For Those Interested in Defensive Pistol Effectiveness

The following is taken from another forum which, and is taken from still
another forum, one primarily for use by law enforcement personnel. It
provides interesting information to those interested in the subject. It is
not, and is not posted with the intent of making it, a pro versus anti gun
issue. I know that it will be perceived that way, and turned into that kind
of discussion quickly, but I urge you to consider it for its informational
value only.

For those interested, which probably includes anyone that will actually read
and consider the information in the quoted message. pay particular attention
to the link to the FBI report. The report is, at least for now, available to
anyone that wants it. I've seen it before, but did not have a copy. Now I
do.

All that follows is someone else's opinion. Don't blame the messanger if you
don't like the message.

Lee

When comparing well designed duty handgun ammunition, there are minimal
differences in penetration depths and temporary cavity effects, as noted
below in the gel shots by Doug Carr:



As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45
ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In
addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through
intermediate barriers. For some, the incremental advantages of the larger
calibers are offset by weapon platform characteristics. As is quite obvious
from the photo above, NONE of the common service pistol calibers generate
temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue
damage. Anyone interested in this topic should read and periodically
re-read, "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" by Urey Patrick of the
FBI FTU, as this remains the single best discussion of the wound ballistic
requirements of handguns used for self-defense -- it is available at:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm .



Keeping in mind that handguns generally offer poor incapacitation potential,
bullets with effective terminal performance are available in all of the most
commonly used duty pistol calibers-pick the one that you shoot most
accurately, that is most reliable in the type of pistol you choose, and best
suits you likely engagement scenarios.

The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can
be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use:

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 105 & 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (Q4364)

..40 S&W:
Barnes XPB 140 & 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP
Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)
Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)
Winchester Partition Gold 165 gr JHP (RA401P)
Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)
Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)
Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (Q4355)

..45 ACP:
Barnes XPB 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)
Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

Notes:
-- Obviously, clone loads using the same bullet at the same velocity work
equally well (ie. Black Hills ammo using Gold Dot bullets, Corbon loads
using Barnes XPB bullets, etc.)

-- Bullet designs like the Silver Tip, Hydra-Shok, and Black Talon were
state of the art 10 or 15 years ago. Modern ammunition which has been
designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is
significantly superior to the older designs. The bullets in the Federal
Classic and Hydrashok line are outperformed by other ATK products such as
the Federal Tactical and HST, as well as the Speer Gold Dot; likewise
Winchester Ranger Talons are far superior to the old Black Talons or
civilian SXT's.

----------------------------------------

Basically all the standard service calibers work when fed good quality
ammunition. The platform picked tends to dictate the caliber. For example,
Glocks and Sigs tend to run best in 9 mm; the S&W M&P is the first .40 S&W
pistol that seems to offer an ideal ergonomic and shooter friendly package;
while a properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is a
superb, unparalleled choice for the dedicated user willing to spend a
significant amount of money to get it properly initially set-up and
considerable time to maintain it. For folks who want a .45 ACP pistol, but
don't want to invest the funds and effort into getting a good 1911, they
would be better served with a S&W .45 ACP M&P, HK45, S&W 4566, or possibly
the SA .45 ACP XD.

Whatever you choose, make sure you fire at least 500 and preferably 1000
failure free shots through your pistol prior to using it for duty. If your
pistol cannot fire at least 1000 consecutive shots without a malfunction,
something is wrong and it is not suitable for duty/self-defense use.

------------------------------------------

The keys are:

-- Cultivate a warrior mindset
-- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills
with regular ongoing practice
-- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
-- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in
sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the
nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.

Call P. Lee Bell at work and he will fill you in.

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tRPEj.32966$by3.12563@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..

<el snippo>

FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT DISSEMINATION ONLY

<dos el snippo>

> The keys are:

> -- Cultivate a warrior mindset
> -- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills
> with regular ongoing practice
> -- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
> -- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in
> sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the
> nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.

Shit.

I like .45's

Scott wrote

> Shit.
>
> I like .45's

For good reason. The FBI report doesn't conclude much, but it does pretty
clearly support Doug's position on penetration and both of your positions on
diameter.

Essentially, a minimum of 12 inches of penetration is required and more is
better. Doug places a lot of emphasis on penetration of other materials
before reaching the subject. I don't place much emphasis on that at all. We
all consider penetration of the body to be important, as does the FBI. It
seems clear that, all other conditions being met, that the larger diameter
bullet will be more reliable. What's not as clear, is my contention that a
bullet that starts out smaller, but with similar energy, that expands to the
same size, that penetrates adequately, should be nearly as effective if not
equally so.

At any rate, the issue between us has never been whether or not the .45 was
better, but whether the 9mm was effective too.

One thing that surprises me is that the FBI report is pretty clearly
dismisses the issue of over penetration. Their reasons bother me a lot. It's
no comfort that the majority of their rounds do not hit the subject, making
over penetration kind of moot. That an innocent bystander might be the
first thing a bullet encounters is not exactly a positive thing in my mind.
Also, the lack of successful legal action by an innocent bystander hit by a
bullet that has passed through a subject isn't the point either. We're
talking about injury here, not money. Besides, I'm pretty sure that, when an
innocent bystander has been hit by a police bullet, settlement took place
outside of the court system.

There are other things in the report that I found very interesting. One of
them is the discussion of bullet design. The results are not very favorable
relative to frangible bullets. That's a shame, since they were designed to
address the apparent inability to hit the target. It was, however, quite
favorable relative to Speer Gold Dot bullets, which happens to be what I
carry. I'm not sure why they are so superior to the older Hydra Shok design,
but it seems that they are.

The other thing I found quite interesting is the statement of the purpose
for handgun use by the police. "The handgun is the primary weapon in law
enforcement. It is the one weapon any officer or agent can be expected to
have available whenever needed. Its purpose is to apply deadly force to not
only protect the life of the officer and the lives of others, but to prevent
serous physical harm to them as well." That is almost word for word, the
standard of use contained in Florida's concealed weapon laws and in those of
most other states. I like the fact that it makes it pretty clear that:
1. The handgun is the only weapon likely to be available whenever needed,
whether it's by the police or by a legal civilian.
2. That it's express purpose is the application of deadly force for self
defense, the defense of others, and to prevent serious bodily injury, and
3. That the basis for use by the police is identical to the basis for use by
the legally armed civilian.

The only real differences between the basis for use by the police and use by
a legally armed citizen, at least in my opinion, are that the police officer
is expected to look for trouble and to deal with it when he finds it and
that the civilian is specifically not allowed to look for trouble or under
any compulsion, other than their own moral and ethical standards, to deal
with it if encountered. I like the common elements and the distinction. I
think both are important.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0HREj.13213$%15.1073@bignews7.bellsouth.net.. .
> Scott wrote
>
> > Shit.
> >
> > I like .45's
>
> For good reason. The FBI report doesn't conclude much, but it does pretty
> clearly support Doug's position on penetration and both of your positions
on
> diameter.
>
> Essentially, a minimum of 12 inches of penetration is required and more is
> better. Doug places a lot of emphasis on penetration of other materials
> before reaching the subject. I don't place much emphasis on that at all.
We
> all consider penetration of the body to be important, as does the FBI. It
> seems clear that, all other conditions being met, that the larger diameter
> bullet will be more reliable. What's not as clear, is my contention that
a
> bullet that starts out smaller, but with similar energy, that expands to
the
> same size, that penetrates adequately, should be nearly as effective if
not
> equally so.
>
> At any rate, the issue between us has never been whether or not the .45
was
> better, but whether the 9mm was effective too.
>
> One thing that surprises me is that the FBI report is pretty clearly
> dismisses the issue of over penetration. Their reasons bother me a lot.
It's
> no comfort that the majority of their rounds do not hit the subject,
making
> over penetration kind of moot. That an innocent bystander might be the
> first thing a bullet encounters is not exactly a positive thing in my
mind.
> Also, the lack of successful legal action by an innocent bystander hit by
a
> bullet that has passed through a subject isn't the point either. We're
> talking about injury here, not money. Besides, I'm pretty sure that, when
an
> innocent bystander has been hit by a police bullet, settlement took place
> outside of the court system.
>
> There are other things in the report that I found very interesting. One of
> them is the discussion of bullet design. The results are not very
favorable
> relative to frangible bullets. That's a shame, since they were designed to
> address the apparent inability to hit the target. It was, however, quite
> favorable relative to Speer Gold Dot bullets, which happens to be what I
> carry. I'm not sure why they are so superior to the older Hydra Shok
design,
> but it seems that they are.
>
> The other thing I found quite interesting is the statement of the purpose
> for handgun use by the police. "The handgun is the primary weapon in law
> enforcement. It is the one weapon any officer or agent can be expected to
> have available whenever needed. Its purpose is to apply deadly force to
not
> only protect the life of the officer and the lives of others, but to
prevent
> serous physical harm to them as well." That is almost word for word, the
> standard of use contained in Florida's concealed weapon laws and in those
of
> most other states. I like the fact that it makes it pretty clear that:
> 1. The handgun is the only weapon likely to be available whenever needed,
> whether it's by the police or by a legal civilian.
> 2. That it's express purpose is the application of deadly force for self
> defense, the defense of others, and to prevent serious bodily injury, and
> 3. That the basis for use by the police is identical to the basis for use
by
> the legally armed civilian.
>
> The only real differences between the basis for use by the police and use
by
> a legally armed citizen, at least in my opinion, are that the police
officer
> is expected to look for trouble and to deal with it when he finds it and
> that the civilian is specifically not allowed to look for trouble or under
> any compulsion, other than their own moral and ethical standards, to deal
> with it if encountered. I like the common elements and the distinction.
I
> think both are important.

I carry a M21.

It is easily hidden, no one knows I have it, ever, and if I have to use it,
I know how and why.

It is just as deadly as a .45, if I press it against the jacket covering
your rib cage and light it off.

This barrel and slide doesn't unlock with pressure from the muzzle, like all
variants of the Browning design do.

Including and especially Glocks.

As you know, it all boils down to intent and mindset.

Scott wrote:
>
> I carry a M21.
>

I didn't think you carried or have you got your stories mixed up again ?

> It is easily hidden, no one knows I have it, ever, and if I have to use it,
> I know how and why.
>

If you have to use it ? One of your wet dreams ?

> It is just as deadly as a .45, if I press it against the jacket covering
> your rib cage and light it off.
>

Why don't you stick it up your ass and "light it off".

"Buell" <Buell@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fs13qf$j7n$1@aioe.org...
> Scott wrote:
> >
> > I carry a M21.
> >
>
> I didn't think you carried or have you got your stories mixed up again ?
>
> > It is easily hidden, no one knows I have it, ever, and if I have to use
it,
> > I know how and why.
> >
>
> If you have to use it ? One of your wet dreams ?
>
> > It is just as deadly as a .45, if I press it against the jacket covering
> > your rib cage and light it off.
> >
>
> Why don't you stick it up your ass and "light it off".

Better yet, you stand in front of me, I'll hand it to you, and if you can
figure out how to use it, you can back up your punk fucking mouth.

I'll shove it up your ass, and *not* light it off.

You miserable, spineless piece of shit.

Buell wrote

> I didn't think you carried or have you got your stories mixed up again ?

It's not Scott that's confused.