Are Penetration and Expansion minimums enough?

[WrongHanded]

Okay, I'll bite. What other 'wider range of criteria' might someone use to choose defensive handgun ammunition, other than penetration and expansion minimums?

Also, the 'OSS data' is sooo 80's. It's not like it's got any official standing or followers. Interesting to lay shooting enthusiasts, no doubt, but so was the (mythical/hoaxed) Strasbourg Goat Tests.

The lightweight .22MAG bullets lack the mass (and momentum) compared to heavier center-fire defensive/service handgun calibers, including defeating bony structures. That doesn't mean they can't slip between bones and penetrate deeply enough to cause fatal wounding.

If you like to look at OSS-type info, even the 'marginally adequate' pocket pistol .32ACP & .380ACP calibers seem to be 'rated' more effective ... but that may be because they've been used in more incidents.

Another potential disadvantage to the rimfire cartridge is that the priming compound may sometimes not be present all the way around the case rim. Last I read, rimfire cases are spun during the priming stage of manufacture, to try and evenly distribute the priming compound. Center-fire cartridges that use primer cups have become considered more consistent in resulting in ignition. Probably why bigger calibers aren't produced in rimfire configuration anymore.

I intentionally picked the smallest weakest cartridge I could find that met the minimums in the OP. You mention .32acp and .380acp. I suppose I could have used a load in one of the cartridges as the example. But I went for the absolutely weakest load I could find, because I don't think anyone really thinks it's acceptable, even though it technically meets the minimums.

So I of course agree about the .22 Magnum lacking the mass to break bones (edit: and still penetrate deeply enough). But then I lean towards the concept of carrying the largest most powerful gun/ammo combination you can shoot well.

 

[Pudge]

Okay, I'll bite. What other 'wider range of criteria' might someone use to choose defensive handgun ammunition, other than penetration and expansion minimums?


I've seen someone suggest LE usage factors into the wide range of criteria, while someone else has suggested the mass of the projectile should factor into the wide range of criteria.

 

[Skribs]

And the rounds are just one small part of this. You have to make things work with what you have/choose, and thats actually more important than what the rounds are, as regardless, you have to keep doing whatever it takes to solve things, no matter whats in the gun. One may work better than others, in some respects, but regardless of that, your response should always be the same, no matter whats going on with the rounds.

Okay...and? Who are you arguing against? Who is saying the rest isn't important?

I'll use an analogy from my day job. I work cybersecurity. In cyber, you have your Security Plan (which would be "the whole package") and you have policies (which cover specific variables). If I'm working on the password policy, and someone says I need to make sure we have backups of our servers, they are correct, but not helpful. Because at that moment, we're focusing on making sure our passwords are up to par.

To put this into context of firearms and personal protection. My home security plan involves a combination of locks, alarms, lighting, and weapons. I have prepared plans based on what happens if someone breaks in from where, or to deal with other emergencies. I have different conceal carry options depending on what type of clothes I'm wearing. This is the overall plan. My conceal carry policy is I like to have at least 10 rounds on me. In deciding how many rounds to carry, I didn't worry about whether or not I have a deadbolt on my front door. That's an unrelated variable to the particular decision I'm making. It's an important variable, but not to concealed carry.

Going back to my cybersecurity analogy, one reason we have plans for things, is so that we can be prepared. If our servers crash, that's the wrong time to start backing them up. We have to start that ahead of time. Luckily, we can plan for which backup solution we want to use, and what our strategy is ahead of time. Same thing with guns. Yes, I will have to make do once I'm in a situation. But I get some choice ahead of time what I'm "making do" with. It's a lot easier to make do with a Glock 17 than with a Ruger LCP.

The fact that you carry at all suggests you know this. Because you'd rather make do with a gun than make do without.

If you want to argue numbers for the sake of arguing numbers, thats cool I guess, if thats your thing. I just dont think most of whats argued there, really takes into account reality, at least as far as things go when you start shooting things that have too many variables, to give any kind of honest answer. Beyond "maybe" anyway.

Do you have a better testing method than what we have right now?

 

[hso]

tubular wound approximately the diameter of the expanded bullet.

Seems one more factor becomes important, the diameter. The larger, the greater wounding if the other factors are equal.

 

[trackskippy]

Okay...and? Who are you arguing against? Who is saying the rest isn't important?

Im not arguing against anyone. Simply pointing out, as I seem to be constantly doing, that the subject here is only part of a whole package, if you want to be realistic about things, and you just cant base things on one part. You have to take it as a whole and apply it.

As far as "the rest isnt important", just look at what most of the arguing is usually about. Numbers and statistics. While they are something to consider, they really arent what gets things done here. And what gets things done, tends to be a touchy subject, as it directly relates to the person, not someone else's numbers/stats.

Do you have a better testing method than what we have right now?

Which or what method are we talking about? The ones where professionals do the work and publish the results, comparing the various rounds, and there's some credibility there. Or the numerous things by who knows who, that are thrown around as fact, that really have no basis in any? Seems to be some confusion there in a lot of these sorts of things. People want to argue the pieces and dont want to consider the big picture.

I think if youre going to research things as far as the numbers go, and try and make an intelligent decision, then the former would be the correct choice. But again, its only one part of things here, and the other factors, to me anyway, tend to hold more importance than what a certain round/bullet, within reason, may or may not do.

The bullet alone doesn't decide the outcome. But of course, you wont have the outcome, without the bullet either. Usually, anyway. The other factors will tend to make exactly what the bullet type is, less of an issue too, again, to a point anyway.

I have a pretty good chance at making a lacking bullet/caliber work if I have to, but that's not based on its "numbers", its based on knowing what I have to do to make things work and having the ability to do so.

If Im basing things on simply the numbers or stats, and Im lacking in the ability department, then it really doesn't matter if I have the best or the worst round in the world, if "I" cant make it work, do you suppose a fancy bullet will make a difference? Im thinking not.

When it comes to all this, I would say the choice of round, based on anyone's "stats", is down the list in importance. To me, ability, knowledge, and understanding comes first, choice of gun comes second, choice of caliber/ammo comes third. Doing your homework and hard work, and properly putting the combo together, will give you the best chance at a good outcome, for you.

Or, just pick the 357SIG. Why? Because the numbers say it's an awesome round, and it looks cool too!

 

[WrongHanded]

Seems one more factor becomes important, the diameter. The larger, the greater wounding if the other factors are equal.

It would seem so. Except that when considering the difference between a small projectile missing a vital target and a larger one hitting it - given the same bullet trajectory - the difference is actually the difference in radius.

So, if one expanded bullet measures 0.39" (as in the case of the .22 Magnum) and another measures 0.66" (a crude estimate based on the 9mm projectile data from @CDW4ME quoted in post #5), we have a difference of 0.27" in diameter. But a difference from the center of the bullet trajectory of only 0.135".

That is somewhere between 1/8" and 5/32" difference that would cause a hit with the larger projectile, but a miss with the smaller one. Is that enough of a difference to make a difference when we're talking about poking holes in the heart, major vessels, spinal cord, or brain?

 

[hso]

Is that enough

A friend that was a trauma surgeon dealing with gunshot wounds thought so and recounted saving victims of .22 hollow point hits on vital organs at a much higher rate than "major" calibers. He joked about people walking in with .22 wounds that would have eventually killed them if not for bringing themselves in and his making repairs.

 

[WrongHanded]

A friend that was a trauma surgeon dealing with gunshot wounds thought so and recounted saving victims of .22 hollow point hits on vital organs at a much higher rate than "major" calibers. He joked about people walking in with .22 wounds that would have eventually killed them if not for bringing themselves in and his making repairs.

So given that information....

Seems one more factor becomes important, the diameter. The larger, the greater wounding if the other factors are equal.

Is diameter a factor?

 

[JohnKSa]

Is that enough of a difference to make a difference...

THIS is indeed the question. Here's a very quick and dirty/sloppy/hand-waving answer.

If it were enough of a difference to make a difference, we wouldn't be having these debates. As soon as someone can conclusively demonstrate that there's a significant difference in outcome of gunfights due to caliber*, then it's all over. No more debating required. (*Talking about choices within a general performance class not across the entire spectrum of handgun calibers. No one really thinks that .25ACP is generally equivalent to .357Mag in terms of how effectively it stops attackers, the question is really about .22LR vs .25ACP vs .32ACP, or 9mm vs. 40S&W vs .45ACP, etc.)

The problem is that we look at data like the information that Ellifritz compiled and it shows what appear to be bizarre anomalies.

• For the number of hits needed to incapacitate, the .22, the .32, the .380, and the .38Spl are all significantly superior to the .45ACP.
• The .22, the .380 and .38Spl have a higher or identical percentage of fatal hits than the .45ACP. (Please note that I'm not advocating fatality figures as a way of assessing self-defense rounds, just pointing out an interesting result in the data.)
• The .22, the .380 and .38Spl have a better or identical percentage of one shot stops as the .45ACP.
• The .380ACP outranks the 9mm in every category except one.

What that data is telling you isn't that given two bullets with the same diameter, the lighter and slower one will have more terminal effect--we know that can't possibly be true.

It's telling us that differences that have nothing to do with terminal effect are exerting a powerful effect on the outcomes.

So does that mean we should spend MORE time looking at differences in terminal effect even more carefully? That's not how I see it.

 

[hso]

That would seem evident that all three factors are important instead of just one or two.

 

[Pudge]

So given that information....



Is diameter a factor?

That might lead people to believe that starting with a bigger diameter that expands an equivalent percentage would be more effective. Might see a little pushback against such an assertion...

 

[Skribs]

Im not arguing against anyone. Simply pointing out, as I seem to be constantly doing, that the subject here is only part of a whole package, if you want to be realistic about things, and you just cant base things on one part. You have to take it as a whole and apply it.

"As I seem to be constantly doing"...yes. That's part of the problem.

As far as "the rest isnt important", just look at what most of the arguing is usually about. Numbers and statistics. While they are something to consider, they really arent what gets things done here. And what gets things done, tends to be a touchy subject, as it directly relates to the person, not someone else's numbers/stats.

Because most folks agree on everything else, so this is the part that they're arguing about. Hence my question, "who are you arguing with?"

Which or what method are we talking about? The ones where professionals do the work and publish the results, comparing the various rounds, and there's some credibility there. Or the numerous things by who knows who, that are thrown around as fact, that really have no basis in any? Seems to be some confusion there in a lot of these sorts of things. People want to argue the pieces and dont want to consider the big picture.

Gatekeeping, got it.

Or, just pick the 357SIG. Why? Because the numbers say it's an awesome round, and it looks cool too!

Why not 9mm?

 

[Buzznrose]

I would suggest, for defensive purposes, stop thinking in terms of how a bullet is supposed to perform. Buy a quality round, focus on what your desired outcome should be, and train accordingly.

Just because the ad or you tuber said the round is great doesn’t mean it will stop a bad guy with one solid hit. Practice shooting multiple shots and accessing for threat.

But I agree that penetration is key and absolutely necessary in a good rounds. Just saying it ain’t a guarantee

 

[Atavar]

Please enlighten me. Dumdum bullets were addressed in the Hague accords (which also prohibited submarine warfare) but the U.S. was not a signatory to the accords. I'm aware that New Jersey prohibits the carry of hollowpoint ammunition (which a few decades ago anti-gunners called dumdums) outside the home.

Can you identify which states, counties or municipalities prohibit "dumdums"? Outside of NJ I'm unaware of any.

Please enlighten me. Dumdum bullets were addressed in the Hague accords (which also prohibited submarine warfare) but the U.S. was not a signatory to the accords. I'm aware that New Jersey prohibits the carry of hollowpoint ammunition (which a few decades ago anti-gunners called dumdums) outside the home.

Can you identify which states, counties or municipalities prohibit "dumdums"? Outside of NJ I'm unaware of any.

https://www.csclarklaw.com/gun-lawyer/dum-dum-bullets/

 

[WrongHanded]

I would suggest, for defensive purposes, stop thinking in terms of how a bullet is supposed to perform. Buy a quality round, focus on what your desired outcome should be, and train accordingly.

Just because the ad or you tuber said the round is great doesn’t mean it will stop a bad guy with one solid hit. Practice shooting multiple shots and accessing for threat.

And here we are again, talking about training and hitting what we're aiming at. I do train. Hopefully everyone else does also. It's important. It's not what the thread is about.

 

[Zendude]

What seems to be missing in the discussion is shot placement. It is a factor in the reason why many agencies went to 9mm. Recoil matters in follow up shot accuracy.
If one can shoot significantly smaller groups at a faster speed with a 380 than a 9mm, then that is important. Is it important enough to recommend using a 380 vs a 9mm? Maybe. That’s what the individual must decide.

 

[Skribs]

And here we are again, talking about training and hitting what we're aiming at. I do train. Hopefully everyone else does also. It's important. It's not what the thread is about.

I'm trying to find the name of the logical fallacy that drives these kinds of replies. I see it all the time in martial arts forums, too. The idea that your entire level of knowledge, technique, or strategy is contained in what is put on text in this post or on what is said in this video. And anything left unsaid is not because you're editing yourself to the scope of the question, but rather because you are ignorant and need to be saved by my impressive knowledge.

I was on a martial arts forum, and I mention a technique we learn at my school. I was getting comments about how my entire system revolves around this one technique. When it's just one technique out of hundreds we learn. But because it's the only technique I mention in the thread, apparently that alone was the core of my art.

 

[WrongHanded]

I'm trying to find the name of the logical fallacy that drives these kinds of replies. I see it all the time in martial arts forums, too. The idea that your entire level of knowledge, technique, or strategy is contained in what is put on text in this post or on what is said in this video. And anything left unsaid is not because you're editing yourself to the scope of the question, but rather because you are ignorant and need to be saved by my impressive knowledge.

I was on a martial arts forum, and I mention a technique we learn at my school. I was getting comments about how my entire system revolves around this one technique. When it's just one technique out of hundreds we learn. But because it's the only technique I mention in the thread, apparently that alone was the core of my art.

I agree completely. Can we talk about engine power without getting bogged down and segwayed with MPG and the cost of gasoline? Or do some people have to mention such things because they want to pivot the conversation to a place where it is easier to justify whatever they choose to carry?

OP: "I have a 4x4 so I can more easily drive in adverse winter conditions. Let's talk about vehicles that can handle the snow well."

Random guy: "Yeah but if you were better at driving and paid more attention to the conditions in the moment and planned ahead of time, you wouldn't even need a 4-wheel-drive vehicle."

OP: "Okay. But can we talk about the vehicles?"

Random guy: "No. Because I like what I have. So it's the best."

 

[Kleanbore]

And here we are again, talking about training and hitting what we're aiming at. I do train. Hopefully everyone else does also. It's important. It's not what the thread is about.

While training was mentioned, the important points in that post are these:

....stop thinking in terms of how a bullet is supposed to perform. ...

Differences in terminal ballistics among premium defensive rounds are small. The likelihood of a one shot stop is rather small.

It is generally recognized that premium ammunition in in any common service round will do the trick--if the right things are hit.

 

[Nuclear]

In addition to penetration and expansion, first it has to be reliable (feed, go bang, extract). It has to be accurate, since we all keep harping on how important that placement is. And it has to consistently penetrate and consistently expand.

Now I do have questions about the FBI criteria, and the current wounding protocol (I won’t call it a theory). Like the whole temporary cavity doesn’t matter until you get up around 2400 fps. How does that explain rounds like the 125 grain JHP 357 Magnum that perform so much better in the real world than 124 grain JHP 9mm? Or if crush cavity is the only handgun wounding effect, why doesn’t the 45ACP JHP perform better than every smaller diameter caliber that penetrates the exact same distance? Sure, handguns sucks compared to rifles, but you should be able to explain the discrepancies and exceptions within handgun rounds.

 

[WisBorn]

I think that there is to much emphasis put the FBI standard. Much of the 12-18" penetration test is for determining what a law enforcement agency should carry. Ammo manufacturers developed their ammo around the standard. So it doesn't matter if you carry a 9mm, 40s&w, or 45acp (the three most popular law enforcement rounds).
So penetration and expansion guide lines is data for comparison.
A big hole that causes lots of tissue damage with considerable penetration will be more effective.

 

[WrongHanded]

Now I do have questions about the FBI criteria, and the current wounding protocol (I won’t call it a theory). Like the whole temporary cavity doesn’t matter until you get up around 2400 fps. How does that explain rounds like the 125 grain JHP 357 Magnum that perform so much better in the real world than 124 grain JHP 9mm? Or if crush cavity is the only handgun wounding effect, why doesn’t the 45ACP JHP perform better than every smaller diameter caliber that penetrates the exact same distance? Sure, handguns sucks compared to rifles, but you should be able to explain the discrepancies and exceptions within handgun rounds.

Excellent questions. Now as I'm playing devil's advocate, I'll give you the answers I've been given, to the best of my recollection. Let me just put on my mental gymnastics unitard...

The .357 Magnum used to be better than the 9mm, but now modern bullet technology has caught it up and it's basically equal (which somehow made the .357 magnum worse at the same time). Or alternatively, it was only better at causing psychological stops, where the additional muzzle blast and flash frightened people into falling over once shot. It has nothing to do with the much greater energy of the cartridge because energy doesn't matter. Or, all the statistics showing the .357 magnum was more effective are fake, falsified, or poorly collected and wrongly interpreted data sets, like the Strasburg Goat Test (absolutely fake, even though no one has ever proven it), and the One Shot Stop data by Marshall and Sanow (who were either incompetent or lying, even though no one has ever proven either to be true). So you see, there's no data actually even suggesting the .357 Magnum was ever better, because it wasn't.

The .45acp JHP performs better than any smaller cartridge? There's no credible data to support that, as I explained above when I said all the data that might suggest all "service caliber" handgun cartridge weren't equal, was wrong. Or, a small difference in wound diameter is not nearly as important as hitting what you're aiming at, and I remember a decade ago when I realized I couldn't control the recoil of a .45 anymore. So a 9mm is better for everyone, because everyone can shoot a 9mm faster and more accurately that a .45, and you have to be faster and more accurate, but how much faster and more accurate you have to be is something unquantifiable. If you're fast and accurate with a .45, you'd still be as accurate and faster with a 9mm, so the .45 doesn't make bigger holes after all. And more holes are better than bigger holes anyway, and the .45acp guns are always lower capacity.

And those are the answers I've received in the past, more or less.

 

[Buzznrose]

And here we are again, talking about training and hitting what we're aiming at. I do train. Hopefully everyone else does also. It's important. It's not what the thread is about.

I wasn’t trying to divert the thread.

I just think, since most of us carry JHP’s, unless one is using a solid bullet, penetration is not necessarily guaranteed.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

https://www.csclarklaw.com/gun-lawyer/dum-dum-bullets/

That's not really relevant because NJ is the only state with that law, and they define "Dum-dum bullet" identically to "armor-piercing," which is specifically defined in terms of core and jacket thickness and hardness, making scoring a soft point or jacket to try and produce extra expansion an irrelevant factor.

They also ban hollow points, but again, if it was already a hollow point, scoring it to try and make it expand more doesn't make it more of a hollow point legally.

 

[Atavar]

I can’t speak for all laws everywhere as you apparently can.