You might find this video interesting...
This is a discussion on FBI Standards: Should we care? within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I hear a lot about the FBI minimum penetration being 12"s, the 4 layers of denim thing, and all this other data they use and ...
I hear a lot about the FBI minimum penetration being 12"s, the 4 layers of denim thing, and all this other data they use and a lot of people look at it as the "gospel" of ballistics. My question is this: Since when has ANY government agency done anything the private sector doesn't do better?
I'd trust the guys at Hornady (who have to turn a profit) to give me a product that works vs. using FBI specs to choose my SD rounds. And Hornady is just an example, ANY bullet manufacturer probably does more and better testing than the FBI ever dreamed.
So I ask, do you take the FBI specs into account when choosing a bullet to stake your life on? Or do you choose another way?
You might find this video interesting...
"I got a lot of problems with you people!" - Frank Costanza
It's your choice to choose your SD ammo as you see fit. I want my SD ammo to be the best it can be and do what I need for it to do. I don't want a round that's going to clog with fabric and act like a FMJ.
Remember, Life is not like a box of chocolate's.. It's more like a jalapeno pepper, because what you decide upon today can really burn your butt tomorrow..
this is from wikipedia:
According to Dr. Martin Fackler and the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA), between 12.5 and 14 inches (318 and 356 mm) of penetration in calibrated tissue simulant is optimal performance for a bullet which is meant to be used defensively, against a human adversary. They also believe that penetration is one of the most important factors when choosing a bullet (and that the number one factor is shot placement). If the bullet penetrates less than their guidelines, it is inadequate, and if it penetrates more, it is still satisfactory though not optimal. The FBI's penetration requirement is very similar at 12 to 18 inches (305 to 457 mm).
A penetration depth of 12.5 to 14 inches (318 and 356 mm) may seem excessive, but a bullet sheds velocity—and crushes a narrower hole—as it penetrates deeper, while losing velocity, so the bullet might be crushing a very small amount of tissue (simulating an "ice pick" injury) during its last two or three inches of travel, giving only between 9.5 and 12 inches of effective wide-area penetration. Also, skin is elastic and tough enough to cause a bullet to be retained in the body, even if the bullet had a relatively high velocity when it hit the skin. About 250 ft/s (76 m/s) velocity is required for an expanded hollow point bullet to puncture skin 50% of the time.
The IWBA's and FBI's penetration guidelines are to ensure that the bullet can reach a vital structure from most angles, while retaining enough velocity to generate a large diameter hole through tissue. An extreme example where penetration would be important is if the bullet first had to enter and then exit an outstretched arm before impacting the torso. A bullet with low penetration might embed itself in the arm whereas a higher penetrating bullet would penetrate the arm then enter the thorax where it would have a chance of hitting a vital organ.
Stopping power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
just an FYI S&W worked with the FBI to create the .40 cal
Yes and no. I don't much care about whether or not my rounds will expand after first going through sheet steel or windshields (other than while on duty). I do not see that as very relevant for a civilian.
However, I DO care about whether my rounds will penetrate at least 12 inches (15 is better) after first going through heavy clothing.
The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
Usual carry - Ruger SP101 .357 DAO snub + LCR .38
The Feds need all the help they can get.:)
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
Well, someone has to have a standard. Otherwise, how do you know what to look for in a specific type of round? Whether it be for hunting, SD, competition shooting, or anything else.
I don't think it really matters if you trust them. The value is they are consistent. The same tests across a broad spectrum of ammunition. I really like the Personal Defense line. Light recoil , makes it very accurate in my hands. Great consistent expansion as well. I don't carry it however and in my 9mm carry ranger 127 's and 230 HST in my .45. Why? Good results in the FBI tests and good reports on the street. Until Hornady allows there loads to go through the FBI tests I only have company tests. Maybe they do great maybe not. I don't want to need a load to preform and they don't. As far as penetration, yes it's overrated IMO But 12-15 inches is a safe bet most of the time.
As far as shooting through glass or a car... It could happen. A car jacking, roadside assult and a couple other senerios.
Sent from my 300 baud modem
Close enoughf for Goverment work ; )
A Native Floridian = RARE
IT'S OUR RIGHTS>THEY WANT TO WRONG
I think the data is very relevant, and it should be considered when choosing a round for self defense. I do however believe that as a civilian, my standards can have a little more flexibility. IMO those seeking out trouble, running towards the action, etc, may have higher standards. That being said *most* of my guns meet the FBI minimum standard, with the excepting of my sig 238, which is so 'carryable' that I just can't help it sometimes.
"When among wild beasts, if they menace you, be a wild beast."
Yes I put considerable weight into The IWBA's and FBI's penetration & expansion guidelines. Just as I put considerable weight into training.
"There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition
I do listen to what the FBI and the Military is doing, but I do listen to what I read from the manufacturers also. The cost and availability are the controlling factors in what I buy for my SD rounds.
I will not go so far as to say we should not care but we need to consider the real world. The video above makes good sense for a short study and presents no real issue to argue.
Back in the real world any SD situation you get into is going to be close,if it is not they call that a gun fight and not SD.
When you consider the distance most SD Handgun shooting happen, what round you have is going to be a wash in the end.
Last heavier bullet yes and no example if your shooting a full size 9mm then 147gr will do but if is a compact 9mm you may wish to use 124 or even 115.
I carried a 1911 Army issue and I carried the 92F/96 Army issue if given a choice I would take the 1911 if there was any chance I may have to use it.
When it comes to SD you shoot what you have, you shoot center mass to stop the threat. You shoot 2 round,4 round 6 round empty the thing what ever it takes to stop the threat.
On the streets now I retired most of the time I carry a SR9C Ruger with the 10 round mag. It is loaded with 124gr JHP.
My life my call.
Sure we should care. Anytime we can find more information it helps us in our decision making. Thats what most of us come here for. To learn from new information.
I do put weight in the studies. Mainly because there's a direct corellation between rounds that do well in those tests and rounds that perform well in the real world.
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.--RAH
...man fights with his mind; the weapons are incidental.--Jeff Cooper
There is a reason they try and make small bullets act like big bullets--Glockmann10mm