Civilian Concealed Carry, Barrier Penetrating Ammo, Or Not? Sabers vs Dots

Status
Not open for further replies.
So your saying the ammo selection doesn't matter to you as long as you have capacity? Or are you saying the heavier bullets hold together through barriers so that's why you now use them?

Yes to all of your questions. I edc Beretta 92 because it holds 15 rounds and I have a spare 15 round magazine on my belt (high capacity) and I like 124 gr. XTP +P because it will penetrate deeper while expanding (hopefully. There is no way to be sure until the stuff hits the fan).

Not overthinking anything. It really seems like common sense to say we should carry effective ammo that does less damage once passing through a barrier.

Legally we should not be shooting what we can't see and if we did it would probably be an accident.

Maybe your common sense but not mine. If I have to shoot someone I want to use the most effective bullet even after through a barrier.

What is the legal basis for saying “Legally we should not be shooting what we can not see”?

So if a active shooter is using a wall for cover and only exposing his head, arm and hand I would not be legally justified that instead of trying to hit his head or shoot the gun out of his hand I shift my point of aim 6 - 10” over to where his torso is behind the wall and shoot at that location hoping the wall is the typical two layers of drywall and sheet metal framing.
 
Last edited:
There definitely is a difference so you might have a point.

This is not my area of expertise so I may not get this right but if you're using .40 S&W you're going to get more penetration anyway.

There's really only been on incident in my life where there were any bystanders and that was in the middle of a Kum&Go. I don't think anyone else even realized what was going on and it wouldn't have mattered what kind of ammunition I was using.

Almost every time I've had to defend myself it was in a parking lot in the middle of the night.
 
If all of the above is true and a good guideline, then should the average guy really be carrying bonded, barrier penetrating ammo?

We fire the least number of shots possible to avoid hitting bystanders. So why carry ammo that could possibly penetrate a barrier and hit a bystander?
Can you think of any effective defensive handgun ammunition that will not penetrate auto glass, drywall, or thin mild steel?
 
Can you think of any effective defensive handgun ammunition that will not penetrate auto glass, drywall, or thin mild steel?

I’ve already considered that and basically asked that question in a previous post in this thread: 12358085-52DF-44EF-97C4-6EC195EB0FF4.jpeg

Not looking for safe ammo, just less likely to do damage after passing through a barrier.
 
Yes to all of your questions. I edc Beretta 92 because it holds 15 rounds and I have a spare 15 round magazine on my belt (high capacity) and I like 124 gr. XTP +P because it will penetrate deeper while expanding (hopefully. There is no way to be sure until the stuff hits the fan).



Maybe your common sense but not mine. If I have to shoot someone I want to use the most effective bullet even after through a barrier.


Anything can happen but I’ll continue to see what I shoot. There could be a scenario like your example but I look at the need to shoot through barriers as less likely than most. When the bad guy is behind a barrier, it’s time to leave the area.
 
For what it's worth, bonded ammunition isn't designed to be, and very rarely does, penetrate a barrier any better than the cheapest stuff out there.

A windshield or car door isn't going to stop any round common for self defense, and it's going to have roughly the same trajectory after as anything else. The only difference is if it's still likely to expand. And even then, the target generally has to be close behind.

It's rare you'll have to shoot through a barrier of any sort--a carjacking or someone trying to kick in your door, maybe--you may want something that will deal with those, or don't care. Some good rounds don't expand well after penetrating glass, drywall, sheet metal, or even a thick coat. Some of the best do.

Decide on a round based on reliability in your gun and terminal effect, nothing else.
 
you could just keep a can of mace in your pocket, certainly easier to conceal and won't over penetrate. the question about what's behind your target is a good one, I don't have a good answer - but, have had the same thoughts. have wondered if going down to one knee to make a shot is a good tactic, then the round might go higher and hit the side of a building and not an auto behind the maniac rushing you.
 
Some of you guys are SO helpful!:D It would be nice if you read what I wrote as I’ve already gone over the caveats and I’ve stated I’m “not looking for safe ammo.”

Thanks to everyone who put a minute of thought to the question. :thumbup:

Bonded bullets have been proven by law enforcement. Most of us that daily carry are not law enforcement so do we need ammo with the qualities of someone who would possibly need to shoot through barriers. Seems like a valid question.
 
Most of us that daily carry are not law enforcement so do we need ammo with the qualities of someone who would possibly need to shoot through barriers. Seems like a valid question.

Is it a strictly academic question though?

What exactly are you looking for? You've said multiple times you want something that won't cause as much damage if it goes through a barrier.

I contend (FWIW which isn't much) that anything that meets that criteria won't perform adequately if it doesn't go through a barrier.

It may be a valid question but I don't think it has an answer
 
Is it a strictly academic question though?

What exactly are you looking for? You've said multiple times you want something that won't cause as much damage if it goes through a barrier.

I contend (FWIW which isn't much) that anything that meets that criteria won't perform adequately if it doesn't go through a barrier.

It may be a valid question but I don't think it has an answer

You might be right. I was looking for thoughts on the question(s), not a definitive answer. Then I'll decide if I change what I carry and maybe some info in this thread will be useful to others.

If we had accurate documentation of shootings throughout history we could possibly get better answers. Like when police used unbonded bullets, exactly how effective were they? Were they really that ineffective compared to the latest greatest? AND how well did the unbonded bullets do after passing through barriers? Were the unbonded bullets known to be ripped apart and typically just splatter fragments on whoever was on the other side? Or did they actually perform similar to the latest greatest? Unfortunately it's hard to get good documentation on how many shots fired from yesterdays shooting much less any details of bullet performance.

Maybe an experienced LEO who's seen it all over the years will chime in and give us a clue about how the old ammo performed and if it has any advantage for todays non LEO.
 
For the average guy who goes to work, goes shopping with the family, eats at the local restaurant, we are told to try to get away before ever firing a shot in self defense. We shouldn't even present our weapon if at all possible, much less fire a shot, if we can leave the area. If we ever have to actually shoot in self defense, we are told to stop shooting when the threat is neutralized. The legal system will be judging every single shot fired afterwards.

If all of the above is true and a good guideline, then should the average guy really be carrying bonded, barrier penetrating ammo?

We fire the least number of shots possible to avoid hitting bystanders. So why carry ammo that could possibly penetrate a barrier and hit a bystander?

Effectiveness on the intended target is the only reason. If a bonded Gold Dot is MUCH more effective at stopping a bad guy than an unbonded Golden Saber, then I would prefer the Gold Dot. If this were to be true, it would be possible to stop the bad guy with less shots, which is the goal for the average guy.

So the question is, are bonded bullets really any more effective than unbonded bullets?
Are they enough better to justify their use by the average Joe?
Do bonded bullets really penetrate barriers any better than unbonded bullets?

I've talked to an officer who worked in a morgue and he swears by Gold Dots. But seeing that Gold Dots were very effective, doesn't mean he actually got a good sense of the effectiveness of other ammo such as the Golden Sabers.

Both of these rounds have proven effective on deer, (so I've read) and the Sabers tend to expand more and penetrate a little less in testing I've done. I believe both of these rounds would stop a threat fairly equally but I have no actual evidence of one being better than the other.

Shouldn't, shouldn't, shouldn't...

Far too many people focus on trivialities on the supposed theory that "violating" them will lead you into legal hot water.

NEWS FLASH:

If you have to shoot somebody, fatally or not, you WILL be in legal hot water. This is because there WILL be an investigation into the shooting and investigations aren't done to determine innocence...they're done to see if there's anything a person can be charged with.

If the totality of the evidence in a given circumstance being investigated indicates a violation of the laws from the point of view of the government, then charges will be preferred. If they do not, then charges likely will not be preferred.


BUT, BUT, BUT...we hear all the time how the prosecution hammers the type of ammunition used!

ANOTHER NEWS FLASH:

It is the JOB of the prosecution to obtain a conviction. To that end, the prosecuting attorney WILL skew everything he or she can in favor of that conviction, and part of that will be playing up on the beliefs and emotions of those sitting in the jury.

The key to understanding "self defense" lies in exactly those two words: "self" and "defense".

You're not using deadly force to conduct an offensive attack on innocent people. You're using it as a means to ensure your own survival in the event your life is placed in imminent danger.


WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

It means that the type of ammunition you use takes a back seat to the totality of circumstances of the event itself, with respect to the justifiable use of deadly force. If you WERE justified in using deadly force, then the fact that your means of delivering it was through the application of jacketed round nose ammunition, jacketed hollowpoint ammunition, or barrier penetrating ammunition matters very little.

I daresay anybody here would be hard pressed to produce a court case where a person was convicted solely on the kind of ammunition they used. Rather, I suspect that any such mention has more to do with proving the intent behind the assault/killing was a deliberate act of malice and not a justifiable act of self defense and was likely only a small part of such a conviction.


WHAT AMMUNITION SHOULD BE USED?

Ammunition which will have a significant change of stopping a violent attack, and which feeds reliably in your chosen firearm.

Beyond that, with all the quality ammunition out there it's a matter of research, function checking, and personal choice.
 
If we had accurate documentation of shootings throughout history we could possibly get better answers. Like when police used unbonded bullets, exactly how effective were they? Were they really that ineffective compared to the latest greatest? AND how well did the unbonded bullets do after passing through barriers? Were the unbonded bullets known to be ripped apart and typically just splatter fragments on whoever was on the other side? Or did they actually perform similar to the latest greatest? Unfortunately it's hard to get good documentation on how many shots fired from yesterdays shooting much less any details of bullet performance.
Such data would be virtually meaningless for whatever purpose it is that you seem to have in mind,
 
Reading between the lines of the OP’s posts, what I am seeing is this: A non-LE encounter is going to involve a person not behind a barrier. So, there is no reason to be shooting barriers, and hitting a barrier is, essentially, a miss. Therefore, a non-LE person should want a round that is largely defeated by the barrier so nothing bad happens to what is behind the barrier. But, because bullets that manage to get through barriers still can do some damage, even a poor one should still do enough to hurt a bad guy if the citizen ends up having to shoot a bad guy behind a barrier. I fail to see the logic there.

The top LE rounds are still the best for non-LE people. The vast majority of police shootings have lawsuits that come with them, as well as massive public, investigator and prosecutor scrutiny. Police generally have to the follow the same laws of self-defense as non-LEO. (There may be some state law variations. Consult your jurisdiction.) The main difference is that the public does not want police to disengage from the threat and run away when it otherwise would be safe to do so, so police may spend more time in the life-threatening environment to neutralize it with bullets or handcuffs. Massive amounts of taxpayer money have been spent figuring out what ammo works against the bad guy but does not overpenetrate. And, because no one can predict the encounter, the ammo has been tailored to work generally the same in the target even if it encounters a common, everyday barrier along the way.

Assuming that a citizen encounter will not involve barriers is foolish for two reasons. First, we all know what they say about the word “assume”. Encounters happen indoors, in businesses, homes residences, churches, restaurants, etc., all of which are full of objects that could be between the good guy and, at least, important parts of the bad guy. We even may create the barrier by doing something like ducking or hiding behind some clutter that changes all the angles. It’s no different than the police in that regard. Why limit one’s self to a specific, theoretical set of facts?

The second reason is that people have barriers in their bodies, namely, bone, that is not actually tested in gel tests. The FBI tests that include barriers have been correlated to street results, and those who accept those results know that ammo that passes the FBI tests works effectively against people, which would include bone. A bad guy out in the open who comes at someone at an angle (such as to attempt to obscure or guard a gun or a knife) may have significant bone structure facing the good guy. An arm in front of the chest is a barrier. An arm holding a weapon can be a barrier. I personally want ammo that works after encountering layers of extraneous bone. Remember the FBI shootout where the FBI blamed ammo for a failure to stop a guy after passing through an arm? (Yes, many debate whether it was a legitimate reason.)

The bottom line should be to get an effective round that works through an everyday set of environmental barriers without overpenetrating, and don’t miss. Factor the misses into one’s training regimen. Don’t factor it into the ammo unless one is willing to accept lesser performance on one’s attacker. The bullet can't differentiate between a good guy and a bad guy. The ammo companies and LE have fine-tuned it for us, so why complicate it.

If there is a specific reason why a round has to be frangible for a particular application, why not something like a Glaser Safety Slug? I don’t see moving about in public as a “particular application”.

YMMV
 
Last edited:
A non-LE encounter is going to involve a person not behind a barrier. So, there is no reason to be shooting barriers, and hitting a barrier is, essentially, a miss.
As you state, that's an assumption, borne out only by fantasies that play in the minds of people thinking about what "might" happen.

Assuming that a citizen encounter will not involve barriers is foolish for two reasons. First, we all know what they say about the word “assume”. Encounters happen indoors, in businesses, homes residences, churches, restaurants, etc., all of which are full of objects that could be between the good guy and, at least, important parts of the bad guy. We even may create the barrier by doing something like ducking or hiding behind some clutter that changes all the angles. It’s no different than the police in that regard.

The bottom line should be to get an effective round that works through an everyday set of environmental barriers without overpenetrating, and don’t miss. Factor the misses into one’s training regimen. Don’t factor it into the ammo unless one is willing to accept lesser performance on one’s attacker. The bullet can't differentiate between a good guy and a bad guy. The ammo companies and LE have fine-tuned it for us, so why complicate it.

Excellent thinking!
 
Like I said, too much overthinking.

Pick something considered to be effective for its intended purpose and move on to more important things.

You can do better than just repeating yourself!:)

Now how about some reasoning and thoughts behind your advice? I gave my reasoning and thoughts in the original post. Saying "you're overthinking it, move on" is easy.
 
Reading between the lines of the OP’s posts, what I am seeing is this: A non-LE encounter is going to involve a person not behind a barrier. So, there is no reason to be shooting barriers, and hitting a barrier is, essentially, a miss. Therefore, a non-LE person should want a round that is largely defeated by the barrier so nothing bad happens to what is behind the barrier. But, because bullets that manage to get through barriers still can do some damage, even a poor one will still should do enough to hurt a bad guy if the citizen ends up having to shoot a bad guy behind a barrier. I fail to see the logic there.

The top LE rounds are still the best for non-LE people. The vast majority of police shootings have lawsuits that come with them, as well as massive public, investigator and prosecutor scrutiny. Police generally have to the follow the same laws of self-defense as non-LEO. (There may be some state law variations. Consult your jurisdiction.) The main difference is that the public does not want police to disengage from the threat and run away when it otherwise would be safe to do so, so police may spend more time in the threatening life-threatening environment to neutralize it with bullets or handcuffs. Massive amounts of taxpayer money have been spent figuring out what ammo works against the bad guy but does not overpenetrate. And, because no one can predict the encounter, the ammo has been tailored to work generally the same in the target even if it encounters a common, everyday barrier along the way.

Assuming that a citizen encounter will not involve barriers is foolish for two reasons. First, we all know what they say about the word “assume”. Encounters happen indoors, in businesses, homes residences, churches, restaurants, etc., all of which are full of objects that could be between the good guy and, at least, important parts of the bad guy. We even may create the barrier by doing something like ducking or hiding behind some clutter that changes all the angles. It’s no different than the police in that regard. Why limit one’s self to a specific, theoretical set of facts?

The second reason is that people have barriers in their bodies, namely, bone, that is not actually tested in gel tests. The FBI tests that include barriers have been correlated to street results, and those who accept those results know that ammo that passes the FBI tests work effectively against people, which would include bone. A bad guy out in the open who comes at someone at an angle (such as to attempt to obscure or guard a gun or a knife) may have significant bone structure facing the good guy. An arm in front of the chest is a barrier. An arm holding a weapon is a barrier. I personally want ammo that works after encountering layers of extraneous bone. Remember the FBI shootout where the FBI blamed ammo for a failure to stop a guy after passing through an arm? (Yes, many debate whether it was a legitimate reason.)

The bottom line should be to get an effective round that works through an everyday set of environmental barriers without overpenetrating, and don’t miss. Factor the misses into one’s training regimen. Don’t factor it into the ammo unless one is willing to accept lesser performance on one’s attacker. The bullet can't differentiate between a good guy and a bad guy. The ammo companies and LE have fine-tuned it for us, so why complicate it.

If there is a specific reason why a round has to be frangible for a particular application, why not something like a Glaser Safety Slug? I don’t see moving about in public as a “particular application”.

YMMV

Thank you for your thoughts. I've given a great deal of thought to all of the important factors of a defensive situation. I understand as well as anybody that shot placement, angles, situational awareness, body language, good equipment, whats behind the target, on and on, is way more important than what bullet. And I do not assume some predetermined set of situations.

I thought I made all of my points and questions clear in the OP with no assumptions or hypothetical situation. I'll have to go back and really evaluate what I wrote to see why so many people jump to the conclusion I'm narrow minded and living in a Hollywood shootout fantasy. That is not at all the case.

Edit: Again thank you for answering my questions from the original post.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to go back and really evaluate what I wrote to see why so many people jump to the conclusion I'm narrow minded and living in a Hollywood shootout fantasy. That is not at all the case.
Okay. That did appear to be the case.

Perhaps it is just misunderstandings about bullet behavior, wounding mechanisms, or both.

Again thank you for at least answering some of my questions from the original post.
Which questions have not been answered?
 
Reading between the lines of the OP’s posts, what I am seeing is this: A non-LE encounter is going to involve a person not behind a barrier. So, there is no reason to be shooting barriers, and hitting a barrier is, essentially, a miss. Therefore, a non-LE person should want a round that is largely defeated by the barrier so nothing bad happens to what is behind the barrier. But, because bullets that manage to get through barriers still can do some damage, even a poor one should still do enough to hurt a bad guy if the citizen ends up having to shoot a bad guy behind a barrier. I fail to see the logic there.

The top LE rounds are still the best for non-LE people. The vast majority of police shootings have lawsuits that come with them, as well as massive public, investigator and prosecutor scrutiny. Police generally have to the follow the same laws of self-defense as non-LEO. (There may be some state law variations. Consult your jurisdiction.) The main difference is that the public does not want police to disengage from the threat and run away when it otherwise would be safe to do so, so police may spend more time in the life-threatening environment to neutralize it with bullets or handcuffs. Massive amounts of taxpayer money have been spent figuring out what ammo works against the bad guy but does not overpenetrate. And, because no one can predict the encounter, the ammo has been tailored to work generally the same in the target even if it encounters a common, everyday barrier along the way.

Assuming that a citizen encounter will not involve barriers is foolish for two reasons. First, we all know what they say about the word “assume”. Encounters happen indoors, in businesses, homes residences, churches, restaurants, etc., all of which are full of objects that could be between the good guy and, at least, important parts of the bad guy. We even may create the barrier by doing something like ducking or hiding behind some clutter that changes all the angles. It’s no different than the police in that regard. Why limit one’s self to a specific, theoretical set of facts?

The second reason is that people have barriers in their bodies, namely, bone, that is not actually tested in gel tests. The FBI tests that include barriers have been correlated to street results, and those who accept those results know that ammo that passes the FBI tests works effectively against people, which would include bone. A bad guy out in the open who comes at someone at an angle (such as to attempt to obscure or guard a gun or a knife) may have significant bone structure facing the good guy. An arm in front of the chest is a barrier. An arm holding a weapon can be a barrier. I personally want ammo that works after encountering layers of extraneous bone. Remember the FBI shootout where the FBI blamed ammo for a failure to stop a guy after passing through an arm? (Yes, many debate whether it was a legitimate reason.)

The bottom line should be to get an effective round that works through an everyday set of environmental barriers without overpenetrating, and don’t miss. Factor the misses into one’s training regimen. Don’t factor it into the ammo unless one is willing to accept lesser performance on one’s attacker. The bullet can't differentiate between a good guy and a bad guy. The ammo companies and LE have fine-tuned it for us, so why complicate it.

If there is a specific reason why a round has to be frangible for a particular application, why not something like a Glaser Safety Slug? I don’t see moving about in public as a “particular application”.

YMMV

Mmmm...I don't know of any over penetration studies that massive amounts of our tax monies have been spent on. I'm certainly willing to look at any someone may provide, however.

What HAS had a lot of research on is penetration studies with a view for adequate penetration.

And most certainly, there is a large variety of ammunition out there to choose from which have had their performance tested in a variety of ways.
 
Mmmm...I don't know of any over penetration studies that massive amounts of our tax monies have been spent on. I'm certainly willing to look at any someone may provide, however.

What HAS had a lot of research on is penetration studies with a view for adequate penetration.

And most certainly, there is a large variety of ammunition out there to choose from which have had their performance tested in a variety of ways.

Well, the overpenetration part was my impression from all that I have seen and read, but I really am not going to look for the authoritative source to back up a forum post. Are you doubting the first part of the quote, that "Massive amounts of taxpayer money have been spent figuring out what ammo works against the bad guy. . ."? Leave out the overpenetration part if you want, and it still goes to the main message here, which is that the government has spent more time, effort and money on trying to figure this out than the average Joe ever can. Take care.
 
If, God forbid, you ever have to shoot at someone, you have gone WAY down a road you never wanted to be on in the first place and what exact bullet you fired is gonna be the least of your worries.

Unless that bullet didn’t work.

But I agree there are definitely way more important things than the bullet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top