What was all that talk about bullet size last week?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Hard cast or jacketed semi wad cutter shape is the gold standard for killing with a handgun.

Bears and Mule Deers, sure.

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Over 40 years of hunting much tougher game than humans have proven it to be highly effiicent. .

Excessive penetration is not thought to be an aid to lethality, nor is an inability to fragment or expand. Solids are popular for big game hunting because they must defeat extremely dense bone structure, thick layers of muscle, and thick hides.

Humans are in no way as toughly constructed as a Mule dear. Almost all US military rifle caliber FMJ ammunition fragments and expands and/or yaws fairly regularly. It is considered a desirable feature.

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

One of the reasons for the origin of the .45 cal 1911 was because smaller round nose lead handgun bullets were not stopping the natives. When adopted the standard military load was a 230 gr. full metal jacketed round nose. Few stopping problems were recorded for this load. So we know that large caliber full metal jacket round nose works.

We know that it punches neat ice-pick like holes in the target. We know that often it is lethal, and that often it is not. Terminal ballistics is very open to interpretation and debate, and the fact that any give round can blatantly fail or spectacularly succeed in living targets sure doesn't help.

BTW, the commonly repeated Phillipines insurrection origin of the .45 ACP is a lot less straight forward than is usually let on.

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

And Jeff is correct. The US military sniper rifle rounds are not constructed to expand. They are "hollow points" for aerodynamic purposes only (you would think someone with a sig line of sniper might know that!).

I did not state otherwise, i stated that the US military uses JHPs for several roles, Sniping was but one role i mentioned. The US Military has reserved the right to use JHP in law enforcement and Counter-Terror operations, and is not a signatory to the Hague conventions in any case.

I think i know full well US Military's policy regarding Sniper use of HP's.

See next post:

[m21sniper]

Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

SUBJECT: Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition

DATE: 23 September 1985

1. Summary.

This memorandum considers whether United States Army Snipers may employ match-grade, "open-tip" ammunition in combat or other special missions. It concludes that such ammunition does not violate the law of war obligations of the United States, and may be employed in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.

2. Background.

Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail For more than a decade two bullets have been available for use by the United States Army Marksmanship Unit in match competition in its 7.62mm rifles. The M118 is a 173-grain match grade full metal jacket boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet, while the M852 is the Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with an open tip. Although the accuracy of the M118 has been reasonably good, though at times erratic, independent bullet comparisons by the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard marksmanship training units have established unequivocally the superior accuracy of the M852. Army tests noted a 36% improvement in accuracy with the M852 at 300 meters, and a 32% improvement at 600 yds; Marine Corps figures were twenty-eight percent accuracy improvement at 300 m, and 20% at 600yds. The National Guard determined that the M852 provided better bullet groups at 200 and 600 yards under all conditions than did the M118. [FNa1]

The 168-grain MatchKing was designed in the late 1950's for 300 m. shooting in international rifle matches. In its competitive debut, it was used by the 1st place winner at the 1959 Pan American Games. In the same caliber but in its various bullet lengths, the MatchKing has set a number of international records. To a range of 600 m., the superiority of the accuracy of the M852 cannot be matched, and led to the decision by U.S. military marksmanship training units to use the M852 in competition.

A 1980 opinion of this office concluded that use of the M852 in match competition would not violate law of war obligations of the United States. (citation omitted) Further tests and actual competition over the past decade have confirmed the superiority of the M852 over the M118 and other match grade bullets. For example, at the national matches held at Camp Perry, OH in 1983, a new Wimbledon record of 2--015 X's was set using the 168-gr. MatchKing. This level of performance lead to the question of whether the M852 could be used by military snipers in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.

During the period in which this review was conducted, the 180-gr. MatchKing (for which there is no military designation) also was tested with a view to increased accuracy over the M852 at very long ranges. Because two bullet weights were under consideration, the term "MatchKing" will be used hereinafter to refer to the generic design rather than to a bullet of a particular weight. The fundamental question to be addressed by this review is whether an open-tip bullet of MatchKing design may be used in combat.


3. Legal Factors.

The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury." In some law of war treatises, the term "unnecessary suffering" is used rather than "superfluous injury." The terms are regarded as synonymous. To emphasize this, Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Although the U.S. has made the formal decision that for military, political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to Protocol I, U.S. officials have taken the position that the language of Art. 35(2) of Protocol I as quoted is a codification of customary international law, and therefore binding upon all nations. The terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" have not been formally defined within international law. In determining whether a weapon or projectile causes unnecessary suffering, a balancing test is applied between the force dictated by military necessity to achieve a legitimate objective vis-à-vis suffering that may be considered superfluous to achievement of that intended objective. The test is not easily applied. For this reason, the degree of "superfluous" injury must be clearly disproportionate to the intended objectives for development and employment of the weapon, that is, it must outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile. The fact that a weapon causes suffering does not lead to the conclusion that the weapon causes unnecessary suffering, or is illegal per se. Military necessity dictates that weapons of war lead to death, injury, and destruction; the act of combatants killing or wounding enemy combatants in combat is a legitimate act under the law of war. In this regard, there is an incongruity in the law of war in that while it is legally permissible to kill an enemy combatant, incapacitation must not result inevitably in unnecessary suffering. What is prohibited is the design (or modification) and employment of a weapon for the purpose of increasing or causing suffering beyond that required by military necessity. In conducting the balancing test necessary to determine a weapon's legality, the effects of a weapon cannot be viewed in isolation. They must be examined against comparable weapons in use on the modern battlefield, and the military necessity for the weapon or projectile under consideration. In addition to the basic prohibition on unnecessary suffering contained in Art. 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, one other treaty is germane to this review. The Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899 prohibits the use in international armed conflict:

". . . of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."

The U.S. is not a party to this treaty, but U.S. officials over the years have taken the position that the armed forces of the U.S. will adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose of Art. 23e of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, quoted above.

It is within the context of these two treaties that questions regarding the legality of the employment of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet must be considered.


4. Bullet Description.

As previously described, the MatchKing is a boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with open tip. The "open tip" is a shallow aperture (approximately the diameter of the wire in a standard size straight pin or paper clip) in the nose of the bullet. While sometimes described as a "hollow point," this is a mischaracterization in law of war terms. Generally a "hollow point" bullet is thought of in terms of its ability to expand on impact with soft tissue. Physical examination of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet reveals that its opening is extremely small in comparison to the aperture in comparable hollow point hunting bullets; for example, the 165-grain GameKing is a true hollow point boat tail bullet with an aperture substantially greater than the MatchKing, and skiving (serrations cut into the jacket) to insure expansion. In the MatchKing, the open tip is closed as much as possible to provide better aerodynamics, and contains no skiving. The lead core of the MatchKing bullet is entirely covered by the bullet jacket. While the GameKing bullet is designed to bring the ballistic advantages of a match bullet to long range hunting, the manufacturer expressly recommends against the use of the MatchKing for hunting game of any size because it does not have the expansion characteristics of a hunting bullet.

[m21sniper]

The purpose of the small, shallow aperture in the MatchKing is to provide a bullet design offering maximum accuracy at very long ranges, rolling the jacket of the bullet around its core from base to tip; standard military bullets and other match bullets roll the jacket around its core from tip to base, leaving an exposed lead core at its base. Design purpose of the MatchKing was not to produce a bullet that would expand or flatten easily on impact with the human body, or otherwise cause wounds greater than those caused by standard military small arms ammunition.


5. MatchKing performance.

Other than its superior long range marksmanship capabilities, the MatchKing was examined with regard to its performance on impact with the human body or in artificial material that approximates human soft tissue.It was determined that the bullet will break up or fragment in some cases at some point following entry into soft tissue. Whether fragmentation occurs will depend upon a myriad of variables, to include range to the target, velocity at the time of impact, degree of yaw of the bullet at the point of impact, or the distance traveled point-first within the body before yaw is induced. The MatchKing has not been designed to yaw intentionally or to break up on impact. These characteristics are common to all military rifle bullets. There was little discernible difference in bullet fragmentation between the MatchKing and other military small arms bullets, with some military ball ammunition of foreign manufacture tending to fragment sooner in human tissue or to a greater degree, resulting in wounds that would be more severe than those caused by the MatchKing. [FNaaa1]

Because of concern over the potential mischaracterization of the M852 as a "hollow point" bullet that might violate the purpose and intent of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets, some M852 MatchKing bullets were modified to close the aperture. The "closed tip" MatchKing did not measure up to the accuracy of the "open tip" MatchKing.

Other match grade bullets were tested. While some could approach the accuracy standards of the MatchKing in some lots, quality control was uneven, leading to erratic results. No other match grade bullet consistently could meet the accuracy of the open-tip bullet.


6. Law of War Application.

From both a legal and medical standpoint, the lethality or incapacitation effects of a particular small-caliber projectile must be measured against comparable projectiles in service. In the military small arms field, "small caliber" generally includes all rifle projectiles up to and including .60 caliber (15mm). For the purposes of this review, however, comparison will be limited to small-caliber ammunition in the range of 5.45mm to 7.62mm, that is, that currently in use in assault or sniper rifles by the military services of most nations.

Wound ballistic research over the past fifteen years has determined that the prohibition contained in the 1899 Hague Declaration is of minimal to no value, inasmuch as virtually all jacketed military bullets employed since 1899 with pointed ogival spitzer tip shape have a tendency to fragment on impact with soft tissue, harder organs, bone or the clothing and/or equipment worn by the individual soldier.

The pointed ogival spitzer tip, shared by all modern military bullets, reflects the balancing by nations of the criteria of military necessity and unnecessary suffering: its streamlined shape decreases air drag, allowing the bullet to retain velocity better for improved long-range performance; a modern military 7.62mm bullet will lose only about one-third of its muzzle velocity over 500 yards, while the same weight bullet with a round-nose shape will lose more than one-half of its velocity over the same distance. Yet the pointed ogival spitzer tip shape also leads to greater bullet breakup, and potentially greater injury to the soldier by such a bullet vis-à-vis a round-nose full-metal jacketed bullet. (See Dr. M. L. Fackler, "Wounding Patterns for Military Rifle Bullets," International Defense Review, January 1989, pp. 56-64, at 63.)

Weighing the increased performance of the pointed ogival spitzer tip bullet against the increased injury its breakup may bring, the nations of the world-- through almost a century of practice--have concluded that the need for the former outweighs concern for the latter, and does not result in unnecessary suffering as prohibited by the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets or article 23e of the 1907 Hague Convention IV.The 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets remains valid for expression of the principle that a nation may not employ a bullet that expands easily on impact for the purpose of unnecessarily aggravating the wound inflicted upon an enemy soldier. Such a bullet also would be prohibited by article 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, however. Another concept fundamental to the law of war is the principle of discrimination, that is, utilization of means or methods that distinguish to the extent possible legitimate targets, such as enemy soldiers, from noncombatants, whether enemy wounded and sick, medical personnel, or innocent civilians. The highly trained military sniper with his special rifle and match grade ammunition epitomizes the principle of discrimination. In combat, most targets are covered or obscured, move unpredictably, and as a consequence are exposed to hostile fire for limited periods of time. When coupled with the level of marksmanship training provided the average soldier and the stress of combat, a soldier's aiming errors are large and hit probability is correspondingly low. While the M16A2 rifle currently used by the United States Army and Marine Corps is capable of acceptable accuracy out to six hundred meters, the probability of an average soldier hitting an enemy soldier at three hundred meters is ten percent.

Statistics from past wars suggest that this probability figure may be optimistic. In World War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier. The risk to noncombatants is apparent.

In contrast, United States Army and Marine Corps snipers in the Vietnam War expended 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each claimed and verified kill, at an average range of six hundred yards, or almost twice the three hundred meters cited above for combat engagements by the average soldier. Some verified kills were at ranges in excess of 1000 yards. This represents discrimination and military efficiency of the highest order, as well as minimization of risk to noncombatants. Utilization of a bullet that increases accuracy, such as the MatchKing, would further diminish the risk to noncombatants.


7. Conclusion.

The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. Like most 5.56mm and 7.62mm military ball bullets, it may fragment upon striking its target, although the probability of its fragmentation is not as great as some military ball bullets currently in use by some nations. Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United State Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. The military necessity for its use-- its ability to offer maximum accuracy at very long ranges--is complemented by the high degree of discriminate fire it offers in the hands of a trained sniper. It not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat.

This opinion has been coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, and the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, who concur with its contents and conclusions.

An opinion that reaches the same conclusion has been issued simultaneously for the Navy and Marine Corps by The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

Authored by W. Hays Parks, Colonel, USMC,
Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch
http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html


---------

As long as a JHP is viewed to be militarily necessary, it is considered perfectly legal by DoD. Hence our counter terror operators using JHP ammunition because it's needed to more effectively and immediately subdue enemy terrorists holding hostages, or MPs needing JHP in law enforcement roles, and our snipers using Matchkings because of their unmatched accuracy, etc, etc.

And yeah, under the right conditions M852 does expand/fragment. But then so does M193 and M855.

As long as the JHP is not for the primary purpose of 'needlessly' inflicting additional suffering, it is perfectly legal. So even if M852 caused massive gaping wounds due to explosive expansion, because that is not the primary reason for it's adoption, it is still perfectly legal under an international accord that the US is NOT a signatory too.

Pwned me again eh RPK?

LOL...

[Jeff Higgins]

Sniper, you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm well aware of the early Ideal "semi wadcutters". I actually own one of those molds, and still use it for very light plinking loads put up in .357 cases. These are not what we are referring to in the modern context; they only superficially resemble the modern semi wadcutter in form and function. These early designs were no more than a true wadcutter with a nose. Just as with a true wadcutter, they seat very deeply into the case, sacrificing a great deal of powder capacity. Also like true wadcutters, they are not meant to be crimped. They are in fact, as you state, target bullets. They are meant for very low recoil, low velocity loads. That is clearly not what we have been discussing in the context of defensive shooting and hunting.

I emphasized Keith type and LBT semi wadcutters. These are radically different than these early Ideals, or for that matter, the 9mm, .45 ACP, and .38 Special target rounds you mention. I also emphasized revolvers, noting that true semi wadcutters will not feed well in autos. The ones you mention are closer to that early Ideal than they are to the Keith or LBT designs; they lack a crimping groove, seat very deeply into the case, and sacrifice powder capacity. They are wadcutters with a protruding nose to help them feed in autos. Importantly, they lack the wide, flat nose with the sharp edges so critical to the semi wadcutter's performance. Again, they superficially resemble true semi wadcutters, but any serious handgunner well knows the difference between "semi wadcutters" meant for target work in autos, and semi wadcutters meant for serious use in revolvers.

So, yes, Keith is in fact the one who came up with the semi wadcutter as we know it today. Most of the weight is ahead of the crimp groove (which is very pronounced in and of itself). There is a large, full diameter driving band ahead of that crimp groove that is lacking in the early Ideals and the modern autoloader bullets. It has a wide, flat, sharp edged nose that will not feed through autos without tapering it more and rounding those corners, thereby compromising its effectiveness. They are not the same bullets.

[m21sniper]

I simply stated that SWCs were originally conceived as target rounds, and they were. When the first common SWC was marketed in 1900, no thought whatever was put into it's performance vs soft tissue.

That E.Keith came along some decades later and created cast SWCs with much higher sectional density that were suitable for deep penetration against big game animals i do not deny, but it doesn't change the fact that SWCs were originally target rounds- and that is what i was commenting on. Even still, being designed for big game hunting is nothing like being designed for personal defense use at close range.

And i must point out that no company specifically markets any SWC round for any sort of personal defense use that i've ever seen. No one even really markets JSPs for that role for that matter, it's all HPs.

The industry, the military, and the nations police forces feel that JHP is CLEARLY the right choice for shooting at people. Does this mean that SWC wont work? Nope. But SWC is hardly ideal for use vs unarmored people IMO.

Bears, yes. Lions, maybe. Armored people, sure. Unarmored people, no.

You put out your opinion in your earlier posts, you held your views strongly, i am merely countering with my own opinions in as factual and polite a manner as possible.

Short of RPK's childish barb it's been totally cordial, and nothing but interesting discussion about a hot button issue. So hey, thanks.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Hollow points in handguns are more manufacturers hype than true fact. Handgun hollowpoint are often defeated by any kind of thick clothing which will result in very low penetration. Heavy leather, thick material (like on a Navy pea coat will slow such bullets even more. Handgun (typical defensive handguns) velocities are quite low and any expansion limits penetration. The more effective the expansion is, the lower the penetration.

Absolutely. Stories abound of hollow point failures. Hunters with any real field experience have shunned them as totally useless, even on small game. In handguns, they are the proverbial answer to the question that was never (or should never have been) asked.

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Hard cast or jacketed semi wad cutter shape is the gold standard for killing with a handgun.
Over 40 years of hunting much tougher game than humans have proven it to be highly effiicent.

Hunters tend to gather more data, and pay more attention to it, than any other shooting population. And they share it like no other as well. While some "ballistics experts" are shooting goats, pigs, and gelatin, hunters are killing things. The hard cast (or full jacketed as a secondary choice) semi wadcutter is indisputably the bullet against which all others are measured. It is absolutely the "gold standard"; bar none.

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

One of the reasons for the origin of the .45 cal 1911 was because smaller round nose lead handgun bullets were not stopping the natives. When adopted the standard military load was a 230 gr. full metal jacketed round nose. Few stopping problems were recorded for this load. So we know that large caliber full metal jacket round nose works.

Improving the shape of semiauto bullets in duty weapons is much more difficult. Feeding problems must be avoided at all costs. The truncated cone shape has proven to be reliable in feeding and penetration.

As I mentioned above, semi autos present their own problems. Any bullet they will reliably feed is a compromise. Sniper, what you refer to as "semi wadcutter" in these guns is more accurately described as RPKESQ describes it, the - "truncated cone". "Semi wadcutter" is the colloquial term for them, but it is inaccurate and miss used.

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

You cannot compare rifle bullets to handgun bullets as the velocities are enormously different. Any experience with rifles is next to useless when discussing handgun bullets.

That's really the bottom line. Rifles are capable of enough power to provide deep penetration and expansion. Handguns are limited in power to the point that we are forced to make choices. Deep penetration or expansion - we cannot have both. Deep penetration, or more accurately full penetration with an exit wound, has proven to be the most effective choice under the broadest set of circumstances. This is no longer even debated in handgun hunting circles. Not just for big game, but for any game from rabbits on up. Penetration is a reliable killer with the limited power inherent in the handgun. Expansion is not. That is not merely opinion, bordering on hyperbole.

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

And Jeff is correct. The US military sniper rifle rounds are not constructed to expand. They are "hollow points" for aerodynamic purposes only (you would think someone with a sig line of sniper might know that!).

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Absolutely. Stories abound of hollow point failures.

Most likely it's the nature of the target and the poor shot placement that failed in over 90% of them.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Hunters with any real field experience have shunned them as totally useless, even on small game.

Because almost all of us use JSPs!

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Hunters tend to gather more data, and pay more attention to it, than any other shooting population. And they share it like no other as well.

Compared to the FBI, and the US Military? Come on bro.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

While some "ballistics experts" are shooting goats, pigs, and gelatin, hunters are killing things. The hard cast (or full jacketed as a secondary choice) semi wadcutter is indisputably the bullet against which all others are measured. It is absolutely the "gold standard"; bar none.

Against BIG GAME. People are NOT big game animals.

In the 'shooting at people field' it's pretty safe to say that no police department, federal agency, or the US military recommends or uses Solid/SWC type ammo for personal defense in sidearms when JHP is appropriate (ie, excepting 'typical' line unit battlefield roles).

None. Right?

For that Hollowpoints are the gold standard. This is an absolutely indisputable fact, lol.

If you want deep penetration and expansion you can still use JHP ammunition. You just need to use the right JHP ammunition. Cor-Bon 147gr +p 9mm is extremely deep penetrating ammunition (clean penetration of hard drives straight through the platter arrays with ease in my own "tests" >:} ). 180gr .357 mag JHPs would be likewise very deep penetrating rounds, as are 240gr .44 mag JHPs. So too would be 200gr .40 S&W. Federal Hydrashock 230gr JHP is fits the bill in .45 ACP.

Me personally, i like light and fast because i live in the city and i don't want to kill my neighbors. My 9mm+P Cor Bon 115gr JHP packs the energy of some .357 mag rounds, expands and violently fragments in gelatin(and apparently in quite a few people too), and won't ignore interior walls as if they're not even there.

If i am on my sofa and point my pistol at the entrance to my apartment( a stairwell), i am aiming my pistol right at my neighbor's living room. The last thing on earth i would do is use deep penetrating solids or AP type ammo. YMMV.

[m21sniper]

Jeff you're obviously married to your preference, as am i. It's fine, you're not my neighbor, and ultimately it's your life that's at risk, not mine(and vice versa).

Since i feel there is plenty of info on both sides of the coin for posters to make a reasoned choice, i'll shut it down on the Solid vs JHP debate. You know my opinion, and i know yours.

[Mule]

Frenchy, I'm amazed you are not an anti gun crusader.

[Rick Lee]

I wonder if any cops are reading this.

For my own purposes, I won't ever be carrying a rifle for self-defense. I may use one, but it would only be because I had one handy. So I'm more concerned with handgun ammo, since I CCW all the time. I used to shoot a lot of SWC and I don't recall any FTF's in my SIG, though it happened once in a while with my Commander and ParaOrdnance, despite the polished feed ramps. I can't see myself carrying SWC or JSWC. Cops carry Gold Dots or HydraShoks and I'm gonna have to side with them both for reasons of liability and wealth of experience. Everyone has stories of this or that ammo failing or succeeding in different situations. Seems to me the report I linked to in my original post was an anomaly. Not too many people can take that much lead in their bodies and still resist getting cuffed. And unlike cops, I wouldn't have to stick around to see the job finished with the perp being arrested or cuffed. I'd just need to stay alive long enough to get away.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Jeff you're obviously married to your preference, as am i. It's fine, you're not my neighbor, and ultimately it's your life that's at risk, not mine(and vice versa).

Since i feel there is plenty of info on both sides of the coin for posters to make a reasoned choice, i'll shut it down on the Solid vs JHP debate. You know my opinion, and i know yours.

We could have many a fine night around the campfire debating this one. Bottom line is, I would prefer not to get hit by either. We both have reasons for our choices, and neither choice is a bad one.

And yes, compared to the FBI and U.S. military, hunters and sportsmen are far and a way more gun savvy. Those who approach their shooting as a hobby, showing a keen interest in firearms and ballistics, are light years ahead of either in knowledge. From internal to external to terminal ballistics, no one has done more work, or developed more data, than this group. No one has a larger database of results on living, breathing targets than hunters.

There are vastly more game animals killed year after year than there are people, and every darn one of them is gutted and dressed after the fact. Many hunters make a concerted effort to trace the wound channel, analyze it, recover the bullets, and determine what happened when it hit. As far as I know the military does not do this. The coroner in a police or FBI shooting will confirm cause of death, but he will not analyze bullet performance. And neither group kills as many people as hunters kill game.

Military personnel and police officers, unless they also happen to be shooting hobbyists, also tend to be the least gun savvy folks that carry and use firearms. Their knowledge of the topic is very, very narrow. I have found this to be true with each and every one I have ever met and tried to engage in conversation concerning guns. I meet these guys at high power matches, pistol matches, and other similar venues. They tend to know very little about anything they have not been issued. Many don't even know the civilian designations for the calibers they use regularly.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Mule

Frenchy, I'm amazed you are not an anti gun crusader.

I'm sure you would be amazed at many things that don't fit your stereotypical outlook on the world.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

I'm sure you would be amazed at many things that don't fit your stereotypical outlook on the world.

Don't let your fellow lefties find out about this!

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

We could have many a fine night around the campfire debating this one. Bottom line is, I would prefer not to get hit by either. We both have reasons for our choices, and neither choice is a bad one.

And yes, compared to the FBI and U.S. military, hunters and sportsmen are far and a way more gun savvy. Those who approach their shooting as a hobby, showing a keen interest in firearms and ballistics, are light years ahead of either in knowledge. From internal to external to terminal ballistics, no one has done more work, or developed more data, than this group. No one has a larger database of results on living, breathing targets than hunters.

There are vastly more game animals killed year after year than there are people, and every darn one of them is gutted and dressed after the fact. Many hunters make a concerted effort to trace the wound channel, analyze it, recover the bullets, and determine what happened when it hit. As far as I know the military does not do this. The coroner in a police or FBI shooting will confirm cause of death, but he will not analyze bullet performance. And neither group kills as many people as hunters kill game.

Military personnel and police officers, unless they also happen to be shooting hobbyists, also tend to be the least gun savvy folks that carry and use firearms. Their knowledge of the topic is very, very narrow. I have found this to be true with each and every one I have ever met and tried to engage in conversation concerning guns. I meet these guys at high power matches, pistol matches, and other similar venues. They tend to know very little about anything they have not been issued. Many don't even know the civilian designations for the calibers they use regularly.

+1 Now your talking!

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Mule

Don't let your fellow lefties find out about this!

I don't know any fellow lefties. All my friends are realists, not dogmatic followers of any political leaning.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

We could have many a fine night around the campfire debating this one. Bottom line is, I would prefer not to get hit by either. We both have reasons for our choices, and neither choice is a bad one.

Perhaps some day.

When i say the US military and Law enforcement are extremely well advised on the peformance of ammunition types i am referring to them at the institutional level.

There have been some exhaustive tests done on this subject, and all of them were commisioned and sponsored by the military, or by the police/gov't.

Hunters see lots of dead animals but most of what's gleaned is anecdotal, and there is a very high % chance that most of what's seen is also misinterpreted by Bubba from Alabama, who may not even have 5 teeth in his mouth.

I reckon more critters have been shot than people, but in the last century probably 100,000,000 or more human beings were also shot. The US military, FBI, and a few other government bodies have gone way out of their way to try and make sense of the largely arcane science of terminal ballistics.

I would opine that for matters of shooting game, Hunters are the guys to ask, and for the matter of shooting people, LE and the Military at the institutional level are the authoritative bodies at play. We can both be "right".

BTW: Did you see the RMC thread Recale just posted? In that one a hand grenade failed to stop a target at point blank range. Not only did it fail to stop him, it failed to injure him at all. If a grenade can fail, anything can fail.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

I don't know any fellow lefties. All my friends are realists, not dogmatic followers of any political leaning.

And you're the token leftie?

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Mule

And you're the token leftie?

No don't do drugs, never did drugs.

Are you the token ignorant hillbilly "Bubba from Alabama, who may not even have 5 teeth in his mouth" (sniper quote)?

[m21sniper]

1 Year old paper co-authored by a PHD/ballistics expert at West Point:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf

Hunters generally don't do the kinds of scientific testing and reasoning illustrated in this paper (though one study conducted by hunters is cited in this report). This paper soundly thrashes Facklers theories, btw.

[masraum]

interesting discussion gents. Not actually that helpful, but I'm going to read some more. Maybe I'll have a self defense mag that alternates rounds. With 19 rounds per mag, and a combo of all different sorts of ammo, I should be able to drop a BG. (assuming I practice enough to do what I need to do under stress).