FMJ for Self Defense?

[PabloJ]

Ok. I will take slower slug of greater mass and diameter.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Ok. I will take slower slug of greater mass and diameter.

+1, from any platform

 

[CraigC]

The G21 is far superior to mass produced 1911 in every way except if used as peening hammer.

Yes, that's why I sold all my Glocks and shoot mostly 1911's now.

 

[Slamfire]

I would take the bigger bullet as it would create the bigger hole.

The bigger the hole the faster the blood loss.

Blood loss, in sufficient quantities, is 100% fatal under all conditions for everything that lives and breathes.

 

[481]

Marshall and Evans debunked?

Yep. It's actually Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow.

Here

http://firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm#TooGoodToBeTrue

by M. Fackler and C.E. Peters

and here

http://firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

by M. van Maanan

and here

http://firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm

by D. MacPherson

Debunked, deconstructed, and demolished.

 

[BSA1]

If that is what you want to believe than that is your choice. However none of critics have attempted a similiar project. I strongly suspect to avoid the same type of criticism Marshall and Sanow have recieved. They don't want to have their research closely studies and have their lily white academic pants dirtied. Academic work is a very dirty business within the community. Tear down your opponents while building your own reputation. Marshall has said he would never have done the project if he had to do over do to the criticism.

Every handgun stopping power project ever done has had its shortcomings. Maarten van Maanen conslusions are wrong and also has been debunked.

A lot of the problem is everyone has their scared cow. 1911 45 acp shooters are probably the worse group.
There is more b.s. about it than any other gun and caliber.

My question is what part of their conclusions do you disagree with?

 

[frankmako]

45 acp in 230 gr rn for me.

 

[481]

If that is what you want to believe than that is your choice.

I'll take the word of five highly qualified examiners all day long over the "say so" of just any random person. (not singling you out in any way, it's not meant personally)

However none of critics have attempted a similiar project.

There is no need for them to do so. They've deconstructed the work, found it to fail on a level detectable by even the most novice statistician and rendered their findings. There is no need for them to offer an alternative procedure.

I strongly suspect to avoid the same type of criticism Marshall and Sanow have recieved.

That is highly speculative.

Academic work is a very dirty business within the community. Tear down your opponents while building your own reputation. Marshall has said he would never have done the project if he had to do over do to the criticism.

The same could be said of every other profession. It's a "dog eat dog" world.

Every handgun stopping power project ever done has had its shortcomings.

I am sure.

Maarten van Maanen conslusions are wrong and also has been debunked.

Link, please.

A lot of the problem is everyone has their scared cow.

Why would anyone have a frightened bovine?

1911 45 acp shooters are probably the worse group.
There is more b.s. about it than any other gun and caliber.

I don't think so. No one has the market cornered in the "caliber wars".

My question is what part of their conclusions do you disagree with?

Highly flawed methodology, arbitrary criteria, obvious data tampering yielding a desired conclusion.

 

[M7]

 

[The Man With No Name]

I'm not even sure which side the two of you are taking at this point. Is it 9mm or 45? Personally I don't see how anyone can deny that the larger holes leak more blood and that either should shoot through the average person. So how can one argue that two 9mm holes are smaller than two 45 caliber holes? I'm not a stopping power theory, statistics, or whatever research type believer. I believe what I see. Any round can be deadly with proper shot placement if it will penetrate far enough. Any leo that has been around awhile can recount atleast one instance where a .22 killed someone. Just as many can recount atleast one instance where a 9mm, 357 magnum, or 45 didn't even with jhp. I've personally seen a young dealer shot four times in the stomach with .380 ball and leave the hospital within one week. Did I mention that during the incident he was able to return fire? I think we are all over thinking the original premise of this thread. Is a bigger hole better than a smaller hole? Is the velocity difference between the two really that great where we should expect one to be so much more likely to create shock induced failure to major organs? Won't either pretty reliable go through and through if nothing major gets in the way? I've also seen a guy get shot in the back of his lower leg with 9mm fmj. The round hit that big bone in your lower leg and almost came through but not quite.

 

[481]

I'm not even sure which side the two of you are taking at this point. Is it 9mm or 45?

I like and carry 'em both.

 

[srtolly]

I shoot both and .40s&w. I like the snappy feel of the .40. Given a choice of 9mm and .45 I would have to take the .45 for the larger wound tract and bone destruction. I also shoot the .45 better.

 

[BSA1]

Highly flawed methodology, arbitrary criteria, obvious data tampering yielding a desired conclusion.

So you don't disagree with their findings just the way they went about it?

 

[481]

Highly flawed methodology, arbitrary criteria, obvious data tampering yielding a desired conclusion.

So you don't disagree with their findings just the way they went about it?

I disagree with it all. The entirety of M&S's work has been throughly debunked by the three sources that I've listed above.




How about that source/link for this?

Maarten van Maanen conslusions are wrong and also has been debunked.

I'd really like to have a look at it.

 

[BSA1]

Well you are either avoiding the issue or I am not expressing myself well enough....darn Internet, it never takes the place of a good face to face conversation. Would you give me a example of caliber and bullet that you feel was over or underrated by Marshall?

Flankerites rely heavily on ballistic gelatin yet I have to meet a person made of gelatine.

The problem with judging any bullet performance is the human body is highly variable. To have repeatable laboratory tests you must have a constant test subject which as we know is impossible with the human body.

I always maintain that shooters need to test their ammo out of their guns. My totally unsciencifitic methods includes shooting through layers of clothing into water, blocks of ice, wood, drywall, sheet metal (car doors) and about every other material I have access to. My results sometimes have been different than then recruiting ads in gun magazines. My limited budget does not allow me to test everything so I am open to the results and conclusions of other shooters like yourself.

I am not starting a war over bullets over calibers, bullets, guns just trying to better understand what your experiences have been.

I had a article rebuting Maarten van Maanen but I lost it during a computer crash. I will post it or email it to you if I find it again. Basically I think it had to do with his math.

Anyway we probably agree more than we disagree as long as we don't talk about blondes vs. burnettes.

 

[powder]

9mm/19

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I'd pick a 45acp if FMJ was all that I could use. Reasons why:

- I shoot a 1911 better than a glock.
- Even if they were of the same platform, for example... xd45 vs xd9... I seem to tolerate the recoil impulse of the 45 better than the 9. I prefer the straight back recoil impulse more than the snappiness of the 9.
-45 is simply bigger, and if limited by FMJ, I'll opt for a bigger cartridge.

However, I would still feel pretty well armed if all I had was a glock 19 with 16 FMJ's.

Same here on all accounts. I'm more effective with a .45. My attitude used to be that .45 was better, but I don't think it comes down to caliber or ballistics as much as people think. It comes down to how each shooter handles the cartridge. I shoot .45 better than 9mm and a 1911 better than any Glock, regardless of caliber.

It's that "X" factor that kind of makes caliber comparisons between cartridges that generate really similar results almost a moot point, as the answer will be different for everyone. Having more rounds of a cartridge you aren't any good with is not going to help you.

Now if you are comparing cartridges that generate really different power levels like 9mm and .44 magnum, the debate has more merit. Lots of power and low round count, or lots of rounds and low power. The answer would be different depending on the situation. Bears, yeah, I want a .44. People, I'm probably fine with a 9mm. There are further specifics that alter the answer too, but ultimately it still comes back to what the shooter is most effective with. If someone can't control a .44 it is no good to them.

 

[45_auto]

I shoot .45 better than 9mm

By this do you mean that your groups are bigger with a 9mm, or do you shoot slower with a 9mm? Or both?

I regularly run scenarios at our monthly pistol matches (IDPA type) where I require the shooters to swap guns. Gives everyone an opportunity to shoot different guns under a little bit of match pressure. I find that there's no appreciable difference in anyones performance. The same shooters always come out on top no matter which guns or what caliber they're shooting. Scores on the stages shot with their own gun or other people's gun will be almost identical. Good shooters will have equally good scores with all guns (barring an equipment malfunction) and poor shooters will have poor scores. The guys who are always at the bottom are the ones where you'll hear the complaints that they "weren't used to that gun" or "weren't used to that caliber". A good sight picture and trigger press will get you identical results with either platform.

 

[45_auto]

I shoot .45 better than 9mm

By this do you mean that your groups are bigger with a 9mm, or do you shoot slower with a 9mm?

I regularly run scenarios at our monthly pistol matches (IDPA type) where I require the shooters to swap guns. Gives everyone an opportunity to shoot different guns under a little bit of match pressure. The same shooters always come out on top no matter which guns or what caliber they're shooting. The guys who are always at the bottom are the ones where you'll hear the complaints that they "weren't used to that gun" or "weren't used to that caliber".

 

[seeker_two]

When comparing a .355" hole and a .451" hole, I find that the .096" of difference doesn't make that much difference....

....the place where I'm putting those holes, though, DOES make the difference.....

 

[481]

Well you are either avoiding the issue...

Nope, I was expressed exactly what I meant when I said-

I disagree with it all.

- the whole ball of wax; lock, stock & barrel; the whole kit & kaboodle; the whole enchilada; it's conclusions are the rotten fruit of a rotten tree.

Flankerites rely heavily on ballistic gelatin yet I have to meet a person made of gelatine.

I don't know what Flankerite is, but anyone who conducts tests in gelatin and knows what they are doing, can tell you that gelatin has never been and was never intended to be a perfect replica of the human body. It is a homogenous test analog meant to duplicate the properties of swine thigh tissue which in turn duplicates the properties of human muscle tissue. It is provides a valid (confirmed via testing by parties too numerous to list here), repeatable test medium. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem with judging any bullet performance is the human body is highly variable. To have repeatable laboratory tests you must have a constant test subject which as we know is impossible with the human body.

That's why the manufacturers and labs use gelatin. It is the "constant test subject" that they rely upon.

I always maintain that shooters need to test their ammo out of their guns. My totally unsciencifitic methods includes shooting through layers of clothing into water, blocks of ice, wood, drywall, sheet metal (car doors) and about every other material I have access to. My results sometimes have been different than then recruiting ads in gun magazines. My limited budget does not allow me to test everything so I am open to the results and conclusions of other shooters like yourself. I am not starting a war over bullets over calibers, bullets, guns just trying to better understand what your experiences have been.

My experience has been that, until we find a perfect test subject (never gonna happen 'cause we can't just start shooting folks for the sake of generating data) calibrated gelatin is the best we have. After that, I like to use the mathematical models that are proposed in www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com and http://pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/index.html

I had a article rebuting Maarten van Maanen but I lost it during a computer crash. I will post it or email it to you if I find it again. Basically I think it had to do with his math.

Anyway we probably agree more than we disagree as long as we don't talk about blondes vs. burnettes.

I look forward to seeing it here.

 

[erikk8829]

.45 acp

 

[BSA1]

481 you win. I give up trying to learn from you what bullet style and style you have found to be most effective. Say if you aren't one you would make a pretty good politician.

Good day and have a cold one on me.

 

[481]

481 you win. I give up trying to learn from you what bullet style and style you have found to be most effective. Say if you aren't one you would make a pretty good politician.

Good day and have a cold one on me.

No need to become frustrated.

I didn't know that that was what you were asking. You asked me

...just trying to better understand what your experiences have been.

and I provided them (albeit in a significantly abreviated from) to you.

This-

...what bullet style and style you have found to be most effective.

is the first I've heard of what exactly you wanted to know and I am happy to provide an answer-

Regardless of caliber, I prefer a "heavy-for-caliber" JHP, preferably a premium design.

Better?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Quote:
I shoot .45 better than 9mm

By this do you mean that your groups are bigger with a 9mm, or do you shoot slower with a 9mm? Or both?

I mean I shoot slower with a 9mm. I find the low recoil in .45 due to the low pressure makes follow up shots much faster for me. Thus I would say I am more effective with it. I had a .40 S&W and had the same issue only worse. The gun was accurate, I shot it accurately, but really slowly. The snap of that cartridge was hard for me to master, and my follow up shot speed negated the entire point of having a semiauto gun. So I sold it and switched to .45 acp based on the above described idea. I was right. I shoot my FNP 45 and my S&W 1911 just as accurately as my old .40 S&W, but am able to empty a magazine accurately, and more quickly than a .40 S&W. Hence "I shoot it better." Since the .40 and .45 are similar in power levels, I never looked back. Ironically, my FNP holds more ammo than my old .40 did, and since I sold that gun to my dad (at a really good price of course) I wonder who he will leave it to when he passes?

A good sight picture and trigger press will get you identical results with either platform.

I agree with you 100% on this. A particular model gun may not suit everyone or feel right in everyone's hand, but aiming is aiming. It is up to the shooter's skill to aim a gun and squeeze the trigger properly in either platform.