FMJ vs JHP for self defense

[SharkHat]

FMJ still serves a purpose. That is why it is still manufactured and sold today.

There are two points that nobody is arguing. (at least as far as I can tell)
FMJ is absolutely the best round for penetration.
FMJ is cheaper than JHP.

You are claiming that JHP ammunition is less effective than FMJ. It is essentially just an overpriced gimmick used to cheat us weak-minded fools out of our money. Your evidence for this is that the US Military uses FMJ.

You quoted a physics formula to support your case. Force = Mass * Acceleration. That formula is not in dispute.

So, I'd like to ask you... if/when the FMJ penetrates through the target completely, where does the majority of that force go?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Few, if any, SD rounds, either JHP or FMJ, achieve the velocities necessary to develop the kinetic energy required to reliably produce hydrostatic shock.

Perhaps I should have used a different term; "energy dump" maybe. I meant hydrostatic shock as that force that produces temporary wound cavities, and HPs produce larger temporary cavities than non-expanding bullets.

I understand that whoever writes wiki (among others) seems to feel the term applies only when the energy dump actually causes "remote wounding and incapacitating effects."

So, to rephrase: "Energy dump. HPs tend to produce more, and some folks feel that such energy dump from handgun rounds will occasionally produce incapacitation by itself (hydrostatic shock), or otherwise increase the likelihood of stopping the attacker."

And obviously, others don't.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm blocking him. Let him yank someone else's chain.

 

[OpelBlitz]

I'm blocking him. Let him yank someone else's chain.

Yeah, he's trolling.

 

[NG VI]

Paula not one person has said that FMJ bullets are not lethal or easily capable of killing a person.

All anyone has said is that they are less effective at stopping people than JHP bullets are, and cause less severe wounds. Also that modern production handguns typically have no problem feeding any cartridge loaded in spec for that caliber. I've had many more malfunctions with FMJ than JHP bullets, probably because the FMJs aren't getting the same level of attention to detail as far as overall QC goes.

They're still being made because not every bullet is sold with shooting people in mind, and because the shooting community likes variety.

Actually, scratch that last statement. They're made because they still sell. Period.


Shawn, I recently saw a figure that a non-expanding pistol bullet will generally leave a wound about 66% of its diameter, and the less efficient (for travel through liquids or other media) shape of expanded JHP bullets causes them to leave wounds about 82% of their width. That's a huge difference in wounding ability, given that it's a larger percentage of a much wider diameter. It also makes sense, those numbers fit in pretty well with the penetration differences between FMJ and good JHP in a given caliber.

 

[Prosser]

Why use JHP's?
So Hornady can buy another yacht, turning lead into gold, by putting a copper jacket around it.

Another general discussion that requires specifics:

Three ways to generate wound channel:
1. Bullet design
2. Velocity
3. caliber

You can tune your Truncated cone, or LFN type bullets, to create a wider wound channel, and tune for penetration depth, by varying bullet weight, or powder charge=velocity.

It is possible to tune your ammunition with lead, or hard cast bullets to function as well as any HP. In fact, you can cast HP's, gas check them,
and create some very intresting results:
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=232

I suggest that with truncated cone bullets you can create a wide, deep, wound channel, deeper then with a HP, by using velocity to create the wound channel:

Buffalobore has a few loads in that direction, noteably a FMJ 230 grain FLAT NOSE, at 981 fps, and, the 255 grain cast FLAT NOSE. AT 960.

If you look at a reloading table, or the buffalobore real gun results for his loads, and you fill in the HP's with FMJ flat nosed bullets, you can see that the increase in velocity you can get will get you into the range of the .45 Colt wound below.

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=70

Why do we use hollowpoints? Because it's become an industry standard, pushed by the entire shooting industry. Ammunition, back when we used just lead bullets, was FAR cheaper then it is now. The costs for cases, primers, and powder don't really change much. The HP bullets justify absurd costs.

To come up with a massive price change, it was necessary to come up with a marketable feature, and sell it to the public, and LEO. HP's are just that.

You can really see that in the lack of ammunition loaded with FMJ Flat nose bullets.
Finally the real appeal to this approach is the lighter bullet, higher velocity approach generally has less recoil, and is more accurate then the heavier bullets. Good reason so many target shooters use truncated cone, or wadcutters, with lighter weight.



A 185 or 200 grain LFN or Truncated Cone produces this kind of wound channel at 1150-1200 fps:

 

[Loosedhorse]

Prosser--

Thanks. However, we've discussed before that the heart is fluid-filled during parts of its beat cycle, and that such a larger-than-caliber wound might be a "sometimes" occurrence, if the bullet hits when the heart is full (so that a burst effect can occur). I'm not sure.

Also, as you point out, even the "flat nose" 230 gr .45 ACP loading is not going to approach the 1150 fps you believe needed for such wounding.

There are two points that nobody is arguing. (at least as far as I can tell)
FMJ is absolutely the best round for penetration.
FMJ is cheaper than JHP.

Actually, I mentioned both (post #108).

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Shawn, I recently saw a figure that a non-expanding pistol bullet will generally leave a wound about 66% of its diameter, and the less efficient (for travel through liquids or other media) shape of expanded JHP bullets causes them to leave wounds about 82% of their width.

I believe these figures are a simplistic interpretation of Duncan MacPherson's "bullet shape factor" value (phi). I regard them as a value that represents an average of the diameter of the permanent cavity for the entire length of the wound track. The permanent cavity isn't a constant diameter from start to finish - it's wider at the beginning and narrower at the end. This is due to bullet velocity during penetration. The bullet crushes more tissue, producing a wider permanent cavity at beginning of the wound track because tissues cannot stretch and move out of the bullet's path as quickly. But as the bullet's velocity slows then more and more tissues are able to stretch and "flow" around the bullet simply because these tissues have more time to do that.

You can see this effect in ballistic gelatin. The permanent cavity is wider at the beginning of the wound track and gradually tapers down to become narrower at the end of the wound track. I believe MacPherson's bullet shape factor represents the average of this variation, and more closely represents the diameter of the permanent cavity along the middle part of the wound track than the beginning or end.

 

[Prosser]

LH
Here are the buffalobore real gun velocities for his plus P 45 stuff:
"1. 45185-----------1180 fps (185gr. Jhp)
2. 45200-----------1078 fps (200gr. Jhp)
3. 45230------------979 fps (230gr. Jhp)
4. 45230FMJ------981 fps (230gr. Fmj-FLAT NOSE)
5. 45255------------960 fps (255gr. HARD CAST-FLAT NOSE)"

Hodgdon has a bunch of loads for 155 grain Lead Semi Wadcutters in the 1100-1150 range. I can't help but think that's pretty near a perfect SD round.
Wound cavity from velocity, penetrates straight, and the penetration isn't going to be too extreme, thanks to the velocity and the lighter bullet weight.
Very light recoil.

I go with .45 Super, and get the best of both worlds:
230 grain Speer HP at 1120 fps I get wound channel from both velocity, and bullet design. If the bullet fails, I've got a great penetrating,
large wound channel from bullet diameter and velocity.

The 200 grain HP's at 1200 fps just work in .45 as well. LFN's would too.

 

[JRH6856]

I believe MacPherson's bullet shape factor represents the average of this variation, and more closely represents the diameter of the permanent cavity along the middle part of the wound track than the beginning or end.

So would that mean that because FMJ penetrates farther at lower velocities, there is a longer wound channel of a smaller diameter which reduces the average WCD for FMJ?

 

[Prosser]

Shawn:
May I use some of your graphics to illustrate your point, from your website?

Better yet:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

Scroll down, and have a look at the graphics of the different rounds, and how they penetrate.

You'll notice .45 tapers, with ball. IIRC 9mm ball tumbles.

I'm after a wound channel that looks more like the shotgun slug. Due to it's bullet weight, it doesn't slow as much as the other rounds.

 

[Tcruse]

I think that there is a reason for fmj (or better yet TNJ/TMJ), for the safety of the shooter during practice. Cast bullets are just not very safe and are restricted in some places, more all of the time. They expose the shooter to lead. FMJ are cheaper because they cost less to produce and the number produced are much higher than anything else. Just as 9 mm is cheaper than 380, there is more of it produced.

The hp style is produced in lower quantities, cost to develop is high, and manufacturing cost is high. So, practice with fmj and only shoot enough hp to be comfortable in the operation of your gun. $1 for a practice bullet is not acceptable, however a $1 sd round that saves your life is not bad at all.

There is no grand plan to fool the shooter by the ammo companies. It looks like they are all competing for the business. That will keep the price down.

Worst case is that the hp will perform as a fmj (no expansion) so you have lost nothing. A large caliber 45 fmj out of a 6 inch or better bullet will do well. A hp out of the same gun will do as well or better. Many of us will be carriage something smaller, like a Glock 26, so why not play the odds. You also have one less decision to defend should you end in court.

 

[SharkHat]

Actually, I mentioned both (post #108).

I know. I did not say that they were not discussed, I said that they are points that are not in contention. Nobody is arguing them.

 

[SharkHat]

So, yeah... as far as claiming you're not just troling, you've pretty much just completely shot yourself in the foot.

JHP ammo is a gimmick consumed by the uninformed, but atomic level Disintegrator rays are just around the corner and will be the new benchmark within a decade.

 

[NG VI]

Who is paying a dollar a round for service-caliber handgun ammunition without liberally applying vaseline or K-Y on their way into the gunshop?

Federal HST is one of the most reliable and best-designed JHP bullets on the market, and goes for $.035-55/round.

And generic JHPs aren't really all that expensive to produce, one way or another the lead core must be formed, and the jacket must be attached to it. Whether the core is pushed into the closed jacket nose-first and then left with an amount of lead exposed at the base, or put into the jacket base-first and left with the nose exposed makes very little difference in the manufcaturing process. Adding a cavity to the core isn't a difficult manufacturing process either, can even be done as part of initially forming the core.


JHPs are not as expensive as certain people are claiming they are, they are not going to reduce any formerly trustworthy pistol to a jammomatic turd parade, and they are not going to both fail to expand and underpenetrate at the same time.

Also, Prosser, .45 Super-type loads aren't really a option for everybody, or even every gun capable of fitting them in the chamber.

 

[Prosser]

I guess that's my point. It's about supply and demand. Hollow points are turning lead into gold. Some of the ammo companies REALLY stick it to you for SD ammo.

Still, the worst I've ever seen was .44 Special lead, 246 grain ball ammo.
25 bucks, for 20 rounds, for the worst POJ ammo ever, by Remington.
It was around 500 fps, so slow you could see it, had terrible blast, a big cloud of black smoke, and was less accurate then a 12 gauge with 00 buck, at 7 yards.

The real advantage to the velocity wound channel approach with a LFN type bullet is you can get a wide wound channel, with less recoil, since you actually want a light for caliber bullet to limit penetration. With a hardcast bullet the exposure to lead is minimal, and, I remember paying about .02 cents a bullet for hard cast from Nevada Casting, IIRC.

Plus, you can practice with what you carry.

When I was shooting a lot in the 80's I used Speer Flying Ashtrays for practice ammo. While not quite as cheap, I think they came in at about .04 cents each, not exactly bank breaking. SOMEONE is making a lot of money, since lead is still lead, and copper isn't a major component in these HP's.

 

[JRH6856]

It is called Electronics...

If you can pollute and corrupt the hydrogen atom it wills set off a similar chain reaction. This we have also perfected this in the hydrogen bomb. Now if you can down size and control with pin point accuracy the stream of polluting and corrupting hydrogen electrons at a human being in one simple blast on a laser beam...

No such thing as a "hydrogen electron". Electrons are electrons. They are as generic as you can get.

Hydrogen bombs are not based on "electronics", they are based on nuclear fusion.

 

[Bozwell]

It amazes me how some people can be so stuck in their ways that they dismiss an improved, albeit more expensive technology as a gimmick and just a scam to raise costs. A quick look at the ballistics information linked by Prosser suggests to me that FMJ is not the preferred choice in 9mm, as the wound ballistics indicate a relatively narrow wound channel with 70 CM (edit: wrong unit) of penetration. While there are 9mm HP rounds that produce much more damaging wound channels, I suppose those are just gimmicks and all a ploy by the ammo manufacturers to steal your money.

 

[NG VI]

I like that clever marketing plan now where they only put 20 in a box and charge you $24.95 for them. That's over a buck a round.

I was buying Federal HST in 50 round boxes for under $25. That's under fifty cents a round. I didn't say no manufacturer charges a dollar a round, I said the best options don't come in 20 round boxes, they're only available by the 50 and don't cost anywhere near a buck a piece. If you're buying XTP or Gold Dots for $25-30 for a box of twenty, and I have seen that price at shops before, you are allowing yourself to be robbed either from a weird lack of trust in e-commerce or just not being aware that you have the option to order from competitive companies elsewhere.

 

[NG VI]

Lots of companies do charge ridiculous prices for their ammunition, but they typically aren't the companies who are leading the pack in terms of bullet performance. Cor-Bon and Buffalo Bore charge $1.50 a round, but last time I checked, neither of them offer any loads using the Ranger-T or HST bullets, which cost less per box than those two charge, and come in larger boxes to boot.

My point is, saying that they are turning lead into gold is just not an accurate statement. Generic JHPs aren't as reliable or conisistent in their performance as the two loads I like best, but they still work a lot better than FMJ and they really don't have a noticeable price difference from the equivalent FMJ loads by the same company. UMC and WWB FMJ and JHP is pretty much identically priced, for instance.

It's not just the bullet that sets premium loads price, it's the entire manufacturing, development, and QC process that goes into ensuring the user has the best possible cartridge in their weapon should they ever need to fire it at another human being.

 

[Prosser]

Bozwell:
So you ignored the tumbling of the 9MM FMJ? That created quite the wound channel.

Point is you can vary penetration by changing bullet weight. You are going to get a bigger, shorter wound channel with a lighter, faster bullet.

HP's are not perfect. Most of the time their penetration, and accuracy are questioned because they can't be made heavy enough to open up, and penetrate straight, or, if they are, they don't open as much as everyone wants.

If you look at the shotgun slug, it has a big, cylindrical wound channel. THAT'S what I'm after.

And why do you think all those companies got into business making ammunition? They charge what ever the market will allow. HP's were targeted at a major market: LEO, to move them from much less expensive
lead bullets. They needed a marketing gimmick. The HP is really a waste.
The same sort of bullet performance can be had with a Flat point bullet, or better. Plus, you have the advantage of a shorter bullet, allowing more room for powder. If you are going to use a HP, it makes more sense to fill it with some very heavy material, that ensures expansion and feeding.

Corbon had something like it: PowR'ball.

The other factor that isn't really put into the equation is HP's rely on velocity for consistent expansion. 1200 fps is good. Most service calibers this means penetration is going to be borderline because the bullet has to be light for caliber, and when you combine that with velocity and explosive expansion penetration is going to be limited.

Corbon's website has a couple comments that are almost anti-HP if you turn them over.

They say bullet expansion in conjunction with high velocity is what creates a larger than caliber wound channel. Actually just velocity will do this.
HP's that do not expand are effective 60-70% of the time. HP's that do 75-90%. HP's that expand violently are 85-95%.

So, if we take this at face value, ideal would be a light for caliber, gilded pure lead, gas checked bullet. I'm not convinced a HP is any better then a Flat Point, since a flat point lead bullet is going to violently expand as well, plus the bullet can be shorter, since you don't have to add weight to the back of the bullet to make up for what you take off with the hollow cavity. Freedom Arms ammunition was made this way, since it NEVER fails.
You either get a large for caliber hole, or the bullet violently expands. You also tend to get the expansion further into the target, where it's needed to do the most damage.

 

[Loosedhorse]

It amazes me how some people can be so stuck in their ways that they dismiss an improved, albeit more expensive technology as a gimmick and just a scam to raise costs.

I'm not sure that that's quite fair.

The super-expensive new expanding loads (whether DPX, EFMJ, FTX, or whatever) offer marginal improvements over old HP technologies. Via gel tests, we predict they may expand better than standard HPs after hitting barriers, but that's about it. And it is a real question whether the cost is worth it, IMHO.

That doesn't change the fact that for defensive handguns, I do not use FMJ. And I've even been known to blow money on super-ammo; however, that's a personal choice based on personal opinion.

If you look at the shotgun slug, it has a big, cylindrical wound channel.

You know, Prosser, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you've got a 12 ga revolver (and proper paperwork!) sitting in a holster somewhere!

 

[biohazurd]

20 or 30 years ago hollow points were quite iffy as far reliable expansion. Modern HPs IMO have improved drastically. Even in low energy cartridges such as .380 or .32 you can expect very reliable expansion. In 2012 my SD weapons will be loaded with HPs!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

So would that mean that because FMJ penetrates farther at lower velocities, there is a longer wound channel of a smaller diameter which reduces the average WCD for FMJ?

BINGO!

May I use some of your graphics to illustrate your point, from your website?

Be my guest. That's what they're there for.

 

[JRH6856]

So would that mean that because FMJ penetrates farther at lower velocities, there is a longer wound channel of a smaller diameter which reduces the average WCD for FMJ?

BINGO!

Then that would suggest that if FMJ and JHP were compared for the same WC length, the average WCD for FMJ would be larger and there would be less difference between the two. OTOH, if the WCD for FMJ were the same for the entire channel length, so would be the average for any distance. The latter is what your graphics seem to indicate.