it's generally:

• A 9mm 1911 loaded with 124gr HSTs or GDs
• A 45ACP 1911 loaded with 230gr HSTs
• A 357 loaded with 125gr JHPs of some sort - generally Federal or Remington SJHPs that are cheap old technology that still seem to perform as well as they ever did.

I'm comfortable with the performance of all of these, but I wonder if these new copper solids that depend on fluid dynamics for terminal performance (like the Lehigh Defense bullets (now Wilson Combat, I think) and competition like the G9) don't change the equation a bit. Traditional doctrine suggest I should only be concerned with having a round that penetrates deep enough in gel (but not too deep), is accurate, and is something I can control.

Intuitively, and after talking with some friends with MD after their name on their business cards, I have to think that the size of the permanent wound cavity matters when talking about dangerous mammals of the two- or four-legged variety. And the permanent wound cavity of these new rounds seems significantly larger than with traditional hollow points.

Here's something listed on the G9 defense web page from a third party (that I've never heard of, honestly) evaluating their rounds. The G9 and Lehigh Defense ammo (below the blue line) had a permanent wound cavity (in the red boxes) that's nearly an order of magnitude greater than from traditional rounds, at least when measured volumetrically which is non-traditional:



I can't find it now, but the 45ACP has an even larger permanent wound cavity - I remember it being 50% to 100% greater.







We've all seen the results of the Extreme Defender and G9 bullets vs pork shoulders too, with the huge holes they leave.

So I guess my question is this:

This fluid dynamics thing seems to be working, and it's been long enough that it's not really a passing fad.

So why isn't everyone choosing one of these sorts of rounds as their carry ammo of choice? I can't in my 9mm 1911s because the overall cartridge length is long enough to present feeding issues, but if your gun feeds it why aren't you using it?

I'm missing something here. What is it?

 

[Simple Shooter]

I have not looked into the all copper rounds. The reason is that I have a 9mm round that I know will perform well and don’t see a need to switch.

My carry round:
1. Performs well in gel tests (As conducted by others)
2. Is accurate in all my carry guns
3. Hits at point of aim in all my carry guns
4. Is reliable in all my carry guns (my criteria is 300 successive rounds per gun without cleaning, without failure, and from two handed, one handed, and weak handed fire)
5. Will expand when fired from my shortest bbl carry gun (2.9”)
6. Is cost effective enough to perform the above tests and still shoot a mag or two at each range session.

Having recently gone through all that to feel confident in my chosen carry round, starting over does not make sense for me.

In my opinion (and I do not claim to be an expert), no bad guy is going to know the difference. Shot placement and making multiple hits are more important than the difference between a hollow point and a fluid dynamic round, which is why #1 is probably the least important of the above points to me.

If your research and personal testing/experience gives you confidence in the fluid dynamics round, then that is what you should carry no matter what I or anyone else says. There are too many variables for there to be one best round for everyone.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

For me it is mostly the feeding issue you mention along with the cost. In a revolver, the situation changes some as most rounds will run in them, but there I go back to the more proven (and cheaper) options.

I see the potential benefits of them but the feeding issue in an auto is rough. If I want to shoot 100rds (minimum) of it to test a few mags to know it works in my pistol I have put a lot of $$ into the berm vs sticking with a round I know today works. When compared to a round I may have shot 1000rds of already and know works in my platform that is a barrier to cross.

In a revolver, it comes back to proving to me that it is better than the rounds with 50yrs or so of history behind them which cost 1/2 as much (or less maybe).

If they can survive, I can see them being the norm in a decade or so, but for now (for me) they are an $$$ curiosity.

 

[trackskippy]

Until they actually come out with handgun rounds that perform like rifle rounds, I really dont see the point in getting all wound up and spending a lot of time, money, or effort on any of this. If you have to shoot, you still wont be shooting any differently with any of the handgun rounds, no matter what they claim. How can you?

Personally, Id spend the extra money on more practice ammo, and work on making sure I was keeping my real world skills up. At least until they get a 9mm to perform like a 50BMG.

 

[CapnMac]

There's a lot of evidence based upon various gel media.
It's repeatable, engineering, data and had some merit just for that.

What I have not seen, yet, is comparable medical data coming out of ERs and similar venues.

Our medicos are not given to particular reticence, especially, those with a political bent. Were there "super rounds" demonstrating medically significant results, this would be screeched at we in the "gun community" at near every turn.

So, I'm "from Missouri" on this.

I pay far more attention to what group sizes I get out of ammunition, than the projectile used. If [ammo] give me a 1" group, I'll prefer it over [ammo] that barely hold a 2" group. And worse, to my perspective, is a wandering group center--1" group size that goes 1R2U to 2R1U means second-guessing my POA, which is not going to be good in a high-stress situation, where I want the reflexive confidence of "front sight there, rounds right there."

But, I know I'm biased in this. That the best answer for me is not always the best answer for others.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I pay far more attention to what group sizes I get out of ammunition, than the projectile used. If [ammo] give me a 1" group, I'll prefer it over [ammo] that barely hold a 2" group.

Great. You had to bring aging into this.

<sigh> - for precision work now I need to look like Murtaugh and angle my face up so I can see the front sight in my bifocals...

 

[mljdeckard]

Sure, do some homework, try a few different things. But I THINK the bottom line comes down to:

1. The difference between bullet types isn't as dramatic as most people think it is. Sure, use the best bullet you can, (premium JHP defensive ammo,) but it's not like you have more room for error than if you were carrying say, off-the-shelf FMJ. You still need to get as many good hits as you can as fast as possible.

2. Which brand probably doesn't matter very much. Whatever your gun cycles well and you shoot well. Start there. That's FAR more important than what brand it is. I think you will have to shoot a LOT of people a LOT of different ways before you can see a statistical difference between WWB JHP and ....whatever other defensive bullet you carry. Good bullets will not make up for poor shooting.

I carry 124 gr HSTs, and 230 gr .45 HSTs.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I just finished reviewing the Viper Weapons Wound Ballistics Test report for solid copper bullets.

These folks don't know what they're doing and NONE of their findings are credible.

The alleged "Permanent Wound Cavity" that they're measuring in gelatin blocks is actually the temporary cavity. The temporary cavity stretches gelatin beyond its ability to absorb the strain, and as a result, the gelatin cracks to relieve the strain. The resultant cracks in the gelatin record the diameter of the temporary cavity with an accuracy of 10-percent compared to typical soft tissues. Whether or not the temporary cavity produces any additional permanent tissue damage is dependent on the specific tissues involved and where they are located along the wound track.

 

[mljdeckard]

I just finished reviewing the Viper Weapons Wound Ballistics Test report for solid copper bullets.

These folks don't know what they're doing and NONE of their findings are credible.

The alleged "Permanent Wound Cavity" that they're measuring in gelatin blocks is actually the temporary cavity. The temporary cavity stretches gelatin beyond its ability to absorb the strain, and as a result, the gelatin cracks to relieve the strain. The resultant cracks in the gelatin record the diameter of the temporary cavity with an accuracy of 10-percent compared to typical soft tissues. Whether or not the temporary cavity produces any additional permanent tissue damage is dependent on the specific tissues involved and where they are located along the wound track.

Shawn, was that for a bullet like a Barnes hollow point, or for those silly "Radically-Invasive Projectile" gimmick bullets?" (I bumped into those wing nuts at SHOT a few years ago.)

 

[CapnMac]

You had to bring aging into this.

LoL, get to be a certain age, and age is part of everything

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Shawn, was that for a bullet like a Barnes hollow point, or for those silly "Radically-Invasive Projectile" gimmick bullets?" (I bumped into those wing nuts at SHOT a few years ago.)

The Viper Weapons test involves fluted solid copper bullets.

But the gelatin cracks apply to all bullets. The radial cracks record the temporary cavity, not the permanent cavity.

To properly observe the wounding effects of fluted bullets, the bullets need to be shot into living soft tissues or soft tissues of a freshly euthanized (within 10 minutes of death) animal, and the wounding effects interpreted by a qualified wound ballistics professional, not a lay person.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

The Viper Weapons test involves fluted solid copper bullets.

But the gelatin cracks apply to all bullets. The radial cracks record the temporary cavity, not the permanent cavity.

To properly observe the wounding effects of fluted bullets, the bullets need to be shot into living soft tissues or soft tissues of a freshly euthanized (within 10 minutes of death) animal, and the wounding effects interpreted by a qualified wound ballistics professional, not a lay person.

Do you know if anyone/any agency has done such a thing? The videos I've seen with chunks of pork roast as targets seem to show a significant difference, but I have no idea how that differs from living tissue. I do servers and software - this is your area of expertise.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Do you know if anyone/any agency has done such a thing? The videos I've seen with chunks of pork roast as targets seem to show a significant difference, but I have no idea how that differs from living tissue. I do servers and software - this is your area of expertise.

Gary Roberts, a wound ballistics consultant to law enforcement and US military, has mentioned these types of bullets have been tested by some agencies, including FBI, and found the wounding effects are no different than well-designed JHP bullets.

Butcher meat has been processed and doesn't have the same elasticity of living or recently euthanized muscle tissue, therefore butcher meat exaggerates wounding effects.

 

[WrongHanded]

A temporary cavity is gone in a fraction of a second and requires a high speed camera to capture it. That's why it's called a temporary cavity.

As far as these bullets being tested by the FBI, I'd be very interested to know what living animals they were testing them in.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

Do you know if anyone/any agency has done such a thing?

Probably not since Thompson and Lagarde

 

[Derek Zeanah]

these types of bullets have been tested by some agencies, including FBI, and found the wounding effects are no different than well-designed JHP bullets.

Thanks, Shawn.

 

[cslinger]

I think the biggest issues are..
-Cost/availability
-Lack of agency adoption (agency testing, real world results etc. )
-Some fear in some places of carrying something radically different than law enforcement.
-And a big one, we gun owners as a group have always been and likely ever shall be a fairly conservative lot resistant to change. This is good and bad.

HST, Gold Dot etc. etc are well proven defensive rounds……so…..get off my lawn I guess

One thing that seems to be a common denominator in the vast number of shooting videos I have watched as well as the limited experience I’ve had with a metro PD is most of the time the minute rounds start flying or make hits most everybody involved realizes they gots other places be, left the iron on, forgot to lock the door etc. and tend to leave with alacrity. While this obviously isn’t a 100% truth it’s fairly common so I would argue current tech rounds are more than up to a self defense task.

 

[cslinger]

And if we can’t argue caliber can we still argue AK vs AR? Ooooo I know the new caliber / AK vs AR argument for the modern shooter…….pistol mounted optics yay or nay. .

 

[oldfortyfiveauto]

None of this matters if the ammo isn't reliable or you can't make hits with it. Remember ball ammo has over 100 years of success in combat, not perfect but got the job done. If all this matters that much to your situation you probably need to rethink what you doing.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

A temporary cavity is gone in a fraction of a second and requires a high speed camera to capture it. That's why it's called a temporary cavity.

As far as these bullets being tested by the FBI, I'd be very interested to know what living animals they were testing them in.

I speculate it was probably a joint agency test (FBI, SOCOM, ARMY, USMC, DHS, NAVSEA, etc.) as was the case with the Joint Service Wound Ballistics - Integrated Product Team. (You might recall that the U.S. Army request for solicitation that led to selection of the SIG M17 and M18 handguns also included a solicitation for ammunition that wounded better than M855 ball.) The hind quarter of freshly euthanized swine are commonly used to test in "living soft tissues".

 

[Leon tP]

I wish the makers of fluted bullets would simply offer up their prized products to reloaders so we could evaluate them without the ridiculous cost.

The biggest Pro that I can see with this new design, so far, is the "barrier blind" aspect.

The biggest Con that I see is reliability, and that a very important one.

 

[film495]

I start reading about hollow point ballistics and I know I'm not going to spend the $$ on finding out if it runs reliably for 100s of rounds, so - I just carry the ball ammo I practice with, cuase it has been tested. In a revolver I'll carry hollow point self defense ammo, but for me in a semi, I just carry ball. It will penetrate more and not expand, but sometimes you actually want more penetration and you do need to penetrate more than expand, so - ammo is all different and different types have strenths and weaknesses, so - since I know ball will cycle and go bang, I just pick penetration over expansion and roll with it.

 

[entropy]

I use or have used the very proven rounds you listed, Derek. HST and Gold dot are my go to. The one exception is .380 ACP, in which I have 90 gr. Remington JHP. Because bullet shape is more critical due to the shorter COL, I chose them because they closely resemble ball ammo in that respect, and they function well in my TCP 738.

 

[Simple Shooter]

The product development team meets for the week:

“We need a new hook to sell drastically overpriced ammo. Anyone got an idea?”

“How about putting a piece of rubber in the hollow point?”

“Hornady is already doing that.”

“We could use really light bullets at a very high velocity! Or slow heavy ones!”

“About a dozen companies are doing that one. We need something that will get people to pay at least $1.00 - $1.50 per round. Preferably in little boxes of 20 so they have to buy at least two to fill their magazines. Should we design something that looks pretty when shot into Jello? Pretty sells.”

“Have you seen HST? Looks like a dainty little flower when recovered. How do we beat that?”

“How about a round that opens up and looks like a female body part?”

“NO. I mean…. Um… well?… No, no, no. We just can’t do that. At least not yet. We’ll save that as a last resort.”

“Ooohhh! Screwdrivers are the preferred weapon for assaulting people on NYC subways. Can we do something with that? Maybe like a Phillips head? Or a star drive?

“Also already been done. Also one that looks like a hole saw.”

“As long as we come up with something different than everyone else, I am sure marketing can skew some test results, give it a fancy name, and design a cool box to convince them to spend AT LEAST $1.50 per round.”

“Ok, folks. Let’s spend this week innovating and see what we can get them to buy!”

 

[JR24]

2 things for me I’d be waiting for

1) real world use data, likely from LEO. I’m not interested in videos of deer or whatever allegedly shot by the folks trying to sell the new thing

2) projectile prices being reasonable to developing practice loads (or, heck practice ammo) that have similar shooting to the often lighter defensive load.

Until then I’ll stick with what’s been tried and true, and also affordable.