Thoughts on .45 flat nose ammunition for self defense in short barrel guns

[Walt Sherrill]

The Ellifritz study is arguably the best we've got -- and the shortcomings of the study have been addressed by a number of critics. Some of the criticisms are due to definitions (which most of the critics apparently didn't bother to read closely) and to the fact that there are relatively few shootings that are well documented. It took Ellifritz 10 YEARS to accumulate this data! Some of it has to do with Ellifritz's terms. Some of the criticism shows that the critics haven't really read his explanations and summation.

Areas of criticism or concern: with the Ellifritz study you don't know 1) whether the shooter was skilled or effective in his or her defensive actions, 2) whether he or she had been involved in self-defense situations before or had ever fired rounds when under threat, etc., 3) whether the person being shot at was close or far, 4) whether the "thug" in question was experienced or naive, and put off by the defender having a weapon, 5) whether the gun being used had a long or short barrel, or 6) whether the ammo was self-defense or ball. Ellifritz makes the point that those who can accurately fire a gun more rapidly may use more rounds than needed -- and that skews the "effectiveness" measures (like rounds to incapacitation), but I'm not going to say they should not have fired those extra rounds.

Had Ellifritz been able to break all of those extra categories out, given the relatively small number of incidents recorded for some calibers, I think coming to any conclusions would be hard. Some of the numbers already are so small that their statistical value can arguably be questioned if the data were further subdivided.

I applaud Ellifritz's efforts. If you didn't read his comments and his explanations of why he did it the way he did, please do so. I'm very impressed with what he's done, and I think it tells us as much, maybe more, than tests using ballistic gelatin... Do I suggest we ignore tests done using FBI Ballistic Gelatin? No. But I don't think we should ignore Ellifritz's work either. Together, these two types of data start to give us something meaningful.

.

 

[joneb]

For myself and my 1911's I use what is the most reliable and then accurate with at least 16" penetration. So I mostly carry something other than HP's.

 

[TwinReverb]

Statistics aren't perfect, either. There have been people to comment that some of that info came from war statistics, which is why they think 9mm has a low incapacitation rate (FMJ).

At the end of the day it's still what you want to carry and how well you aim.

But I still won't use .22 LR for self defense because people have been shot with it and not realized they have been shot, like Ronald Reagan and the following story:

http://www.suwanneedemocrat.com/news/local_news/shooting-victims-chase-down-suspect/article_eda37aac-9c4b-5b36-9d3b-f1f11450b19b.html

 

[gun_with_a_view]

I still won't use .22 LR for self defense because people have been shot with it and not realized they have been shot

The problem with .22LR is velocity. Get one moving at over 2,000 fps and all of a sudden sit's a combat round, the FN7. After that, it's just a matter of shot placement. I would have no problem packing FN7 ballistics, if only I could afford to.

 

[TwinReverb]

The problem with .22LR is velocity. Get one moving at over 2,000 fps and all of a sudden sit's a combat round, the FN7. After that, it's just a matter of shot placement. I would have no problem packing FN7 ballistics, if only I could afford to.

Yeah, me too.

Still, back to topic, in my opinion there's no reason (with advances in hollow point) to carry full metal jacket for defensive purposes, unless this is the zombie apocalypse and you ran out of HPs.

 

[kBob]

I think my first concern in choosing a cartridge for a shorty .45 is will it feed reliably.

Hornady brought out flat nosed bullet offerings in the very late 1970's or 1980 for use by military testers. They were looking at the original 1908 Truncated Cone bullets of the 9x19mm with a mind to the then ongoing testing to determine a new pistol and or caliber for US forces. Appearently the .45 TC was developed to make things "fair."

With the test media and standards of the day it appeared that a TC type bullet did have noticeably more effect on target than round nose FMJ given the same weight bullet caliber and velocity.

At that time OSI and USAF small arms folks were developing a 3.5 inch barreled 1911 for concealed carry by OSI and General officers. This was what basically became the Officers ACP and such. At the time OSI supposedly liked the Hornady TC .45 bullets over the round nose FMJ.

Of course this was before the big 1980's improvements in hollow points and before expanding FMJ.

The Hornady feed well in the Star PD and Officers ACP the way I hand loaded them and I carried those pistols loaded with that until I ran out of Hornady TC bullets.

I was told that the USAF small arms development folks thought the 9x19mm with TC bullets was the equal of .45 ACP FMJ RN Ball and that their recommendations for adoption of the 9x19mm as a replacement for .45ACP and .38 Special (with GI FMJ bullets) handguns in service was based on the use of that bullet. Odd that once adopted that the plain vanilla RN FMJ bullet was what the services got.

-kBob

 

[TwinReverb]

No offense, but assuming the ammo was according to specifications (truncated nose, though, due to hollow point), any gun that is reliable will feed it properly. Hence if I went out with my gun and shot a box of the defense ammo I intended to carry and even one didn't feed and/or didn't fire, if it was a major brand, I'd have my gun fixed, assuming an absence of negative reviews. Any gun should feed any ammo. If not, it needs fixing. That's how I feel.

So I don't care what anyone says: if I rent a 1911 at the range and it doesn't reliably feed and fire the ammo I intend to carry, I wouldn't buy it. If I already own it, I'd take it to get repaired. A gun is many things, but to me, reliability is the #1 consideration, accuracy #2, etc....

 

[481]

... Odd that once adopted that the plain vanilla RN FMJ bullet was what the services got.

-kBob

Probably since there is barely a nickel's worth of difference between what a flat-nose and a round-nose will do in flesh.

 

[Cee Zee]

Any gun should feed any ammo. If not, it needs fixing. That's how I feel.

In some cases this just doesn't apply. Mainly .22LR especially semi-autos shooting standard velocity ammo or somewhat dirty ammo. There are some guns that just won't cycle with every brand of ammo on the market. If it's a bad problem then yeah I'd get it fixed too. But if I have a target .22 that won't feed with I'm not all that concerned.

I'm going to say it again. I've tested the short barrel ammo made by Speer and it expands pretty much every time when shot from a 3.25" barrel.

 

[seeker_two]

You can draw your own conclusions here about the .45 ACP as a human take down round. This cop went from big and slow to lighter, faster and a whole lot more rounds:

http://www.policeone.com/police-her...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

As sidebar, placement of the shotgun on the underside of the squad car roof was an ominous mistake. Shotguns should be mounted on the floor over the doghouse with the stock facing the driver in a position whereby the occupant can readily bring the shotgun with him or her upon vehicle exit.

That article has dubious conclusions derived from poor analysis of facts.

1. Shooting through windshields tends to deflect bullets.....especially lighter bullets. How does that officer know that he made ANY hits?

2 No after-action reports on bullet performance or autopsy. How do we know if the bullets performed as designed? What damage was actually & specifically done?

3. Seems like the Glock 21 and .45ACP got the job done. If he wants more ammo, carry more magazines....or have your rifle closer than the trunk.

Bad article for a poor argument.....

 

[Panzerschwein]

Check this out:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/24...acp-p-255-grain-hard-cast-flat-nose-box-of-20

A .45 ACP 255 grain HARD CAST flat nose lead bullet. It won't expand, but a .45 starts out as big as a 9mm hollowpoint expanded so it doesn't matter. Many a man have been put on boot hill by these type .45 flat nose lead bullets. Carry with confidence.

 

[TwinReverb]

A .45 ACP 255 grain HARD CAST flat nose lead bullet. It won't expand, but a .45 starts out as big as a 9mm hollowpoint expanded so it doesn't matter. Many a man have been put on boot hill by these type .45 flat nose lead bullets. Carry with confidence.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/massad-ayoob-is-hollowpoint-the-best-defensive-ammo-for-concealed-carry/

Negative, ghost rider. For self defense against human beings, the hollow point (in any caliber) is much preferred as it will hit harder (in the sense of transferring more energy), it will be less likely to exit your target, and less likely to ricochet.

Carrying FMJ for self-defense purposes in a public place is sheer negligence because FMJ will penetrate a whole lot more, potentially injuring or killing innocent bystanders who may be hiding behind barriers.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

For self defense against human beings, the hollow point (in any caliber) is much preferred as it will hit harder (in the sense of transferring more energy), it will be less likely to exit your target, and less likely to ricochet.

I can't say you're wrong, but I'd like to know the basis for your claims, above. Most folks now focus on HOW DEEPLY A BULLET PENETRATES and WHERE, not how HARD it hits or how much energy is transferred. (I do make reference to the Ayoob link above, in my comments below.)

I'm responding based on what I've read and seen in various studies of wound ballistics. Perhaps I've missed something important in all of my reading. If you have better information, I'll happily stand corrected -- as this is a topic I am really trying hard to understand.

Bullets ricochet when they hit something hard -- it's more about physics than bullet design when that happens. HOW HARD something hits is a function of the speed it's moving and it's weight (and, probably, cross-section.) Needless to say, what is hit (rib, thigh bone, and how big or thick the hit part is) affects how much ricochet can occur.

A hollow-point that has/retains the same weight as a solid bullet might be more damaging than a solid bullet, but only if it expands wider and penetrates as deeply as the solid round. And that differenc may or may not matter. In any event, it's got to get there (i.e., hit a vital point) to matter. If the person shot isn't hit in a vital spot (or spots), he (or she) can still do YOU damage. Bleeding out generally takes too long to stop a threat...

Energy transfer seems to be relatively unimportant -- while the distance the bullet travels (penetration) and where it penetrates is very important, not the amount of energy passed to the body. When you look at the "tissue" disruption in ballistic gel tests, you can see a lot of damage in what might be considered a simulation of the temporary wound cavity, but everything I've seen and read says that "temporary wound cavity" disruption isn't nearly as important as hitting the right spot (brain, heart, lung, spinal cord, etc.)

Analysis done by doctors after shootings and post-mortem exams show that that some folks just keep coming no matter where they're hit or how often -- until something vital is struck. (That's why some of the bullets that fragment -- a bit like shotgun rounds -- aren't considered effective.)

A larger diameter wound track (bullet path) is arguably better than a narrower one (.45 vs. 9mm, for example), but unless that track leads to something important, the bad guy, bleeding out, may have more than enough time to do YOU in before you stop him. Energy transfer is considered less important nowadays than once was the case.

...Carrying FMJ for self-defense purposes in a public place is sheer negligence because FMJ will penetrate a whole lot more, potentially injuring or killing innocent bystanders who may be hiding behind barriers.

Broad statements about FMJ vs Hollow Point must be qualified by the round used, the caliber, the length of the barrel, bullet weight, etc. Some hollow-point rounds won't penetrate deeply enough to be effective if there are several layers of clothing worn, if the bullet still expands; in other cases, the clothing clogs the expanding bullet and it performs just like a FMJ round -- and penetrates just as far. While some FMJ might go to too far, it's not as simple as your statement suggests.

Mas Ayoob, in your link, cited some PD situations where people and officers were inadvertently shot because FMJ rounds were used. That's one side of the story. Until we see a summary of inadvertent damage done by police using HOLLOW-POINT rounds, we've seen only part of the picture.

Missed shots can still hit an unintended target whether it's HP or FMJ. Missed HP shots going through a barrier may still penetrate to hit an unwanted target (if only because the barrier can plug the HP, making it behave just like FMJ.) Not all HP shots hits the target center mass -- those errant shots can go through a part of the target body and hit someone else, too.

(That said, I don't advocate carrying FMJ -- and use HP in my carry weapon -- but I have some concern about how effective my rounds may be if I have to use them it against somebody that is wearing denim and or leather, a winter coat, etc.)


.

 

[Water-Man]

I'd suggest trying the Hornady Critical Duty +P .45ACP in your short barrelled gun if you're concerned with penetration.

 

[TwinReverb]

Penetration is #1, the others are just nice to have. When I say hitting harder I say that more energy is transferred into the target due to hollow points opening up like umbrellas.

I'm sure Mas's link works, but if not, a cursory google search will find all the results you need.

And if you google search for why people carry hollow points, you'll see yet more reasons.

I'd respond at length but I must get ready for work.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Penetration is #1, the others are just nice to have. When I say hitting harder I say that more energy is transferred into the target due to hollow points opening up like umbrellas.

As I noted earlier, hitting harder doesn't seem to matter. WHAT is hit, and WHERE (whether its a vital structure or organ) is what matters -- and, as you write above, penetration is the key factor, then -- for without penetration, vital stuff can't be hit.

Google searches are like Easter Egg hunts -- you find all sorts of things, but it's not always candy or Easter eggs. When you get some time, try that "cursory google search" yourself, and see what YOU find. Google is not always your friend.

I've found NO studies showing the same sort of data for hollow-point rounds fired by police, with results (misses and pass-throughs with inadvertent damage, penetration of barriers, etc.) comparable to the data that Mas Ayoob presented. Also no comparisons of the two type of rounds using the same contexts/venues. That doesn't mean Ayoob's assumptions are wrong, but it simply means the information shown presents PART of the picture and Ayoob has made his assessments based on what seems to be an incomplete set of data. (If he had the other parts, he didn't mention it. I wish he had.)

We have to understand, too, that LEOs get into DIFFERENT types of shoot-outs than civilians, and those shoot-outs often take place in areas and among groups of people in ways that seldom happen with civilians, and those different contexts really skew results.

I'm not surprised that LEO agencies have moved to HP ammo, but I'm not sure that the reasons they did so was to minimize inadvertent woundings or fatalities (due to over-penetration.)

While Ayoob's analysis may be correct, the assumptions derived from that analysis remain open to question until we see how it compares to similar data accumulated under conditions for HP ammo.