More Evidence Against FMJs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or to put it more plainly, neither of us think the choice of fmj or hp is trivial.
The act of using proper JHPs instead of FMJs is a TRIVIALLY EASY act to accomplish, calculated to reduce the danger to innocent third parties. I haven't endangered myself and have measurably lessened the danger to others whom I DON'T wish to harm. I can think of a lot of reasons not to do that. None of them are GOOD reasons.
 
Are you JOKING??? Seriously? "Collateral damage has to be accepted"? I would say that in a self defense scenario, any collateral damage involving injury to a third party is a FAILURE. If you, in defense, shoot through an assailant and into a child, killing the child, is that acceptable collateral damage to you? I think that you need to reevaluate your self defense policy, or quit carrying a firearm. :uhoh:
You logic is flawed because there are no guaranty that a HP or FMJ will act the way you seem to think they would.

MY SELFDEFENCE POLICY is to defend myself only.

If your concerns were really about eliminating collateral damage you are the one who shouldn't carry.

But then you probably only use magic bullets now don't ya.
 
Okay, one more time.

I haven't endangered myself and have measurably lessened the danger to others whom I DON'T wish to harm.

Show us the data in real life - How many cases can you reference involving innocent bystanders shot with a fmj that went through when a hp wouldn't have?


I can think of a lot of reasons not to do that. None of them are GOOD reasons.
Today 02:02 PM



I can think of a lot of GOOD reasons.

There are plenty of documented cases of people needing to shoot through something in self-defense both at home and in public - just read through a few Armed Citizen's in American Rifleman. A good many talk about armed perps breaking down a door with the homeowner on the other side - and the homeowner shooting through the door before the they've broken through it. I recall a number also involving cars and shooting through glass or a car door.


Also never addressed is the fact that larger more powerful handguns firing a heavy bullet at a high velocity will, even with hp bullets, out penetrate many smaller caliber handguns that shoot lighter bullets or large caliber handguns that shoot slower velocity bullets that are fmj. So the choice of caliber and velocity can have as much or more to do with penetration than hp or fmj.

The black and white assumptions you make are overbroard - there are many self-defense situations where penetration is to be desired - as a cursory read of the accounts of self-defense in the American Rifleman or your local newspaper would make clear.

The same basis you argue from could be equally be used to state that anyone who carried a handgun more powerful than a .380 auto was being irresponsible, or that anyone who uses a rifle or a shotgun (loaded with anything other than birdshot) was being irresponsible.

One could even argue that carrying hp ammo is irresponsible because given that you may well miss, your stray hp vs a stray fmj has a higher potential for lethality. I would think that would be a stupid thing to argue - but if you miss - all things being equal your hp has more potential to cause more damage hitting an innocent bystander than a fmj or the same caliber and velocity. Do you think it is trivial that an innocent bystander is killed by your stray hp rather than wounded by a stray fmj round. That argument is no more valid than the one you make.

Maybe the most important point is that people can make legitimate different choices of firearm, caliber, ammuntion and bullet design - all based on their individual needs, level of training, where they live, where they work, what kind of house they reside in, and so on. One size doesn't fit all and the world is a little bit bigger than that.
 
MY SELFDEFENCE POLICY is to defend myself only.
And apparently with not the slightest concern for UNNECESSARY risk to innocent third parties.

Why not just wear a fireproof suit and throw white phosphorus grenades? After all, the ONLY person's safety that matters is your own...
 
There are plenty of documented cases of people needing to shoot through something in self-defense both at home and in public - just read through a few Armed Citizen's in American Rifleman.
I read it every month. I don't recall the last one I saw that required a citizen to shoot THROUGH something to defend themselves.

As for the frequency of through and throughs with FMJ, try reading the article in "Combat Handguns" that I referenced in my first post.
 
I carry my little .380 about 90% of the time I leave the house. I carry it because it's extremely concealable, does not print no matter what I'm wearing (I don't wear baggy tshirts), and it's better than having just a knife. If I'm going to what I deem to be a high risk area, I'll bring along the Makarov or .357 as well.

I don't get all the .380 hate. Has anyone here actually been hit with a .380 round at <10 yards? I'm open to any legit data that's available...
 
It's tough to support a blanket edict against all FMJ's. In .32 ACP for example the FMJ may be the only round that gives halfway sufficient penetration. In .45 ACP it may the best feeding round, and it may not penetrate excessively.

Overpenetration is overplayed. The much bigger problem is just flat-out missing the target.
 
Cosmoline: said:
It's tough to support a blanket edict against all FMJ's. In .32 ACP for example the FMJ may be the only round that gives halfway sufficient penetration. In .45 ACP it may the best feeding round, and it may not penetrate excessively.

Overpenetration is overplayed. The much bigger problem is just flat-out missing the target.

...which renders the issue (JHP vs. FMJ) moot in that particular event.

It seems to me that this is a "training" (assurance of safe/clear downrange area) issue being addressed with an "equipment" (JHP vs. FMJ) answer.

Not good.
 
I read it every month. I don't recall the last one I saw that required a citizen to shoot THROUGH something to defend themselves.


Guess you missed these found them in a few minutes on the NRA website:


Returning home to find a man rooting around in her living room, a 22-year-old woman quickly fled to the bedroom. She locked the door behind her and obtained her husband's handgun and ammunition. According to authorities, the young woman fled to an adjacent bathroom and turned the door's lock while the intruder forcefully entered the bedroom. She quickly loaded her husband's gun and, when the intruder began pounding on the bathroom door, she fired a single shot. Upon realizing his intended victim was armed, the once-brazen thug fled the home.


AUTHORITIES SAY BENNIE Hall, Jr. went outside to warm up his car before work, then returned inside to finish getting ready. He left the door open to keep his car in view, but briefly entered a back room to holster the .45 pistol he is licensed to carry. At that point he heard his car pulling away. "I looked, and the car was gone," Hall said. He spotted the car turning around at the street's dead end, and when it came past his house, he attempted to stop it by waving his arms in the air. Instead of giving himself up, the carjacker veered directly at Hall in an apparent attempt to leave no witnesses to the crime. Hall shot into the car, killing the driver. "Mr. Hall has a right to protect himself with deadly force if his life is in danger ... Based on the totality of the evidence and circumstances, he was doing just that," said County Prosecuting Attorney Joe Deters.


Unable to fend off an alleged intruder on her own, a woman ran to the home of her neighbor, Roger Ledford. But police say the suspect continued to pursue her, even shooting the lock off Ledford's side door. As he attempted to breach the door, Ledford shot him with a shotgun, killing him. "The homeowner was fearful of what was going on and shot and killed him," said Capt. Brad Stanley of the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office. Police also said the assailant had poured a flammable substance inside the woman's


When a man heard his doorbell ringing incessantly, he ignored it in hopes that the person would go away. But, shortly thereafter, he heard a pounding at his back door; so he grabbed a firearm as a precaution and went to investigate. According to police, the man then saw someone trying to force his door open, and when he pulled back the window blinds, he saw an arm reach through a broken window. The homeowner fired one shot, striking his assailant in the chest. The would-be intruder ran around the front of the home, collapsed and died.



A pregnant woman was lying on the couch in her home when she heard the mini-blinds on her kitchen door rustle. Police say the woman, whose 1- and 3-year-old children were also in the home, got up to investigate and found a man trying to break in. When she spotted him, he ran around the corner of the duplex to the front door and tried to kick it in. The woman warned the prowler that she had a gun. When he replied that he also had a gun, she shot at him and he returned fire. The intruder was hit in the chest and died on the way to the hospital. No one else was injured.



According to police, a man stole a fire extinguisher from a dialysis center, then attempted to use it to break into a nearby home. A detective responding to a burglar alarm at the dialysis center witnessed an armed citizen thwart the alleged home invader. "While [the detective] was waiting for uniform patrol, he noticed a commotion across the street at a home," said a police spokesman. The detective reported that the man was allegedly trying to break through the front door using the fire extinguisher, but was shot in the groin by one of the occupants. The suspect was arrested on multiple charges after his release from the hospital.

When a guest told him that someone was trying to break into his Nye County, Nev., home, Pahrump Valley Times outdoors columnist Dan Simmons retrieved his .357 Mag. revolver as a neighbor called law enforcement. After the police investigated and left, the intruder returned, smashing the glass in the front door with a rock. Simmons, who had retrieved his revolver for the second time that morning, fired a shot, wounding the intruder.

As her ex-boyfriend proceeded to kick in her back door, a Manor Township, Pennsylvania, woman called police and then ran upstairs. Fearing help would not arrive in time, the woman locked herself in a bedroom and grabbed a rifle from under the bed. The man entered the home and raced upstairs where he began pounding on the locked door. When the woman's warnings to stop went unheeded, she fired a shot, injuring him. Police arrived as the man was leaving and placed him under arrest. Said one investigator, "He wasn't there to deliver flowers. She was defending herself."

Melany Yancey was home alone when two men wearing bandannas kicked in her front door and came upstairs about 2:50 a.m. Yancey later told police that she had locked herself in her bedroom and retrieved a handgun when she first heard the commotion. The intruders then attempted to break through the bedroom door. She fired a shot in their direction, and one man fired back at her. The men then moved into another bedroom and Yancey took the opportunity to flee her house, firing two more shots at the invaders as she ran outside. She was able to call 9-1-1 from a neighbor's home. Police found one of the suspects lying on the driveway, dead from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. The other suspect remained at large.



A 19-year-old Midtown, Md., man was shot and killed when he opened fire on two motorists stopped at a red light. The man in the second of the two cars drew his own gun and shot back. Andre Lamont Hill approached a car stopped at a red light in Baltimore at 10:20 p.m. and fired multiple times, hitting that car and a car directly behind it. When the second car was sprayed with bullets, the driver, who had a permit to carry a gun, fired back, striking Hill several times in the head. The motive for the attack was unknown, according to Baltimore police.

A 79-year-old Minneapolis, Minn., man shot a home invader who had broken into the elderly man's residence late one night. Harvey Keefe, a World War II Marine Corps veteran, heard someone smash in his back door late one night. Keefe remained in his locked bedroom and picked up his .38-cal. revolver as he heard someone making his way through his house. When the intruder jiggled the doorknob to Keefe's bedroom, the veteran feared for his life and fired his gun. When the intruder appeared to back off and he heard sounds of someone leaving, Keefe called 9-1-1 and waited for authorities to arrive. A suspect suffering from a gunshot wound was found six blocks from the scene and a trail of blood led back to the house. Keefe said he didn't regret firing the shot. "I know I've done the right thing," he said.


A Birmingham, Alabama, family's night of terror came to an end after a 16-year-old youth defended his mother and siblings from his mother's estranged husband, who had been threatening to shoot into the home all evening. Frightened, the family barricaded itself in an upstairs bedroom. When their tormentor broke into the house via a back door, his violence was answered by the youth, who delivered several fatal shots through the bedroom door. The youth was not charged

The Rockingham County, Virginia, woman had already dialed 911 after discovering the door to her home ajar, when a Halloween-masked suspect charged from another room and slashed her with a knife. Suffering two cuts, the woman dashed upstairs where she barricaded herself in a bedroom, grabbed her 12-ga. shotgun, and fired a single shot at the intruder through the door. Police were still searching for the suspect, who fled the home on foot without any valuables

Two housebreakers were trying to enter the Riverside, Calif., home of Edwin "Pop" Gardner, an 88-year-old retired doctor and school board member. The pair chased Gardner and his wife into their bedroom and tried to break down the door after the elderly couple barricaded themselves in. Finally Gardner opened fire with a shotgun, severely wounding one of the thugs.


These are just a few I grabbed - there are lots more there, and of course many more that we will never know because the NRA doesn't and can't run anything like all defensive gun use stories. There are many stories that don't give enough detail to know if the homeowner was shooting through cover or concealment or not - though most criminals like most human beings often try to hide or seek cover in a fight.


As for the frequency of through and throughs with FMJ, try reading the article in "Combat Handguns" that I referenced in my first post.

Well I tried to read it all but it won't give me the whole article on the web - but since you have it just answer these two simple questions -

What is the percentage of citizens shooting guns in self-defense using fmj bullets who injure innocent bystanders by shooting through someone vs the percentage of citizens shooting guns in self-defense using hp bullets who injure innocent bystanders by shooting through someone?

And what is the percentage of total civilian self-defense shootings where innocent bystanders are shot due to overpenetration?

These questions are crucial to your claim because your state that you have: "measurably lessened the danger to others whom I DON'T wish to harm." by using hp ammo.

I won't even ask to look at how many innocent bystanders are injured by missed shots vs shots that hit their initial target but over penetrated and then injured an innocent bystander. Or how criminals were shot or stopped because the fmj could penetrate the door, doorjam, couch, car door, counter etc... - that was shielding some perp.

I'm not claiming that fmj is the only rational or responsible option - sometimes hp might be the right choice given a set of circumstances - but hp is certainly not always the best choice nor the only responsible choice.
 
Unfortunately it situational dependent in HD situations.

How do I know this...? I can literally shoot someone where I live with my Big Mac, FMJ and not worry about hitting someone else (80 people in a 400-600 square mile radius) minimum distance to neighbor 6160 yards (about 3 times the effective range) through dense arboreal forest. Yes totally outrageous scenario in comparison to most, but that's my risk of hitting someone other than an intruder. So I can use whatever I like, not everyone is so remote.

JHP's are not guaranteed to expand, hit an intruder where they will not penetrate fully or even hit the intruder period. Where it doesn't expand at all, or fails to hit the intruder or they're just badly constructed (MagTech) are the times when there can be issues to any backstop (be that the wall, or neighbor, or neighbor through several walls).

For safety purposes using some of the arguments presented here we should all be using frangible rounds, we're not, anyone care to supply an opinion as to why not?

My opinion is that every time you pull that trigger there is a risk, and that risk has to be weighed against others, like lack of penetration, FMJ have less risk of under penetration than JHP's that's an important risk criteria that many people who use FMJ consider.

As I said everyone's HD scenario's are different, housing constructions are different ranges to next living human are different. For public carry then there is a degree of similarity, but the risk of OP into another person behind the attacker is significantly lower than hitting he wrong target.

That said however as mentioned does anyone have figures for injuries caused by hitting the target then the same round subsequently hitting an innocent bystander (although why they'd be by-standing a gun fight I don't know, I'd be beating feet). Anecdotally it seems logical, but frequently anecdotal evidence and facts don't correlate (see gun control and crime statistics).
 
The act of using proper JHPs instead of FMJs is a TRIVIALLY EASY act to accomplish, calculated to reduce the danger to innocent third parties. I haven't endangered myself and have measurably lessened the danger to others whom I DON'T wish to harm. I can think of a lot of reasons not to do that. None of them are GOOD reasons.

So getting a .32acp to penetrate ENOUGH, is not a good reason? Again I am waiting for data to show that the .32acp is more of a risk with FMJ than a 9mm with HP's. I gave a valid example of why I had to carry what I carried and a valid reason to use FMJ. There is a time and a place for every tool, IMHO this NONE, NEVER discussion is a waste of time.

Anybody who thinks that loading their magazines with proper JHPs ISN'T a trivial task is perhaps unsuited to the use of machinery in general or the use of firearms in particular.

Along with your talk about those not agreeing with you being unfit to use the tool. I usually agree with a lot of what you say, but IMHO you are WAY off base on this one!
 
I'll continue to use JHPs, but, I have never seen nor heard proof that a FMJ round has penetrated someone to go on to kill or wound someone else.

From Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness; FBI Academy

"An issue that must be addressed is the fear of over penetration widely expressed on the part of law enforcement. The concern that a bullet will pass through the body of a subject and injure an innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of law enforcement shooting will reveal that the great majority of shots fired by officer do not hit any subjects at all. It should be obvious that the relatively few shots that do hit the subject are not somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss the subject entirely."
 
And apparently with not the slightest concern for UNNECESSARY risk to innocent third parties.

Why not just wear a fireproof suit and throw white phosphorus grenades? After all, the ONLY person's safety that matters is your own...
No it’s the thing I have real control over. The ultimate safety is between our ears and I trust that more than one type of bullet over another.
 
The act of using proper JHPs instead of FMJs is a TRIVIALLY EASY act to accomplish, calculated to reduce the danger to innocent third parties.

For an elitist it's easy to say what others should do. It's easy right? You've stated it's unaceptable to use a round that didn't see active use until recently, against reliability or caliber considerations. I've read this entire post, and man people here have given you information that you should think about. We've also had multiple postings on the myth of overpenetration.
 
Now explain again why I'd be unwilling to take a TRIVIAL measure to lessen the risks of overpenetration without meaningfully increasing the risk to my own safety?

HP may be the answer to your theory but in real life the arguement could go the other way against you.

So.... you PURPOSELY and KNOWINGLY loaded your SELF DECLARED defensive gun with bullets that are KNOWN to KILL people MORE EASILY than standard FMJ.

So.. Mr Defendant, were you really attempting to defend yourself with your MAN KILLING HOLLOW POINTS?

If you wanted to "neutralize the threat" Mr. Defendant, Why did you choose to shoot him in center mass.... where his heart and lungs are.... with the most LEATHAL type of EXPANDING bullets that create THE MOST TISSUE DAMAGE?

Sounds like you wanted to kill him.... not "neutralize the threat".


Other than that, Mack pretty much called your bluff.

The courts decide.... not you.
 
So.... you PURPOSELY and KNOWINGLY loaded your SELF DECLARED defensive gun with bullets that are KNOWN to KILL people MORE EASILY than standard FMJ.
I'll defend a good shoot every day.

There's NO defense for a through and through that maims or kills somebody.

Any defense attorney who couldn't shred your stated argument should be a rodeo clown instead of a lawyer.
 
This is a training and not an equipment issue, gents. It's part of the four rules of firearms safety and relying on equipment to defy those rules is dumb, to say the least. If you have an innocent that may become part of your backstop, then it may be time to take a knee, a step to whichever side or whatever it is you need to do to make sure you do not put an innocent in your line of fire. I will re-emphasize, this is a training issue that is being made up into an equipment argument.

I use JHP's to try to dump more energy at my assailant, not prevent a through and through. I do not have the power of God to be 100% certain that my round (because I am carrying the flavor of the week) will a)Expand 100% of the time, and b)Expand AND not go through my assailant. It doesn't matter if you are in the house, in a crowded city setting or out in the woods - YOU HAVE TO BE SURE OF YOUR BACKSTOP AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT. Again, training training training.
 
I'll defend a good shoot every day.

There's NO defense for a through and through that maims or kills somebody.

Any defense attorney who couldn't shred your stated argument should be a rodeo clown instead of a lawyer.

So, if a HP goes through there isnt a defense?

Well, there could be. You could argue that the bullet didnt expand per the MFG advertisement and thats why it went through.

Although, you could also argue that the FMJ round was advertised has having 12-16 of penatration and that bullet not only went through a 16" man... but it also went through a wall (or not) and 6" deep into poor little Susie. It didnt perform as advertised.

An arguement can be made for either side.... thats called a debate. When one argues one side from a closed minded point of view.... that just called arguing for the sake of arguing.

I realize that you probably arent a defense attorney but you didnt "shred" my statement.... maybe being a "rodeo clown" is in your fiuture instead?

Maybe take the time to read the articles Mack posted that you said didnt exist.
 
This is a training and not an equipment issue, gents. It's part of the four rules of firearms safety and relying on equipment to defy those rules is dumb, to say the least. If you have an innocent that may become part of your backstop, then it may be time to take a knee, a step to whichever side or whatever it is you need to do to make sure you do not put an innocent in your line of fire. I will re-emphasize, this is a training issue that is being made up into an equipment argument.
If you have time and presence of mind to step to one side, get on your knee or do anything else then you probably don't need to be shooting. To me, shooting is "this guy is going to kill me! Get him off me now!" Everything else becomes secondary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top