Question about carry ammo?

[wo5m]

Being relatively new to the gun community I’m reading up on all the gun gossip over the years. One of the stories that I love to read about is how the media over publicized the facts about the Black Talon’s in the early 90’s and how the rounds where voluntarily discontinued.

Looking back at my CHL class over a year ago one of the points that my instructor kept addressing was the use of ammo. His advice was not to carry anything that wasn’t standard and not commonly used. Currently I use Federal Hydrashok, however it’s the time of year to shoot and replace my carry allow. In my readings on the Black Talon myths I discovered the Winchester makes the Ranger round that is virtually the same as the Black Talon’s. Is the Ranger considered an inappropriate round for carry? In the event I have to defend myself would it legally look bad to be using a Ranger round?

I may just continue to carry the Hydrashok jus because I know it works and I will not get in the trouble with it. Any thoughts?

Randy
wo5m

[carlson1]

I carry the Rangers, but that is not the answer to your question. I know that many LEO's carry the Rangers. I am not for sure if the helps us out with a jury or not, but at least I can say I am just trying to stop the attack like the police would do.

[Liberty]

Being relatively new to the gun community I’m reading up on all the gun gossip over the years. One of the stories that I love to read about is how the media over publicized the facts about the Black Talon’s in the early 90’s and how the rounds where voluntarily discontinued.

Looking back at my CHL class over a year ago one of the points that my instructor kept addressing was the use of ammo. His advice was not to carry anything that wasn’t standard and not commonly used. Currently I use Federal Hydrashok, however it’s the time of year to shoot and replace my carry allow. In my readings on the Black Talon myths I discovered the Winchester makes the Ranger round that is virtually the same as the Black Talon’s. Is the Ranger considered an inappropriate round for carry? In the event I have to defend myself would it legally look bad to be using a Ranger round?

I may just continue to carry the Hydrashok jus because I know it works and I will not get in the trouble with it. Any thoughts?

Randy
wo5m

there are a whole series of "Ranger" Ammo different loads and different calibers. I use Federal Premium Personal Defense 9 mm 124 Grain Hydra Shock. How could any jury be offended by a "Personal Defense" round? I personally dont believe there is much difference between ammo of similar catagories. A 124 grain 9mm hydra-shock will behave pretty much the same as a 124 grain 9mm ranger in any practical real life situation.

That being said. I think I'm going to top off one of my mags with Corbons after reading a recent thread here.

[longtooth]

Liberty has an excellent post. They will all behave about the same. The important thing is which one feeds & cycles best in your particular carry weapon.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In Texas and outside Ronny Earle country (Travis County), I don't believe for one second that the type of ammo you use will even be brought up to a jury by the prosecution, much less have an impact on the jurors (no pun intended). That said, if you are concerned about effective ammo that is more likely to end the deadly threat against you and/or your family and in so doing not penetrate your attacker and possibly endanger innocent people, then look to what the police departments are using, as they share your goals. Winchester Ranger ammo is used by many departments.

By no means am I suggesting that there is any truly "effective" handgun ammo, but some are more likely to perform better. As has often been written here, shot placement is everything.

Chas.

[rodnocker1]

I have always thought it funny (funny "strange", not funny "HAHA") that alot of people believe that the use of "HydraShock", "Black Talon", or what ever other brand name a company chooses to use for it's Personal Defense Rounds (PDR's) is over extreme or too deadly a round to use. As Charles said and as most of us (those that carry, not your general "informed/knowledgeable" public) already know, the reason(s) to carry these types of rounds (hollow point) are just that. They stop or are more likely to stop the "bad guy" from further being a threat but not overpenetrate and injure any innocent bystanders. We can thank alot of this general disinformation about PDR's (I believe) on our media because , as we all know, they never over sensationalize anything to get readers/viewers and they always tell the truth. I have heard alot of people talk about how "deadly" these rounds are until you explain why FMJ or hardball ammo is actually worse to use in these instances. Those with an open mind can usually grasp the situation and reason, those with a closed (i.e. brainwashed/media convinced) mind will never see no matter what you do or can prove. I have been told that there are cities and/or states where PDR's (hollow points of whatever brand) are illegal but I personally don't know of any. Steel core/armor piercing rounds, on the other hand, are a different matter.

[lrb111]

I use JHP for several reasons. First and foremost I saw on Mythbusters how round nosed 9mm went through over ten feet of water, while a hollow point only went a little ways into the water.
That showed me that hollow points break up and are less dangerous.

and I will look straight at the jury as I say that, to see which ones are nodding in agreement, because they saw the same show.

Heck, the judge might even nod that he saw that episode.

[Pickpocket]

Personally, I alternate 230gr JHP and FMJ in the magazine.

JHP's don't fragment, per se - although fragments can break off during the deformation/expansion.

Whatever round you use there's enough information out there to support the idea that while you may not what OVERpenetration, you certainly don't want UNDERpenetration, either. The actual danger from overpenetration is - in my humble opinion - usually quite exagerrated.

Think about this: it takes a round the same amount of force to puncture human skin on the exit side as it does to penetrate 4 inches of muscle, and on the entry side it is equivilant to 2 inches of muscle. Just to get in and out of the body, a round would have to have - at a bare minimum - 6 inches of penetration. Add to that all of the muscle tissue that the round would have to travel through, and to any bone that the round may hit, and subtract that total from - say - a 230 gr JHP moving at 800-900 fps at the point of impact (and slowing down as it travels through the body). Even then, a standard, already expanded JHP moving at 250fps will only penetrate human tissue 50% of the time.

All this to say that the REAL danger isn't overpenetration, rather it's the shots that we miss that are more likely to kill a bystander. And - with such a lousy statistical hit rate of less than 18% in a gunfight, I would suggest that overpenetration is by far the least of our worries. As many have stated: shot placement is key. If you can't hit the target, it doesn't really matter what round you have in there, eh?

Charles can smack me if I'm out of my lane here, but in Texas one does NOT have protection under the law if an innocent bystander is injured with a round from one's weapon - regardless of the circumstance. A jury will NOT care what round you used - only that you hit someone that you did not intend. That is usually the product of a poorly aimed round, not the "magic bullet"...

I might even suggest that the only time ammunition choice may come back to haunt you is where a BG who was "stopped" but not "killed" decides to sue - claiming that you're a raving lunatic carrying ammunition designed to maim and cause suffering.

For the purposes of this thread - and the original question - Liberty is correct. They are all going to behave pretty much the same. Anyone who debates the performance of Hydrashok vs. Ranger XST vs. Speer GoldDot is - in my humble opinion - either misguided or far more technical in their ammunition selection than I am.

[HankB]

IMHO there's going to be little difference in performance between the premium lines of Federal, Winchester, Remington, Speer, or whoever.

As far as your ammo being an issue in front of a jury, unless you've dipped your bullets in rattlesnake venom or something, a good lawyer will be able to defuse the opposition's arguments . . . in fact, if ammo CHOICE becomes an issue, it's probably a sign that the other side is "reaching" in terms of making a case.

But ANY choice can be an issue . . .

* Use FMJ, and you're a Rambo wannabe, using MILITARY ammo.

* Use JHP of any type, and you're using ". . . ammo banned for use in war . . ."

* Use the same ammo as local cops, an you're ". . . a Walter Mitty cop wannabe . . ."

* Use handloads, and ". . . regular ammo isn't deadly enough . . ."

* Use cheap promotional ammo, and you're ". . . a budget-minded killer . . ."

And so forth and so on.

Best be sure that in any shooting you're involved in, you're in the RIGHT both legally and ethically.

[Texasdoc]

HankB you have a great point, its damn if you do or Damn if you don't. I thinking using what works and shoots well in your gun is the right ammo to carry. As for Charles has a good point about Travis county,I liked way to close to Ronnie"I want to take your guns "Earle and know how he is on hte Police in the county.

So I carry Ranger 180gr in my Glock 23 and they function and shoot well in it .


300shooter

[Jeremae]

Regarding the penetration of JHP....

At this years State IDPA match....

I shot a 230 JHP THROUGH a 2x4 and scored on target aprox 10 feet behind it... (the Bus stage for those in the know)

[txinvestigator]

Regarding the penetration of JHP....

At this years State IDPA match....

I shot a 230 JHP THROUGH a 2x4 and scored on target aprox 10 feet behind it... (the Bus stage for those in the know)

An individual shot in those conditions really means nothing as far as a particular rounds ability to stop.

[txinvestigator]

Personally, I alternate 230gr JHP and FMJ in the magazine.

JHP's don't fragment, per se - although fragments can break off during the deformation/expansion.

Sure they do. I've seen em.

Whatever round you use there's enough information out there to support the idea that while you may not what OVERpenetration, you certainly don't want UNDERpenetration, either. The actual danger from overpenetration is - in my humble opinion - usually quite exagerrated.

Think about this: it takes a round the same amount of force to puncture human skin on the exit side as it does to penetrate 4 inches of muscle, and on the entry side it is equivilant to 2 inches of muscle. Just to get in and out of the body, a round would have to have - at a bare minimum - 6 inches of penetration.

You are forgetting the mechanics of fluid shock and temporary cavity.

I might even suggest that the only time ammunition choice may come back to haunt you is where a BG who was "stopped" but not "killed" decides to sue - claiming that you're a raving lunatic carrying ammunition designed to maim and cause suffering.

I completely disagree. In my expereince, a dead bad guys family is much more likely to sue you you than a bad guy who lives is likely to sue you.

Anyone who debates the performance of Hydrashok vs. Ranger XST vs. Speer GoldDot is - in my humble opinion - either misguided or far more technical in their ammunition selection than I am.

yup

[Pickpocket]

Sure they do. I've seen em.

Perhaps I should have said that they're not "designed" to fragment; especially since significantly higher velocities are required to have a round fragment reliably. I didn't mean to suggest that they CAN'T fragment. Sorry.

You are forgetting the mechanics of fluid shock and temporary cavity.

This is one of the biggest contentions in the debate on terminal ballistics. I am not convinced that hydrostatic shock is really a factor in the wounding capacity of low velocity rounds, and enough evidence exists to suggest that the effectiveness of the temporary cavity has been overstated in the past. Due to the resilient and elastic nature of most human tissue, temporary cavity may simply be just that: temporary. The tissue within the temporary cavity is not destroyed, it is pushed aside -
It is a very real possibility that the only things truly damaged by temporary cavity are inelastic tissue - i.e. heart, liver.

I completely disagree. In my expereince, a dead bad guys family is much more likely to sue you you than a bad guy who lives is likely to sue you.

I think you got me there. I'll agree with that.