Handgun Self-Defense Ammunition Ballistics Test

Claymore wrote: but up there in "Eskimo Country" it

Here in Montana, we're currently under a "winter weather advisory" until Wed morning. And leather and multiple fur layers generally means a bear. Pepper spray actually works better than a bullet.

Claymore wrote:
Where did the Thread FIRST start to get away from "Ammunition Ballistics"?

I guess that I'm having a Senior Moment, and can't quite put my finger on it:

RRCmdrBennett wrote:If you listen:D  to some people the bullets in your keltec aren't the only junk...

You deny the quality of a firearm can affect the ballistics of identical ammo shot in higher quality guns?  Dropping coins in an empty mug of an officer I can't fathom how that is related to ballistics...

If done by those untrained in the nuances of ballistics, even without the use of gunpowder, the quarter will ricochet out onto the ground and cause a wild scramble. People have been hurt doing less.

Semi quality save...NOT!

Yeah.

I can see Bruce's point.

Of course you would...

Claymore wrote:This may sound like heresy, but up there in "Eskimo Country" it may also be worthwhile to consider having 2 types of ammunition:

Something like your DPX for May through September, and a non-hollow point for November through March, when the opposition may be wearing leather coats and multi-layered parkas.

According to the test data, the DPX expanded properly even after penetrating 4 layers of fabric (1 denim, 2 t shirt, 1 fleece)

Also, technically.....
the DPX will be in my 2nd & 3rd magazines. The magazine in the gun is filled with Glaser Safety slugs

Was test data done using a Kiltec?

ccm2361 wrote:..............The magazine in the gun is filled with Glaser Safety slugs

I would have concerns about having Glasers in a .32.  Too little chance (maybe) of "stopping" the Threat due to under penetration.  An assailant on Crack or Meth won't stop until his fuel pump shuts down.

If you keep them as a concern about overpenetration in your house, I understand, but I would then change magazines when I walked out the door.

A friend from church who is has bigger guns than I do told me glasers were originally intended for use on planes by special agents.

True
They were developed for Air Marshals.
The Glaser will not ricochet, it breaks up when it hits a hard object like a wall.

When it hits a target made up of mostly liquid (like a human body) it penetrates about 1" then the nose cone dislodges , the jacket opens up & dumps its payload of #12 shotgun pellets which penetrate another 5"-7"

I'm aware of them. I've known of Glasers since the early 1980's.

The reason for them was to NOT penetrate the skin of a pressurized aircraft.

If you figure on getting into a gunfight in an airplane at 35,000 feet (or maybe an apartment with thin walls), it may be a good choice.

Because they were used by a Federal Agency, does not necessarily make them the best choice for street applications.

Another example of "Federal Agency Ammunition":

The FBI "stole" the design for the 9mm 147 grain Hydra-Shok from a CIA "Black" Project. The reason that the Agency developed this round was to have effectiveness out of a suppressed firearm.

The FBI claimed that they made a round with the effectiveness of a .45 out of a 9mm. Based on their recommendation, our Department issued that ammunition, and we had a shootout, where an offender shot past the head of a sergeant with a 30-30. Unfortunately, he put himself into an "L-Shaped" shooting zone of 2 officers.

He took 27 hits with the 147 Grain Hydra-Shok, before he went down. Shortly after that, we stopped using the "FBI's Recommended/Reinvented Ammunition".

Has there ever been a real life example of a hijacker shot with Glasers to give us an idea how effective they are?

I'm aware of them.  I've known of Glasers since the mid 1970's.

The reason for them was to NOT penetrate the skin of a pressurized aircraft.

I spoke with a Deputy Sheriff who had contact with Texas Deputies who carried Glasers in .41 Magnums. They had been quite effective But you're talking something like 520 Foot/Pounds for the .41 Mag. vs 148 Foot/Pounds for the .32.

If you figure on getting into a gunfight in an airplane at 35,000 feet (or maybe an apartment with thin walls), it may be a good choice.  

Because they were used by a Federal Agency, does not necessarily make them the best choice for street applications.

Another example of "Federal Agency Ammunition":

The FBI "stole" the design for the 9mm 147 grain Hydra-Shok from a CIA "Black" Project.  The reason that the Agency developed this round was to have effectiveness out of a suppressed firearm.

The FBI claimed that they made a round with the effectiveness of a .45 out of a 9mm.  Based on their recommendation, our Department issued that ammunition, and we had a shootout, where an offender shot past the head of a sergeant with a 30-30.  Unfortunately, he put himself into an "L-Shaped" shooting zone of 2 officers.

He took 27 hits with the 147 Grain Hydra-Shok, before he went down.  Shortly after that, we stopped using the "FBI's Recommended/Reinvented Ammunition".

I have carried Glaser's in all my handguns since the early 90's

For these reasons:
1 should I miss.. It will not ricochet of a wall & hit a bystander

2 It will not over penetrate & risk hitting a bystander

3 They can be quite devastating in head hits

Those are (mostly) legitimate reasons.

It is also made by a Quality Ammunition Manufacturer.

"2 It will not over penetrate & risk hitting a bystander" with a .32: more likely if you are shooting at a Somali Militiaman.

Claymore, is there data to show how many defensive shootings occur with bystanders nearby? Not counting "mass shootings" where the shooter welcomes a big hunting ground. I mean regarding an individual thug looking to rob you easily without much resistance.

We know that there are incidents out there, but 'most everything that I have found in searching for "friendly fire" shootings involve one police officer being unintentionally shot by another.

It is probably logical, for the following reasons:

1. Police are called to the scene with the possible intent of using firearms.

2. If Police Officers arrive at a "threat" situation, they will send multiple cars/officers, so there are more armed people to potentially launch projectiles around the area (and more "friendly" targets in the vicinity).  In a Citizen situation, there is generally only one armed "friendly" individual, and generally only 1 or 2 "friendly" targets in the vicinity.

3. Police carry an average of about 45 to 50 rounds of ammunition with them, while an armed civilian generally finds himself in the confrontation with 5 to 19 rounds.

4. Standard police training has always been to "shoot until the Threat stops".  I have been involved in police firearms training in which the instructions were to fire an entire magazine (15 to 19 rounds) into an advancing target.  Civilian training is generally to fire 2 to 3 rounds into the target, then evaluate (different mindset).

5. Officers will evacuate civilians from a situation area as soon as possible, and always prior to use of Deadly Force, if they can.

6. If there is ever a "Spontaneous" Officer-Involved Shooting, it is generally in a situation like a Traffic Stop, where the only persons in Close-Proximity are the Police and the Hostile Individual(s).

If you recall my speaking of our shooting with the 147 grain Hydra-Shoks.  The person who shot at the sergeant had received 27 hits.  2 officers shooting; 2 pistols with 15 + 1 round each = 32 rounds; 5 misses = 27 rounds in target.  

The offender/victim went down as the 2 officers were in process of changing their magazines.  They shot until the "threat" stopped; as per their training.

Cops taught my ccw class said shoot till threat is terminated (not necessarily dead but threat is over). Over was when perp is on the ground and can't fire back.

Claymore wrote:We know that there are incidents out there, but 'most everything that I have found in searching for "friendly fire" shootings involve one police officer being unintentionally shot by another.

It is probably logical, for the following reasons:

1. Police are called to the scene with the possible intent of using firearms.

2. If Police Officers arrive at a "threat" situation, they will send multiple cars/officers, so there are more armed people to potentially launch projectiles around the area (and more "friendly" targets in the vicinity).  In a Citizen situation, there is generally only one armed "friendly" individual, and generally only 1 or 2 "friendly" targets in the vicinity.

3. Police carry an average of about 45 to 50 rounds of ammunition with them, while an armed civilian generally finds himself in the confrontation with 5 to 19 rounds.

4. Standard police training has always been to "shoot until the Threat stops".  I have been involved in police firearms training in which the instructions were to fire an entire magazine (15 to 19 rounds) into an advancing target.  Civilian training is generally to fire 2 to 3 rounds into the target, then evaluate (different mindset).

5. Officers will evacuate civilians from a situation area as soon as possible, and always prior to use of Deadly Force, if they can.

6. If there is ever a "Spontaneous" Officer-Involved Shooting, it is generally in a situation like a Traffic Stop, where the only persons in Close-Proximity are the Police and the Hostile Individual(s).

If you recall my speaking of our shooting with the 147 grain Hydra-Shoks.  The person who shot at the sergeant had received 27 hits.  2 officers shooting; 2 pistols with 15 + 1 round each = 32 rounds; 5 misses = 27 rounds in target.  

The offender/victim went down as the 2 officers were in process of changing their magazines.  They shot until the "threat" stopped; as per their training.

That would explain the Cleveland shooting of several officers emptying all their mags into a car. The reports say only the cop standing on the car actually hit the occupants.

Claymore wrote:But you're talking something like 520 Foot/Pounds for the .41 Mag. vs 148 Foot/Pounds for the .32.

I know .32 is not a powerhouse, but no handgun is a death ray either.

I shoot for face or throat with .32 (when possible)

Claymore wrote:He took 27 hits with the 147 Grain Hydra-Shok, before he went down.  

147 grain anything sucks in 9mm I always stick with 115 grain rounds

Claymore wrote:
"2 It will not over penetrate & risk hitting a bystander"  with a .32: more likely if you are shooting at a Somali Militiaman.

A lot of folks advocate using only FMJ rounds in .25ACP & .32ACP

But I never use them for defense too much chance of it going right through a thinner area

Well, I'll admit that I'm not going to volunteer to stand on the receiving end of your .32 with Glasers in it.

ccm2361 wrote:

Claymore wrote:He took 27 hits with the 147 Grain Hydra-Shok, before he went down.  

147 grain anything sucks in 9mm  I always stick with 115 grain rounds

You can say that, again!

If you look at the chart that you linked to, it only expanded from .356 to .380.  One of the lousiest performers in the test.  But again, for its intended purpose (in a Heckler & Koch MP5 with a snuffer on the end on a select target) it would probably be fine.

By the way, that's the reason for the 147 grains.  It makes the projectile subsonic from a 9mm, but still delivers a fair amount of impact energy. It was never intended for civilian use at the time of its development.

I ask the .45acp snobs if they like to be a live target for my 9mm Hornady 115 gr Hollow points when they call them bb rounds. I would like to get glasers and see what it to cantelope or watermelon on slow-mo video.