POLL .380 Ammo JHP or FMJ for self defense?

[SQLGeek]

I remember the first time I read Dr. Fackler's report. It was an eye opener. It was after reading it that I decided that (for me), fat and relatively slow bullets were a better bet than small and relatively fast bullets..............and then there's the .357 magnum.

Fat and slow bullets...sounds like a bullet modeled after me. I was looking soley at a 9mm for carry but now I'm not so sure.

This has been a very interesting thread, thank you folks.

[RPB]

That squares with my own little theory of the 3P's - Placement, Penetration and Persistence (ie. shoot him again if required).

3000 BC At that time there was a king in India who discovered the pressure points of man. He killed 100 slaves by sticking large needles into different parts of their bodies to locate the pressure points.
The needles were small (thin), slow moving (subsonic, under 1,000 FPs) and probably not over 15 inches long .... placement matters a lot.

[speedsix]

...were they hollow-pointed? goldeneyed? details, man, details...4860 years later, they came up with a weapon to fire 'em...I heard about it: the needle gun...

[RPB]

General rule as I understand it is heavier bullet weight = deeper penetration (I know that ignores powder type.amount etc/velocity)

looking at ammoengine, .380 acp .... group by "grain" ...the heaviest grain ones are indeed hollowpoints
http://www.ammoengine.com/find/ammo/.38 ... =1&group=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
99. PMC Starfire Gold Hollow Point 95 Hollow Point 20 $16.47 $0.82 SportsmansGuide
100. Remington Golden Saber Jacketed Hollow Point 102 Jacketed Hollow Point 25 $14.79 $0.59 CheaperThanDirt
101. Remington Hollow Point 102 Hollow Point 25 $19.26 $0.77 CheaperThanDirt
102. Remington Brass Jacketed Hollow Point 102 Jacketed Hollow Point 25 $19.57 $0.78 SportsmansGuide
103. Remington Golden Saber Brass Jacketed Hollow Point 102 Jacketed Hollow Point 25 $21.77 $0.87 SportsmansGuide
104. Remington Golden Saber Brass Jacketed Hollow Point 102 Jacketed Hollow Point


but .... there's more friction, quicker LOSS of weight in hollowpoints though, so they can penetrate less than a solid of the same weight

==================================================
Only hollowpoints feed well in most of my .380s SO
.380s i chamber the FN flat nosed +P Buffalo bore ... +P and heavy for penetration
"+P+ 100 grain flat nosed or 95 grain http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l= ... _list&c=29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and have a mag of heavy +P hollowpoints for followup


That's actually what I do... the hollowpoints depend on which round functions in which picky .380 gun I'm using ... several of mine are ammo finicky .

[Bulldog1911]

Oh - we're playing the "what if" game now.

Isn't that the basis for most of these test's and discussions?

I'm not arguing weather Dr. Fackler or Andy know their stuff. In fact, I believe they do. My original statement was in regards to the physics of the bullet exerting all of it's energy. Considering Dr. Fackler's knowledge, I don't think he would argue the laws of physics that state an object at rest has 0 kenetic energy???? Therefore if the bullet has come to rest inside someone/something it has exerted all of it's energy. You can post as many studies as you would like, but that won't change the laws of physics.

How the bullet preforms upon impact is a separate issue.

[boba]

Unless we're talking small game hunting, I would choose FMJ (actually TMC or something else with a meplat) over JHP for rounds with less than 350-400 Joules of energy.

[Mike from Texas]

Data is based on bullets recovered after firing three rounds of each load from each gun into calibrated 10-percent ballistic gelatin at a distance of 20 feet.

Speer 90gr Gold Dot - 5.88"
Winchester 95gr. SXT - 5.75"
Remington 102gr. Golden Saber - 6.02"

No way would I carry those. That's in gelatin; what will they do when they hit a rib-cage first?

Edit - added 3 more; getting better:

Hornady 90gr HP/XTP - 11.25"
Federal 90gr Personal Defense - 10.33"
PMC 95gr Starfire - 9.13"

Wow, that's pretty eye opening data. Speer Gold Dots are one of my favorite rounds. Apparently they are a poor choice for .380.

Looks like I'll be switching to Hornady XTP rounds. I always knew they were deep penetrating round, but that's a substantial difference over Gold Dots.

Thanks for the data Andy.

[Bulldog1911]

Energy is a scalar, not a vector ie. it has magnitude only. Once energy is turned into work, we're using it - work is a vector ie. it has magnitude and direction.

You can post as many studies as you would like, but that won't change the laws of physics.

Funny in light of the fact that you're trying to bend the laws of physics to suit your point; energy by itself does zero unless it's put to work. I honestly believe that you simply do not understand that fact of physics.

After reading back through my post's I don't believe I misused the term energy in any way.

Two bullets fired at a body 15" thick.
Your bullet penetrates to 6" inside the body and stops - mine penetrates all the way through 15" and exits out the back.
To use your terms, the first bullet may have, as you put it, "expended all its energy" and the one which over-penetrated still had energy remaining - right?

So, while your bullet at 6" deep might have been more efficient in using all its energy (100% usage) versus mine which used say, only 50% - the fact remains that my bullet which penetrated all the way through crushed and destroyed 9" more tissue through the body.

Quite simply, mine did more damage (even though, in your terms, it was less efficient in terms of using all of its energy).

Yours crushed a volume of 2.31 cubic inches of flesh (the volume of a .35 inch dia, 6 inch long cylinder) - mine crushed just under 5.8 cubic inches of flesh (the volume of a .35 inch dia, 15 inch long cylinder).

Quite frankly, if your bullet stopped earlier, it's because it was weaker - despite the fact that "it expended all its energy".

Agreed

Would it be even more efficient if your bullet stopped right on the guy's breastbone? Surely it would - it's "exerted all its energy", so it must be good - right?

No, It would be the same efficiency. 100% And that only works in the matrix.

Wound size matters - efficient use of energy? Who cares. Efficiency of energy is irrelevant; doing as much physical damage as possible along the way is.

[/quote]

As long as that damage is to the person intended, then I agree. But as I stated before, I don't want to risk collateral damage. I know you don't like the "what-if" game, but suppose the threat was in your house with your kid in the bedroom behind the bad guy? What if it's a skinny crack head 10" thick.

Irregardless (yes, that's a word), Just giving my 2 cents.

[GrillKing]

Oh - we're playing the "what if" game now.

Isn't that the basis for most of these test's and discussions?

I'm not arguing weather Dr. Fackler or Andy know their stuff. In fact, I believe they do. My original statement was in regards to the physics of the bullet exerting all of it's energy. Considering Dr. Fackler's knowledge, I don't think he would argue the laws of physics that state an object at rest has 0 kenetic energy???? Therefore if the bullet has come to rest inside someone/something it has exerted all of it's energy. You can post as many studies as you would like, but that won't change the laws of physics.

How the bullet preforms upon impact is a separate issue.

The above is true.

Fact: A bullit that stops inside a body has expended all its energy.
Fact: A bullit that passes through a body has not expended all its energy.

Anyone who says otherwise is absolutely incorrect. This is basic (Freshman) physics.

Now, which is more effective to best perform the required task is beyond my abilities to understand or articulate. I suspect that hollowpoints are generally more effective. I also suspect that generally volume of internal damage is the important factor, not length of travel. I suspect that internal bleeding is the deciding factor in life or death, not the number of external (entrance/exit) holes that there may be.

A narrower tunnel all the way through vs a wider tunnel that ends in the body?? I don't know. Of course one or the other could be more effective in any specific case depending on where it hits and what it passes through.

But I am not a Doctor. I am an Engineer and I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express 4 nights last week!!

[kyreb]

Could not vote. I carry PowRball. Feeds great and expands well.