High-powered handgun loads for self defense

[ohioshooter]

Quote:
Here's my premise: It's been well established that handguns are under-powered as anti personnel weapons. If one were to be forced to knowingly go into harm's way, he would want to carry a long gun because rifles and carbines have much greater power and they literally do drop people in their tracks.

I'd have to disagree with this statement just because you are assuming that going into harms way must include a gathering of large amounts of people if you are saying you need a long gun. Now, if SHTF and people are in panic mode then yes I could see where carrying a long gun would be needed. Plus, you'd have to define what the situation is that is considered "harms way". For example, your daughter dating a guy who you know doesn't like you and she calls you because he put his hands on her, why take a rifle. Now, if she's at some crack house cause she sells dope, that may be a different story.

 

[mboylan]

But will a 10mm JHP go clean through a center mass hit on an adult?

Generally no.

 

[mboylan]

Where you hit them is far more important than what you hit them with. If you need to worry about something - worry about accuracy, not caliber or power level of your loads.

In a real world situation, you take what you can get. Hands and arms are hit more often than center of mass. Civilian gun fights are close, fast and often involve a struggle. Placement is iffy. You need to get the job done with less than optimal placement and have to shoot through obstructions to hit center of mass.

If you don't get the job done fast, you are the one who will be on the slab.

 

[mboylan]

Oops yeah 1/2m ... Fingers too fast fer me brain sometimes ... Still explains the whole thing.

Not really. Handgun cartridges don't have enough energy to cause hydrostatic shock or permanent cavitation. A cartridge with over 2500 ft-lbs like the .30-06 will.

Energy levels around 500 ft-lbs, just don't matter. What does matter at level is creating the largest and deepest hole in the right place. It's all about momentum and bullet construction.

 

[Ed Ames]

Not really.

We'll have to disagree here. I think you are just describing the results of the basic physics, and that the thresholds you mention aren't really thresholds but linear. Whether we are talking about .17 hornet or .45-70 out of a rifle or pistol, the physics is the same.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Here's my premise: It's been well established that handguns are under-powered as anti personnel weapons. If one were to be forced to knowingly go into harm's way, he would want to carry a long gun because rifles and carbines have much greater power and they literally do drop people in their tracks.

A few more things here:

It's easy to fall into the "what if" trap. We can talk about hypotheticals all day long and make a case for and against every possible scenario we can dream up.

The fact that handguns are underpowered is exactly why the rifle is the primary infantry weapon on the battlefield. It's also why the rifle is the primary firearm for hunting.

But for civilian self defense needs, the primary firearm is not the rifle for a very important reason: namely that routinely carrying around a rifle for personal protection just isn't feasable in most circumstances. This is why handguns take center stage in the civilian self-defense arena. Handguns are smaller, lighter, easier to carry around all day, easier to conceal, and they don't get in the way of everyday routines like rifles would.

Going along with this is the fact that the civilian self defense need is different than the needs of the military or police. Their use of weapons isn't limited to strictly self defence. We, as civilians, do not knowingly go into harms way as a matter of course. In fact, we seek measures to avoid or disengage wherever possible. Such a scenario is extremely rare.


Back to the subject of "over powered" handguns:

There are handguns that probably fit that bill. But again, it's very much situational. In my opinion, any handgun that is seriously that over powered is probably not the best choice for concealed carry/personal protection anyway for a variety of other reasons than over penetration, such as size, weight, and control.

 

[45_auto]

For example, your daughter dating a guy who you know doesn't like you and she calls you because he put his hands on her, why take a rifle.

Good point. I'd say that an air strike would be the minimum force required in that situation.

 

[mboylan]

We'll have to disagree here. I think you are just describing the results of the basic physics, and that the thresholds you mention aren't really thresholds but linear. Whether we are talking about .17 hornet or .45-70 out of a rifle or pistol, the physics is the same.

Energy levels really do have a threshold to where they start to matter. It is extremely well documented that permanent cavitation does not occur with handgun rounds with energy levels in the 350 to 550 ft-lb range. It is also well documented that a rifle round has to be over 2000 fps to deliver hydrostatic shock. There are several FBI whitepapers out there, including the latest discounting energy levels in standard self-defence cartridges(the one that justifies switching to 9mm).

 

[Ed Ames]

My concealed carry pistol fires bullets at 2150fps.

 

[Zendude]

Some ideas to kick around...
The entire premise of self defense for civilians is to avoid, deter or incapacitate an attacker. Dealing Instant death is less likely to be necessary for us civilians, but for law enforcement and military that is more likely to be necessary. A thief trying to lift your wallet or steal your jewelry rarely willing to die for that wallet. An attack on a LEO or soldier is likely done for the express purpose of killing them. For that motive, an attacker is likely to continue the attack even after taking a bullet, so the ability to deal a one shot kill is likely to be necessary.
So, where am i going with this? I forgot... Oh yeah i remember now. It is why i feel ok carrying a 380 for self defense, but i would be reluctant to pack anything less than a 45 if i was wearing a uniform. On the other hand, even as a civilian, if i am facing someone with a gun pointed at me, maybe i would wish i had a 45

 

[JFrame]

My concealed carry pistol fires bullets at 2150fps.

Might I ask the model of your CC pistol, and its chambering?

.

 

[Ed Ames]

I think the model is technically "FS" though 2011 seems popular too. The chambering is .22 TCM.

That said, people make ammo for quite a few pistols that is in the 2000fps and up range. Someone tried to sell me 10mm ammo the other day that claimed 2000fps on the box (copper bullet @ 60gr iirc).

 

[41 Mag]

I would really hate to have to put any of my thoughts on this to practice, but in the event that it came to pass I would probably have eon of three calibers in hand. I have hunted feral hogs with handguns for a good number of years. Not trying to prove that it could be done but simply due to the area we had to go to get to them didn't allow for a long gun.

As such I have used various calibers from the 30 Carbine up through 454, and can honestly say I doubt seriously that a person can soak up as much punishment as a 200# hog can, and most probably can't dish it out as easily either without some good help.

As has been repeated by several it has a LOT to do with where you hit things, but just as importantly what you hit them with. There is a lot of merit to wide heavy bullets starting with a 4 in the caliber. That doesn't mean that a 38 or 357 isn't effective as they are but, shot placement becomes far more important. Smaller bullets simply do not break things as often as they glance off of them. Heavier bullets do, which means arms, legs or various other things simply do not sway them as easily from their intended direction.

If I were to be put in a situation I would have either my 10mm loaded with 180gr Gold Dots, my 45 ACP with 200 or 230gr Gold Dots, or one of my revolvers loaded with a cast HP starting at 41 and going up. It is not that I carry these on a regular basis, but I am not a out on the town sort of fellow. I have places to go that I can have them with me in my vehicle and I go there and come home. In all the years of shooting hogs the above mentioned bullets have put more on the ground than anything I own other than my .308 loaded with 150gr CL's. They have all done very well even on somewhat marginal hits of anchoring tough critters to within a few yards of where they were initially hit. The shooting is as fast as it gets once things break open and getting a standing shot is a pipe dream. As for shooting through denim or such, not much of that being worn around here in the balmy south whee temps are warm even in mid Jan.

Those GD's will get through plenty and have proven to me to do more than enough internal damage to make things very sick very quick. Granted these weren't humans, but damage is damage and things that make big deep holes make things stop quicker.

I have no issues keeping rounds on target and recoil up into the magnum range isn't much of a factor with me. I practice with them on a continuing basis and when I get hold of something like the ACP, it isn't hardly much at all.

 

[JFrame]

I think the model is technically "FS" though 2011 seems popular too. The chambering is .22 TCM.

That said, people make ammo for quite a few pistols that is in the 2000fps and up range. Someone tried to sell me 10mm ammo the other day that claimed 2000fps on the box (copper bullet @ 60gr iirc).

Thank you, Ed!

.

 

[mboylan]

My concealed carry pistol fires bullets at 2150fps.

Unfortunately it's only a 28 grain 22 caliber bullet. That'll do a good job on prairie dogs.

 

[Ed Ames]

Unfortunately it's only a 28 grain 22 caliber bullet.

You are wrong.

 

[SDGlock23]

I think the bigger stuff like .44's etc. are sometimes considered over powered not because of the actual amount of energy but rather the bullet not being optimally designed for self defense use. If I take my 454 and shoot a 360gr hardcast to 1600 fps it will have a lot of power but it won't really be optimal for self defense, too much recoil for fast, accurate follow up shots and that bullet just penetrates. It would be good for big game but for self defense something like a 250gr XTP loaded down to around 1300-1400 fps would probably prove to be more effective even though it's less powerful, for social work at least.

 

[JohnKSa]

Any time a selection is based solely on one criteria the result is almost certain to be unsatisfactory in all other regards.

The best selection process takes all pertinent factors into account and strives for a balance.

 

[PabloJ]

We would do better if we learned something from British officers of WWII. Less is better. For example, the best defensive .45ACP load is EMCON 230 ball.

 

[JohnKSa]

I've often wondered, really ... what guys think that their enemy will be doing while they are missing him 9or 10 times?

There's no reason to assume that the bad guys won't have some misses too.

There's also no reason to assume that the good guy will miss "9 or 10 times". Even with good hits, it can take a number of pistol rounds to convince someone to cease hostilities.

And, of course, there's no reason to assume there will be only be one bad guy.

...a lot of time to remain exposed to enemy fire.

Sometimes there's no cover handy, and even if there is, time is still pretty critical. If you can move to cover, an opponent at handgun ranges can likely just as easily move to get a line on you.

If you are moving or have cover, you can swap mags.

Well, you can swap mags any time, cover or not, moving or not. But it takes time no matter when or how you do it and during the time that you're doing it, you're not shooting back. A big part of why people miss during a gunfight is the concern about incoming bullets. If your weapon is out of the fight, fire directed towards you will likely become more accurate and therefore more deadly.

So I don't regard the double stack mag as being any advantage at all.

As with many features, it provides both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages may or may not outweigh the disadvantages for a particular person depending on a number of circumstances including, among other things, hand size, difficulty and importance of complete concealment, body type, etc.

 

[JohnKSa]

It's simply not true that handguns lack enough power to damage vital organs by means of the temporary cavity.

I'm not sure who you are responding to, but you are, in fact, correct. Handguns can certainly damage inelastic tissue (liver, brain, kidneys, etc.) via temporary cavity. That is true even at typical handgun velocities. It is, however, true that the temporary cavity from typical handgun calibers is unlikely to do any permanent damage to elastic tissues.

It is correct to say that the temporary cavity is an unreliable wounding mechanism in handguns (since much of the body is made up of elastic tissue) but it is not correct to say that handguns lack the power to damage vital organs via temporary cavity.

My point about the double stack mag is that it's extremely unlikely that you'll have the time needed to get 12+ good rounds, or if you do, that you won't have cover to do it from. If you can't solve your problem in the 2 seconds or so needed to empty the single stack mag, you probably can't solve it with 15 rds, either. You're just up against too many guns, you miss too much, and/or your loads are inadequate. Sometimes, nothing can save you, but that sort of stuff is extremely rare for civilians.

There is certainly some truth in your comments. Gunfights tend to be relatively short in duration. Of course doesn't mean that all of them are and unfortunately we don't get to choose whether or not our gunfight will be typical or not.

In my opinion, it would be reasonable for a person to choose a single-stack pistol as a carry gun, however if a person can easily carry/conceal a double-stack, and they find the grip of a double-stack works better for them, I think it makes sense to carry one. In that case, the shootability is a benefit, it wouldn't cost them anything and the extra capacity could be very useful if they end up in an atypical gunfight. It's important to look at all the factors involved.

When you shoot animals with .45 ball ammo, you'll be just as unimpressed as i was.

My take is that in rifles (and perhaps some of the very high-velocity pistol rounds, expanding ammunition provides a significant increase in lethality due to the dramatic effects of temporary cavity. With more typical handgun rounds, while there is some increase in lethality due to expanding ammo, in my opinion, the primary benefit of expanding ammunition is insuring that the attacker is aware of being shot. That's valuable since it provides a significant distraction and may be enough to end the attack even if the wound is not serious. I've read more than one account about a person being shot with a non-expanding pistol round and not realizing it until later. I've not heard a story like that involving expanding pistol ammunition.

I do not agree that MagSafe's fragmenting bullet is the way to go...

I agree that fragmenting ammo isn't a great choice. It does tend to provide immediate "notification" to the attacker that he's been hit, but it does so at the expense of potential lethality by limiting penetration too much. More conventional expanding handgun ammo provides a good balance of "notification" and lethality.