The Case for JHP Ammo in Pocket Pistols

[pocketgun]

Welcome to chapter 65,943 of the ongoing debate over what ammo to use for self-defense! While most/many of these threads turn out to be nothing shy of a complete waste of time, I will endeavor to present my thoughts on the subject in a way that hopefully will get each interested reader thinking about their choice of carry ammo.

Not so long ago, the top ammo choice for pocket pistols seemed to be the exotic “frangible” loads sold by Glaser and MagSafe. These rounds offer complete fragmentation immediately after impact, resulting in a large but very shallow wound. Besides being absurdly expensive ($3/shot), a very strong argument has been made by the people over at www.firearmstactical.com as to why it will not work as advertised. In general, I concur with their reasoning, and urge any interested in the details to read through the info on their website.

With the waning in popularity of the exotic loads, many have decided to carry FMJ (or some other type of non-expanding ammo like TMJ, FNEB, etc.) in their .25ACP, .32ACP, and even .380ACP pocket pistols. They cite the “FBI Protocol” that requires 12+” of penetration as a mandatory requirement for any type of ammo to be used for self-defense. The facts do seem apparent: .25ACP and .32ACP are not able to reliably expand and penetrate to this depth, and .380ACP is also questioned by many.

So why then do I choose to load all my pocket pistols with JHP ammo when I don’t even dispute its inability to penetrate? Let me explain…

First of all, the 12”-16” of penetration is a good thing in a self-defense shooting. Why, since so few people are thick enough to require so deep a wound? The answer is that the deeper penetrative tendencies allow bullets to pass through intermediate objects encountered on their path to the actual target. Drywall, wood, auto body panels or glass; these are all things that law enforcement must consider when choosing a load for their sidearm. Speaking of arms, the assailant’s own limbs are perhaps the most commonly cited “intermediate objects”. Let me say that having a pistol with the capability to shoot through such things and still expand is a good thing. Ammo is available in all of the popular combat chamberings (9x19 and up) which can apparently accomplish this sort of thing in gelatin testing, and I carry ammo that will do this in my Kel-Tec P-40 and Glock 29.

The “rub” comes when pocket pistol ammo enters the equation, and does not have enough energy to do both. Those who favor penetration first readily sacrifice any hope of expansion to reach the quasi-magical depth of 12”. The first issue I have is that I do not need 12+” for my pocket pistol to be effective. For one thing, my need for penetration of intermediate objects in a self-defense pistol is likely to be less than a policeman or FBI Agent. Contrast the way LEO’s (law enforcement officers) use a pistol with a citizen using a CCW pistol for defense. LEO’s draw their sidearms to hold and arrest suspects, often without firing a shot. This is an “offensive” use of the pistol that doesn’t necessarily need to be at the imminent death level of alert that usually forces a citizen with a weapons permit to clear the holster. What is different is the element of surprise: LEO’s are typically expected to have firearms and usually carry them openly. A suspect at odds with the authorities is most certainly far more concerned with being shot by a policeman than the person they target as a victim of a violent crime. They therefore try and keep a greater distance, use cover if possible, and cover up when encountering obviously armed law enforcement.

CONTINUED

[pocketgun]

Now try and envision a criminal robbing someone on a dark street. They fully expect their victim to be unarmed, or else they would choose an easier target. They try and approach to close range and control the situation, and act aggressively to project strength and instill fear and submission, and use direct physical force (fists, knife, bat, gun) if needed (or desired). By the very nature of what they are trying to accomplish, a defensive, covered posture is unlikely to meet their goal, nor is it likely to be useful for bringing a weapon to bear. Not many street thugs use (or have ever even heard of) the Weaver Stance, I suspect.

So IMO, a pocket pistol is less likely to strike an object than a pistol carried in a duty holster, and therefore puts into question how appropriate it is to say one “needs” 12+” of penetration to be effective. For me, “wants” is a better word than “needs” here.

My next point of contention revolves around the way a FMJ round in a pocket pistol actually performs in terms of hitting its point of aim after striking an object. For example, it might be reasonable to expect that a 155gr .40 caliber bullet traveling at 1200fps could strike a forearm, penetrate it, and continue on to the center of mass area of the target (which was the original POA). Now let us imagine a 71gr .32 caliber FMJ traveling at 800fps doing the same thing. The tiny bullet would now have to smash its way through several inches of flesh and arm bones, then remain relatively undeflected and strike the target beyond. Since even 20 degrees of deflection would probably be enough to push the bullet out of the path of the COM (2.5+" off the POA if the arm is 7.0" away when struck), would the additional penetrative qualities of the FMJ ammo (over JHP ammo in the same caliber) truly be able to inflict a wound in the vital area it is touted as being able to reach? I for one find this to be very unlikely. So what advantage does the FMJ really hold over the JHP in this caliber (or similar ones), given you don’t think (as I do) it can hit the intended target after striking an intermediate object? Pretty much none.

The whole idea of “needing” 12+” of penetration is based on a hypothetical argument to begin with, as noted above. “What if” I strike an arm or barrier? But what happens if you don’t hit such an object? “What if” you surprise your assailant (who didn’t expect an armed response to his threat), and shoot him right in the COM area you aimed for, but by sheer poor luck fail to strike anything vital by a fraction of an inch? Here, an expanding bullet might well have torn a chunk out of a nearby organ or major blood vessel, but the unexpanded FMJ narrowly missed due to its smaller wound channel. IMO, this is more likely than having to shoot through an arm and still hit the target. Hypothetical arguments can work both ways to make a point. It seems to me that if you strike the target in a vital area with a pocket pistol bullet, what you really need is 6-7” of penetration to do the job, and anything extra is a bonus. The more the bullet expands, the better the chance of hitting something vital once in there, and also of doing more trauma that will hopefully disable the attacker as quickly as possible. I for one would prefer my ammo to fail because it missed the target and struck a barrier, rather than have it fail after a well-placed shot just didn’t do much damage.

So for an extra few inches of penetration, are you still willing to give up any hope of expansion? Everyone must decide for themselves, but make my carry loads something with a hollow nose!

[oldgranpa]

nice discussion, pocketgun, and I'll add a few comments..

the FBI magic 12" requirement is disputed by such agencies as the Border Patrol that says 9 - 10" (gelatin) penetration is adequate in all cases they deal with. So 10" gelatin equates to approx. only 7" in the wetpack. Nearly all our tests with JHP in the P3AT get 7" or more, everytime.

the .32acp doesn't do as well and a lot of the time JHP doesn't expand at all. Besides, the rimlock thing with JHP is a "Murphy's Law" thing. The only way to go with .32acp is FMJ. For those reasons I longer carry or own any .32 caliber firearms. Just my opinion, .32 sucks.

So the point is, go with .380 or higher and pick whatever ammo functions best in your pistol. If you don't care about over penetration and any legal problems that may occur, then FMJ is fine. The big advantage with JHP is the expansion that increases your chances of hitting vitals in the BG by over 75%. I like the odds with JHP.

Cheers,
og

[pocketgun]

Yeah, I think .380ACP is easily the best of the pocket pistol cartridges, and I just don't see tossing away expansion by using FMJ here.

As for .32ACP, it seems to me what is needed is hotter ammo and better bullets. Maybe some Clark-style handloads using Gold Dots? In any event, if JHP doesn't expand, it ends up performing like FMJ anyway, and rimlock is easily preventable. Just a guess, but I bet the round nose stuff is more likely to deflect off a bone than the flat nose FMJ or JHP ammo - both of which should use anti-rimlock kits.

Did you ever do wetpack tests for .32ACP? Interesting info on the Border Patrol - I hadn't heard of that.

[oldgranpa]

Lots of wetpack tests on .32acp in the Articles Section.

And, BTW, all JHP OK for .380 except Win Silvertip...obsolete ammo. Their new SXT is much better. And for LEO's, Win Ranger is great.

og

[pocketgun]

Don't know how I missed those tests.

The CorBon did pretty well, and would have been my choice for carry in a P-32 if I had one anyway. I would like to handload some Gold Dots to CorBon specs, as I suspect the additional velocity would allow the bullet to expand properly with no fear of jacket separation.

One thing I didn't mention in my original post in favor of the JHP is that it also tends to be the hottest and best quality ammo, whereas the FMJ tends to be the cheap stuff.

The FMJ penetrated 9+" in wetpack, but the CorBon made it 6.5-7.0" and expanded. That gives me a much better chance of damaging a bad guy enough to end the fight quicker, considering it offers a 70% wider wound channel (at least for part of its length).

[markster]

***Warning: This post is only my opinion!***

Ok, I guess I'll weigh in here.

Besides the fact that FMJ feeds more reliably and is cheaper to use, I will contend that it usually over-penetrates and might not be as effective to stop or neutralize a threat.

I know that Law Enforcement Agencies use (almost) exclusively JHP #1, for effectively stopping a threat (one shot stops) and #2, to limit liability of over-penetration (damage to property and people).

Now I don't have the exact info in front of me, but the military uses FMJ because of a number of reasons. One that comes to mind is that with FMJ, if the victim isn't dead, it can tie up valuable forces that would otherwise be after you. Another is JHP causes far too much tissue damage to repair in field conditions. There are other reasons, some of which I will address shortly.

I am not an avid christian but was brought up in a home where my father and both grandfathers were preachers. I have learned a lot and hold many biblical principals to heart. It is in my estimation that using JHP is both brutal and inhumane. Why you ask?

A scripture comes to mind, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A BG may not survive my FMJ rounds if he accosts me but if he were to survive, he may see the error of his ways and change his behaviors. JHP may complicate his life greatly over FMJ. You may think he deserves it but change positions with him. If you were that bad guy would you want him using FMJ or JHP? I want to stop the threat but I do not want to harm him anymore than necessary (more tissue damage) after all, he is human just like you and me but has made some bad choices. God loves him just as much as anyone else.

Do you really want to stand before God on "Judgement Day" and have to defend your actions using HP's when FMJ would have done the job and this man possibly could have lived and found redemption? * (see side note)

I know this is not a view that has been discussed before but I would hope I never have to fire my weapon (I would if I had too) for the protection of myself or others and I for one do not want to regret using HP's and causing much more (massive) tissue damage when FMJ would have done the job. * (see side note)

*This is sort of, but not quite a moot point if the BG dies from my FMJ loads.*

To each his own opinions, what works for one does not necessarily work for others, but don't chastise a person for not conforming to your view of the world.


***Warning: This post is only my opinion!***

[pocketgun]

The whole point of using lethal force is to save your own life. Why not just carry pepper spray if you are opposed to harming your opponent? The justified use of lethal force assumes that the "bad guy" is trying to kill you in the first place - if he is not, don't shoot him, right? If I am going to kill someone (every time you shoot at someone, you must assume they will end up dead), I would prefer it to happen quickly so that he doesn't kill me or my loved one.

markster, how will you feel on Judgement Day if your use of marginal ammo results in the eventual death of a bad guy, but also gives him the time time to finish killing your wife/girlfiend/child/you? Maybe Marshall could add his two cents in here - his perspective as a pastor may help you decide.

[mr surveyor]

my opinion is that lethal force means lethal. Any firearm should be considered lethal and should be used only in cases that warrant lethal force. I do not have a single weapon in my possession that is set to stun. The idea of equal force is total B.S. Any life threatening situation, whether war or personal attacks requires greater force than is used against you.

I dread the day I actually have to act on my words.

[markster]

Well if you may not have surmised it, I will say it again, I am not opposed to using lethal force, just opposed to HP. And how do you know FMJ is marginal? Do you think the military uses marginal bullets? Will a FMJ bullet only marginally kill you? Let's not play the what if games here! Any bullet that comes out of a gun is lethal force! I'm prepared to use one type, you another. Let's leave it at that.