The Kel-Tec Range

[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.

[markster]

[Flyer]

[pocketgun]

[Flyer]

[Flyer]

[markster]

Thankyou Pocket and Flyer for responding back

Pocket, I do not intend for a BG do die a slow death. My reasoning for FMJ was so the BG may live and find redemption. When I made that statement tho, I wasn't considering the awesome power of God. God could save someone shot with a bazooka if he so desired.

Flyer, I do have more of a grasp on scripture than you allude to.
I have been under the tutolage of my father my entire life. He passed regular college for Bible college and has studied the Bible extensively in Greek, Hebrew as well as our English language. I am glad you addressed the problems our military are having with FMJ, I was not aware of this.

My whole objection stems not from using the best bullet design to stop the threat but from things I have read on this forum and in gun magazins. Everybody is searching for the meanest baddest bullet to put the ugliest, biggest hole and cause the most destructive damage there is in the BG. I know the BG is a BG but it just seems (and I fall into this sometimes) that we forget the BG is a human like us but has just been making the wrong choices. Believe me, I would love to effectively stop the threat with my very first shot.

If you look at using HP's to stop the threat as effectively as possible, I do buy into that. If you want to use HP's cause it makes the biggest hole, tears up the insides the most, etc etc, I have a problem with that.

Personally if I were to use HP's, I would want to use HP's not because it f**** you up the most but because it stops you the quickest. Do you understand where I'm coming from now? I may have not been as clear in earlier posts.

Excellent discussion BTW

[Flyer]

Yep, I understand what you mean - armchair commandos concocting the next "Nuclear-Tipped HyperPoint" bullet that will stop a Humvee full of illegal immigrants from five thousand yards. I've met plenty of these guys - thankfully, their numbers seem to be shrinking as CCW laws begin spreading and they finally realize the reality of what they're talking about: human life.

[oldgranpa]

Very interesting discussion. A few points...
1. Marshall (his first name, also known as preacherman) has addressed the self defense issue for "Christians" on the new web site. Very clearly written, IMO.
2. Evan Marshall, (the other "Marshall") did a little better job in his third book..."A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition"...where he gives some actual street results for various calibers. In the .380 section he shows only results for JHP ammunition which are actual results to stop an opponent. No stops using FMJ are shown. As much as we criticize EM, his third book makes excellent reading. Best source is Amazon.com for a discount. Also, he lists his "ratings" for various calibers, again in the .380 section JHP gets around 70% based on actual shooting, while FMJ gets 55%.

So FMJ isn't out of question, just that JHP is so much better.

I tend to lean in the direction of better odds, if it's my life on the line. Don't you?

og...who tried to support EM a long, long time ago until he became overly psychotic about any little disagreement. Cheez

[kt3211]

What a grate discussion! It was mentioned earlier that the military uses FMJ to wound rather than kill. Not so. They are required by law.

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body. This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of The Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, and weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. Despite the ban on military use, hollow point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation. In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to hunt game with ammunition that does not expand, and some target ranges also forbid full metal jacket ammunition.

[oldgranpa]

thanks for that info, kt3211, I've added you to my list of true patriots!
og...................JHP rules!

[Kankujoe]

Great Thread!!! I'm glad that I found this forum... lots of good and useful info... and info that makes you think...

IMO it is very necessary to know your personal position and have facts to back it up. It would be an absolute mess to have to defend yourself in court (if needed) if you were not convinced of your own position.

[unit1069]

Isn't it a part of the Geneva Convention that military weapons can only hold FMJ cartridges? I'm too lazy to check, but I think that's correct. A point for markster would be that by common treaty governments acknowledge that soldiers can use lethal force but not force that would guarantee a massive wound which would lessen the survival chances, once the enemy was down and out. I don't consider myself a good Christian by any means, but I can appreciate markster's concern.

On the other hand an enemy soldier (in contrast to a mass murdering jihad terrorist) may very well be an upstanding citizen in civilian life, like the opponent he faces. This, in my opinion, is not the same as facing a criminal or deranged person bent on murdering you or your family. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the same criminal or lunatic threatening you surely will be --- or maybe already has been --- a mortal danger to others if you don't stop him from murdering you. Nobody can draw their weapon in CCW situations unless they are forced into a life-or-death situation and in my opinion I feel any life-or-death situation facing me would make it my moral duty to stop the perp in the most effective way available. Not with the outright intent to kill him; but with the intent to use the most effective means to stop him. If that means JHP ammo, so be it. If JHP means greater chance of death for the perp, so be it, because my primary intent isn't to kill but to stop him the best way possible from murdering me (and possibly others if he succeeds in killing me.)

[unit1069]

[Flyer]

Actually, it's my understanding that the 9mm Luger (NATO, now) was indeed designed to injure rather than kill. Of course, this predated the Geneva accords. I'm pretty sure that's why the Luger was chambered in 9mm rather than 7.62 or .45 ACP (yep, the German army actually considered it and even submitted Lugers in .45 during the 1911 tests).
The idea was that since a handgun (for the Germans, anyhow) was considered an ineffective weapon, and apparently were used by common soldiers instead of just Officers in combat, the fact that an injured soldier took five more out of combat to care for him rather than just taking HIM out by killing him was a good idea from a military perspective.
However, OUR soldiers have throughout history used their sidearms for protection up close and personal, and the .45 slug is infinitely better at putting the guy down for good if FMJ is used. It appears that even today in Iraq a full mag from a Beretta isn't enough to wound the guy bad enough to keep him from crawling away, either to eventually live or just die someplace else.
I'd guess this is the main reason our military is going back to the .45 ACP and the 1911! Yep, it's already in use (brand-new production Kimbers, I believe) by several elite units.
Flyer

[oldgranpa]

warfare has changed so much in the past few years that now we are fighting crazed terrorists and not just "nice" troops like us. So there are no "fair" rules anymore. When jhad can use IED's and suicide bombers are we supposed to just "wound" them and let them go home?
Agreed, handguns in war were just for the leader's last resort protection in case an enemy broke through the lines. Not used for direct assault weapons. So what does it matter if FMJ or JHP is used, especially when trying to stop a crazy terrorist?

When we consider the M-16 and it's ammo in use today, the velocity results in severe fragmentation of the bullet within 4 - 6" penetration. This certainly is not the same as the old "Geneva" FMJ rounds in the M1 30/06 or the Mauser 8mm which were true FMJ and barely expanded.
Here is a link to Fackler's wound page with Figures showing wound profiles for typical calibers....(clik on the Fig no's)
http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

I'm all for our military using high velocity ammo that nearly explodes inside the wound when it hits the terrorist. Blow them clear to their "heaven" with 20 virgins. See Fig. 8 in the link.

Handguns for us civilians have a whole different purpose and we are liable to a different set of laws. Opinions vary.

og......who ain't no expert, but can throw the BS around.

[Old Hawg]

Although the original intention was for the pistol (and later the M-1 carbine) to be for use as a back-up weapon, the nature of combat in OIF has led to increasing use of sidearms as primary weapons in clearing buildings - and the 9mm with FMJ ammo has shown itself to be woefully inadequate. There has been an awful lot of documentation of terrorists, possibly drugged, who have shrugged off multiple hits with 9mm FMJ and kept on coming. I just saw that DoD has dropped the idea of bringing back the .45, a proven man-stopper with any kind of ammo, much to the disapproval of the troops, who are screaming for them. Of course, the knucklehead who made the decision not to bring back the .45 is sitting safely behind a cozy desk at the Pentagon, isn't he?

[markster]

Originally SOCOM (Special Operation Command) wanted new guns and then the Army went in a joint venture with them. They had problems agreeing on what they wanted so the army dropped from the program. SOCOM continued but eventually folded. Now individual units within SOCOM can purchase what they want which was how it was before this all started.