The FBI protocols do specify maxima.Mmmm...I don't know of any over penetration studies
The FBI protocols do specify maxima.Mmmm...I don't know of any over penetration studies
Rare, or rare among defensive shootings?
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.
The FBI protocols do specify maxima.
Do you have a link I can peruse?
Do not interpret the words "the bonded projectile's primary advantage seems to be in barrier penetration" to mean that bonded projectiles are more likely to penetrate barriers.I should have worded my original question in much simpler terms to avoid confusion and conclusions. Here is a response to a similar question from another forum. This response, I feel, gives validity to my original question.
Do not interpret the words "the bonded projectiles's primary advantage seems to be in barrier penetration" to mean that bonded projectiles are more likely to penetrate barriers.
You do have a point.Carjacking.
About 38,000 a year in the U.S. At one point Chicagoland was averaging 2.6 carjackings a day, I'm not sure what the rate is now, but its still relatively high due to Cook County's lenient laws on juvenile carjacking.
I want a bullet that will penetrate car glass, a car door (or both), heavy clothing, and still penetrate to around 14"
Are bonded bullets significantly better than unbonded through glass?
In my own unscientific testing and what I can find online, I see almost no difference between the two when shot through steel or plywood.
Not thinking about barrier penetration is fine and dandy until you're leaving the mall/Walmart/Target with your family and Johnny Jihadist starts running over people in the parking lot with his rental van. At that moment how a bullet behaves after penetrating a windshield, door, or window could be a very big factor.
Meh.
Handguns are inherently limited in power by their nature. If anybody is seriously considering the need to reliably penetrate "windshield, door, or window" with any kind of effective terminal ballistics afterwards for the intended target, they're going to either have to carry a handgun a lot less concealable/comfortable, or carry a rifle.
When you start mixing terminal ballistic criteria up, what you end up with is a bullet that might do more, but it does it less effectively.
For example, if you want a handgun bullet which causes maximum tissue damage, then you'll be hard pressed to top a quality jacketed hollowpoint. If you want a bullet which penetrates hard barriers (windshield, door, or window), then you'd be hard pressed to beat a jacketed round nose bullet.
Shooting hollowpoints through barriers causes radical bullet deformation, drop in velocity, and instability, which means you will likely lose all, or most, of the expansion characteristics you would like when it encounters soft tissue.
I'm personally not after a magic armor piercing, heat seeking, incendiary, explody bullet that does all things under all circumstances. I want a reliable self-defense round with a proven track record that I can depend upon to inflict enough damage to an assailant to stop him. That I have to be able to hit him to do this is a given...but I cannot predict, and prepare for, all possibilities which may be encountered with respect to the cover an assailant may utilize.
Almost.I think subjects like this are way over-thought. I say get some HP ammo from a reputable company that functions reliably in your handgun, and then concentrate on getting as proficient as possible firing whatever cheap practice ammo functions in that handgun.
Pick a jacketed hollowpoint bullet from a quality manufacturer (I like Federal HST, Winchester Ranger, and Speer Gold Dots) that penetrates between 12″ and 18″ in calibrated ballistic gelatin. Then stop worrying.
Not thinking about barrier penetration is fine and dandy until you're leaving the mall/Walmart/Target with your family and Johnny Jihadist starts running over people in the parking lot with his rental van. At that moment how a bullet behaves after penetrating a windshield, door, or window could be a very big factor.
My department issues HST for 40 and 45 and Gold Dots for 9mm. All will kill you after penetrating a barrier. I have not seen the 40 and 45 fail to work after penetrating auto glass and sheet metal. Would a bonded bullet have worked better? Maybe... But shot location after the barrier was always the deciding factor between an incapacitating shot or not.
About 8-10 years ago I responded to a shoot out in a parking lot from a drug deal gone wrong. Shootout started between the two guys who were both sitting in the front seats of the same car. During that gunfight the loser took a 45 Golden Saber (I dont know what weight) to the forehead just above the right eye. bullet deflected downward, exited his right cheek, re-entered his right chest just behind the collar bone, went through the right lung, delfected off a rib then traversed across his lower chest/upper abdomen hitting basically everything in between. The expanded bullet ended up near his left hip. That bullet expanded (not the fully opened flower look) and penetrated probably 30 inches or more.
What Im trying to get at with those stories is that a non bonded bullet isnt necessarily going to be less effective after penetrating barriers and isnt necessarily going to penetrate less in a bad guy.
Came across this video yesterday. I know the "meat target" isn't scientific but it shows that even cheap 38 hollow points from a snubby are effective through a windshield. At that point I'd rather get a bullet that performs better through a windshield incase I need to stop a threat.