Final Results of the .380 ACP Ammo Quest

In July of 2013, I picked up a little .380 pocket pistol (specifically a Taurus PT738 TCP), and I started researching what would be the most appropriate ammo to use with it.

Turns out that pretty much nobody knew.  Well — I mean, sure, there’s lots of opinions, but I couldn’t find any comprehensive source of professional tests that were done from this particular barrel size, in ballistic gel, with a large sample size.  I found plenty of great tests from PocketGunsAndGear that were shot with a shorter 2.5″ barrel, and some tests from tnoutdoors9 that were shot with a longer barrel, but I couldn’t find any ballistic gel tests that were shot from the 2.8″ barrel.  And I knew that barrel length could affect velocity (especially as compared to the 3.5″ barrel) and that differing velocities can and will cause significant variations in expansion and penetration, so I wasn’t entirely sure that the results these other fine testers achieved would be directly applicable to these pistols with the 2.8″ barrel.

Furthermore, while I applaud the work that other testers are doing, I simply am not satisfied with a sample size of one bullet.  In my experience, ammo performance can vary so widely from one shot to the next, that I believe a larger sample size is necessary in order to have an idea of how the average round of the ammo is actually likely to perform.

So, as announced in a prior post, I decided to conduct my own tests.

Testing Standards

I set as my standard the guidelines established by the 1987 and 1993 Wound Ballistic Conferences, where wound ballistics experts, medical examiners, forensic pathologists, police officers, trauma surgeons, combat surgeons, and others who worked with street shootings and bullets (and the wounds they cause) day in and day out.  These were the recognized experts in their fields, and they conducted conferences to determine what properties and capabilities caused a bullet to be most effective, and how they could then develop tests that would best and most accurately reflect real-world results, so that ammo designers could then design ammo that would perform most effectively.  Effectiveness was determined to be the ability to penetrate deep enough into the body to reach the vital organs (such as the heart, circulatory system, and central nervous system).  A bullet that can’t reach that far, and can’t be relied upon to disrupt the vital organs, was deemed an ineffective bullet.

When it’s all boiled down to the simplest guidelines possible, the parameters work out like this, in order of importance:

  1. A bullet needs to have enough power to penetrate AT LEAST 12″ of soft tissue.  If it can penetrate through 12″ of soft tissue, then that means it has enough power to pass through whatever combination of bone, muscle, skin, fat, and organs that it could possibly encounter, and still be able to reach the vital organs.
  2. A bullet should penetrate LESS than 18″ of soft tissue.  Bullets that penetrated more than 18″ of soft tissue would usually end up exiting the body of the attacker, regardless of how much bone or tissue it had to pass through.  That meant that the bullet posed a very real danger of overpenetration, and also that it was wasting its energy by passing completely through.
  3. The bigger the bullets, the better.  The bigger the hole the bullet makes, the more tissue it destroys, and the more likely it is to damage vital structures that a smaller bullet might miss.  In this context, expanding bullets (that penetrate deeply enough!) are much better than solid bullets, because solid bullets tend to pass right through, whereas an expanding bullet grows larger and is more likely to slow down and stop in the desired window of 12″ to 18″ of soft tissue penetration.
  4. Sharper bullets are better than round bullets.  This isn’t the most important factor, but an expanded bullet with sharp petals on it is more likely to cut an artery or other vital structure than a round-nose bullet might, especially at the limit of travel when the bullet is going more slowly.  A round-nose might just push tissue out of the way, where a sharp bullet may still be cutting and damaging tissue.  This is another reason an expanded hollowpoint is a better wounder than a round-nose FMJ (Full Metal Jacket).
  5. Of all the parameters that matter when evaluating a bullet’s terminal performance, the most important is to achieve sufficient penetration.  Overpenetration is bad, but “underpenetration will get you killed” (quote from Dr. Martin Fackler).

The FBI adopted these requirements for their duty ammo selection, which is only partially related to us in the self defense community; we’re not the FBI and we don’t need FBI duty ammo, but — ammo manufacturers love to sell ammo to the FBI, so many of the modern hollowpoint rounds on the market are designed to meet the FBI requirements.  Which is good for us, because what makes a bullet effective in stopping a criminal, are the same factors that make it effective in stopping someone who’s assaulting us.  The FBI requires their ammo to pass additional tests of barrier penetration, including auto windshield glass, plywood, drywall, and other tests.  In the self defense community, those aren’t likely realistic tests that we need our ammo to pass, so I didn’t bother with those tests, instead I focused on the two tests that are most important to self defense shooters: the bare ballistic gelatin test, and the 4-layer denim test.  The International Wound Ballistic Association standardized these two tests as a comprehensive evaluation of ammo performance in best-case and worst-case scenarios, and so that is the testing methodology I adopted.

I’ve blogged previously on the whys and wherefores of ballistic gel (for example, here, here, and here.)  In the simplest terms, it’s a soft tissue simulant that we use to evaluate a bullet’s performance through soft human tissue.  It’s not “jello”, it’s not a dessert, it’s actually powdered and reconstituted flesh.  Professional ballistic gel is made from ground-up and powdered pork skin.  It’s an effective flesh simulant because it actually is flesh.  I used genuine professional 10% ordnance gelatin from www.gelatininnovations.com for the 4-layer denim test, and synthetic ClearBallistics gel from www.clearballistics.com for the bare gel tests.  (I did a comprehensive comparison between the two gelatin products before starting this Ammo Quest, and found that the synthetic gel was suitable for handgun bullet testing.)

Testing Procedures

My testing procedure was to fire five shots into each block of gel, from 10 feet, through a chronograph.  All 10% ballistic gel was calibrated with a steel BB at ~590 fps, was prepared to FBI specifications using FBI gel preparation procedures, stored at proper temperatures, and shot at proper temperatures, for consistent reliable data.  All bullets were measured for penetration distance while they were in the block of gel, then cut out, cleaned up, measured and weighed for final details.

I tested a total of 18 types of ammunition through bare ClearBallistics gelatin.  I then repeated the test in 10% calibrated ordnance gelatin through 4 layers of IWBA-spec heavy denim, for those rounds that performed well enough through the bare gelatin (or, in some cases, just because I was curious; sometimes rounds did terribly in the bare gel but I was still curious how  or if they might change their performance through denim).  This resulted in a grand total of 27 test videos (sheesh!)

Results

The results are correlated in the tables below.  Links are provided to the YouTube tests for each round.  Penetration data is color-coded; red is totally unacceptable (either gross under- or over-penetration); yellow is a bad sign (indicating modest under- or over-penetration), green is considered good, and blue is considered excellent penetration.  I also include the MacPherson Wound Trauma Incapacitation value (previously blogged-about here).  If you want the brief summary, bigger numbers are more effective at incapacitating an attacker (and if you want the briefest summary, just go by the color code!)

Here is a video that summarizes all my findings and makes recommendations on the various ammo that has been tested.

Below is the summary table, results, and links for the videos of all the ammo tests that were conducted.

.380 ACP Micro-Pistol With ~2.8″ Barrel

Ammunition Test Results

Buffalo Bore 90-Grain JHP Standard Pressure, Item 27G

Average Velocity in feet per second 937
Average Expanded Diameter .472” (12.0 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .505” (12.8 mm)
Average Retained Weight 90.02 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 18.58
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 10.88
11.13
  12.00
23.75
  25.13

 

Copper Only Projectiles 80-grain solid copper hollowpoint

Average Velocity in feet per second 835
Average Expanded Diameter .433” (11.0 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .500” (12.7 mm)
Average Retained Weight 79.82 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 3.96
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 8.25
  8.38
  9.13
  9.25
  9.63

 

 

Cor®Bon 90-Grain JHP, CorBon part # SD38090/20

Average Velocity in feet per second 932
Average Expanded Diameter .453” (11.5 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .512” (13.0 mm)
Average Retained Weight 90.06 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 26.35
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 11.25
  12.00
  13.00
  15.50
  16.00
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 16
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 22.50
  22.75
  23.00
  23.50
  23.75

 

 

DoubleTap DT Defense Lead Free(TM) 77-grain solid copper hollowpoint

Average Velocity in feet per second 895
Average Expanded Diameter .358” (9.1 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .358” (9.1 mm)
Average Retained Weight 77.02 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 18.64
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 11.25
  12.00
  15.50
  15.75
  19.00

DoubleTap-Lead-Free-bullets

 

 

DRT (Dynamic Research Technologies) .380 Auto 85grain HP “Penetrating Frangible”

Note: I tested this round, and it was very different, didn’t penetrate consistently, half the bullets failed entirely and just overpenetrated.  It is such a different round with such different design parameters, it doesn’t fit well with making a consolidated table like the other rounds in the test.  I recommend just going directly to the video to see how the DRT .380 ammo performed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx8pn5CadXI

 

 

Federal Premium Hydra-Shok® 90-grain JHP

Average Velocity in feet per second 889
Average Expanded Diameter .426” (10.8 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .487” (12.4 mm)
Average Retained Weight 89.46 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 25.68
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 12.00
  12.88
  12.25
  12.75
  12.50
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 20.85
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 13.50
  14.00
  14.50
  15.25
  18.75

 

 

Fiocchi Extrema XTP(TM) 90-grain XTP JHP, part # 380XTP25

Average Velocity in feet per second 791
Average Expanded Diameter .414” (10.5 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .455” (11.6 mm)
Average Retained Weight 89.96 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 27.72
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 12.88
  13.25
  13.50
  13.63
  13.88
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 25.40
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 14.25
  14.50
  15.25
  18.75

Note: only four bullets were used in the denim test for the Extremas.

 

 

Hornady Critical Defense(TM) 90-grain FTX® JHP with Polymer Tip

Average Velocity in feet per second 857
Average Expanded Diameter .478” (12.1 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .533” (13.5 mm)
Average Retained Weight 88.92 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 2.11
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 7.75
  8.13
  8.25
  8.75
  8.88
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 18.84
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 10.13
  11.63
  11.88
  12.00
  17.00

Note: Critical Defense severely underpenetrated in the bare gel test.  In the denim gel test we had one round travel to good penetration, but it failed to expand.

 

 

Hornady Custom .380 ACP with 90-grain XTP JHP

Average Velocity in feet per second 851
Average Expanded Diameter .438” (11.1 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .488” (12.4 mm)
Average Retained Weight 89.96 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 25.81
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 12.00
  12.13
  12.38
  12.88
  12.88
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 23.80
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 10.63
  11.75
  12.75
  13.00
  13.50

 

 

HPR HyperClean XTP 90-grain JHP

Average Velocity in feet per second 789
Average Expanded Diameter .414” (10.5 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .454” (11.5 mm)
Average Retained Weight 89.96 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 27.11
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 13.50
  12.50
  13.88
  14.00
  14.50
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 23.03
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 12.75
13.50
  14.25
  14.88
  15.00

 

PMC Starfire(TM) 95 grain SFHP, part #380SFA

Average Velocity in feet per second 788
Average Expanded Diameter .381” (9.7 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .405” (10.3 mm)
Average Retained Weight 95.13 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 24.60
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 25.50
  16.00
16.00
  14.75

Note: only 4 bullets were tested and recovered.

 

 

Precision One .380 ACP 90 grain XTP

Average Velocity in feet per second 810
Average Expanded Diameter .413” (10.5 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .446” (11.3 mm)
Average Retained Weight 89.78 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 28.28
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 13.75
  13.50
  13.75
  13.88
  13.63
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 25.72
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 12.75
  13.25
  13.75
  14.38

 

 

Remington Golden Saber 102-grain BJHP

Average Velocity in feet per second 756
Average Expanded Diameter .527” (13.4 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .624” (15.8 mm)
Average Retained Weight 102.5 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 8.89
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 10.13
  8.50
  9.00
  9.38
  10.50

 

 

Remington UMC 88-grain JHP, part #L380A1B

Average Velocity in feet per second 884
Average Expanded Diameter .355” (9.0 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .355” (9.0 mm)
Average Retained Weight 90 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 16.00
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 22.75
  23.25
  23.63
  24.50
  25.50

Note: These were hollowpoints, but all failed to expand.

 

 

Speer Gold Dot .380 ACP 90-grain GDHP, part #23606

Average Velocity in feet per second 944
Average Expanded Diameter .447” (11.4 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .487” (12.4 mm)
Average Retained Weight 89.36 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 23.25
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 12.00
  11.75
  11.25
  11.63
  13.00
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 19.20
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 10.00
  11.00
  11.00
  11.50
15.00

 

 

Underwood Ammo .380 ACP 102 grain Golden Saber JHP

standard pressure 950 fps, item #142

Average Velocity in feet per second 827
Average Expanded Diameter .503” (12.8 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .603” (15.3 mm)
Average Retained Weight 101.68 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 17.91
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 9.50
  10.50
  10.75
  11.00
  12.00
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 16.00
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 16.75
  18.63
  19.25
  20.25
  21.25

 

Winchester PDX1® Defender(TM) 95-grain Bonded JHP

Average Velocity in feet per second 901
Average Expanded Diameter .562” (14.3 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .655” (16.6 mm)
Average Retained Weight 95.28 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 1.80
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 8.25
  7.75
  7.63
  8.38
  9.00
MacPherson WTI in Denim Test 2.76
Penetration in Denim gel, inches: 8.38
  8.50
  8.50
  8.63

 

 

Winchester Ranger-T

Average Velocity in feet per second 907
Average Expanded Diameter .595” (15.1 mm)
Average Maximum Diameter .793” (20.1 mm)
Average Retained Weight 93.9 grains
MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator 12.07
Penetration in Bare Gelatin, inches: 21.25
  21.88
15.00
8.13
  9.50

Share Button

Best Weapon For Home Defense

Y’know, it’s a good thing I didn’t start this blog in order to make friends… as I’m sure this post won’t win me many.  But I gotta go with what I know.  Even if it’s controversial.  And this post just might be.

Note: in this article, it’s presumed that you have the legal right to defend your home with a firearm; if you live in a state or country that doesn’t provide that right, then obviously none of this can apply to you… check into whether your state provides you the Castle Doctrine or a Stand Your Ground law to find out what your legal options are.  The rest of this article presumes that the reader lives in a state where a person in their own home is entitled to defend themselves with deadly force through use of a firearm.

Okay, the topic at hand: home defense.  There’s an eternal battle that rages across gun stores, internet discussion forums, at shooting ranges, everywhere — what’s the BEST gun to have for home defense?

Answer’s obvious: a 12-gauge shotgun.  Duh.  Right?

Well, let’s think a little before we just accept the common wisdom… a 12-gauge is a profoundly powerful weapon.  It is a true fight-stopper.  People in handgun forums can argue endlessly about “stopping power”, but a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot is the ultimate in stopping power.  One blast from a 12-gauge is usually enough to stop any aggression by any particular individual.

But does that make it the BEST weapon for home defense?  There are so many variables that it’s hard to ever determine what’s “best” so let’s just start with this: who’s supposed to be firing that 12-gauge?  If you’re a 300-lb 6-foot ex-football player, then sure, a 12-gauge may be totally appropriate.  But what about for a petite 5-foot tall, 90-lb female?  Er… sorry, a 12-gauge would very likely not be the “best” weapon for her — she may get the first shot off, but may find it extremely difficult to get a second shot off, if one is necessary, and she may even have been knocked over by the recoil.  I’ve met plenty of women shooters who simply hate shotguns.  They’re big, they’re incredibly loud, and they just plain hurt to fire.  Even a “youth” model 20-gauge can be a significant handful.

Okay, If Not a 12-Gauge, Then an AR-15, Right?

It seems like there’s a huge surge in interest in using the AR-15 (or other small-caliber rifle) for home defense.  And I can well understand why — an AR-15 is much easier to handle, and definitely easier for even smaller people to get off follow-up shots, than a 12-gauge (or even 20-gauge) shotgun.  A 30-round magazine offers enough capacity to handle any conceivable threat.  A solid hit with an AR-15 (and the proper self-defense ammo) will stop an aggressor immediately.  Sure, it may overpenetrate more than the shotgun, but (as goes the argument) it’s easier to aim, so as long as you don’t miss, it’s — well, let’s borrow from Obi-Wan Kenobi — “it’s not as clumsy or random as a blaster, it’s a more elegant weapon, for a more civilized day.”

Those are the two primary candidates that I hear bandied about most frequently.  One side argues the superiority of the shotgun, the other argues that the AR15 is actually more practical.  But which side is actually right?

Neither — Of Course.

You didn’t expect me to actually declare one of the prevailing arguments the winner, did you? If so, you haven’t been reading the blog here very long…

Here’s the thing — both are superb weapons, and any properly-defended castle should probably have both.  But when determining what’s the “best” weapon, you have to first ask the question: what is the threat I’m going to face?  Only then can you answer what weapon will best meet and defeat that threat.

Today’s Threats

So what type of incidents are you likely to encounter, in today’s society?  Is it the gang of thugs rolling through a neighborhood trashing anyone and everything they encounter?  Not very likely in most neighborhoods (but if it’s likely where you live, then I have one and only one piece of advice for you: MOVE.  NOW.)

Is the threat you face a horde of pillagers (looters, which are a realistic interpretation of the “zombie apocalypse”)?  Again, not likely — that’s a TEOTWAWKI scenario, and if that happens, all bets are off (and you’d better have both the shotgun and the AR15 in that scenario anyway).  But is this a realistic threat assessment for everyday life?  Not likely.

So let’s talk about the threats that are most likely to affect people on a daily basis, in their home: burglars, and the home invasion.  These are real threats.  The FBI’s crime statistics say that over 13% of homes are burglarized each year(!)  85% of burglaries are through the front door, and 67% of all burglaries are forced entries.

In both cases (burglars and home invaders) someone enters your home with the intent to rob your home and/or harm you.  For purposes of clarity here, I’ll separate them out into two classes, “classic burglars” and home invaders, with the defining characteristic being whether they expect you to be home.

The traditional burglar, by and large, doesn’t want you to be home, and doesn’t want to be interrupted.  They prize stealth, they want to slip in quietly, grab your stuff, and get out undetected.  They may be deterred by burglar alarms, or by a barking dog.  If you are home when the burglar enters, all bets are off: the burglar may decide to avoid conflict and just flee, or they may escalate into a bigger threat — the burglar may physically assault you, they may become a rapist, a kidnapper, or even a murderer as the opportunities or threats present themselves.  But this may not necessarily be on the burglar’s initial agenda; they may just be attempting to score some loot by robbing a (presumably unoccupied) house.  Or they may be doing a quick grab of goods at night, when you’re supposed to be asleep and therefore not an interruption to them.

The home invasion is related, but it’s also a totally different beast — this is a violent criminal who doesn’t care whether you’re home or not.  If you are home, you can expect a violent assault from the home invader.  The home invader may be high on drugs, they may be drunk, they may be mentally unstable, they may primarily be interested in robbing, but they’re not concerned with the subtlety or quiet appearance and swift disappearance of the burglar; the home invader is going to kick in your door, storm in, subdue you in whatever violent manner he chooses (all in just the first few seconds), and then will go about whatever his hostile business is (which may include robbery, rape, kidnapping, murder, or whatever else his criminal mind decides to do.)  And the home invader doesn’t wait for or care about the cover of night — he will strike in broad daylight, or at night, or whenever he wants to.  There are simply NO rules for the home invader.

By and large, these are the more likely threats that the average household may face one day.  Which weapon is most appropriate for meeting these threats? A shotgun or a rifle?

How about a pocket pistol?

WHAT?!?!? Am I insane? (perhaps, but that’s an unnecessary distraction from the topic at hand…)

Seriously, let’s think about this.  You’re relaxing on the couch, watching a football game, when the door gets kicked in and two guys come bursting in the door.  Their plan of attack is to look around for any threat and neutralize it (meaning, they’re immediately going to rush you and violently attack you).  Should you go for the shotgun you have stored in your back bedroom, locked away in a biometric safe?  Good luck with that, because these thugs will be on you in about two and a half seconds.  Maybe instead you should go for the AR-15 that you have in the garage, locked up in your big 55-gun rifle safe — how are you going to get to it?  “Excuse me, guys, can I just get past you, I need to go out in the garage…”  No, I don’t think that’s gonna work.

How about you reach in your pocket, pull out your pocket-nine or micro-380, and start firing as soon as they invade your house?  They didn’t see that coming, did they?  Bursting through a door and being met with six blasts of lead might very well discourage even the nastiest of home invaders.

Now, obviously a shotgun will deliver a vastly more incapacitating blow than a pocket .380 will, but — what’s the old adage, “the .380 that you’ve got with you beats the .45 locked in the safe every time”?

Okay, let’s talk about scenario 2 — you’re a mom home alone with your toddler.  A home invader kicks in the door and grabs your kid.  What are you going to do — are you going to run to the master bedroom closet to get your trusty 20-gauge? Of course not, you’re going to immediately start screaming and pleading for him to not hurt your baby.  He’s got you completely subdued, and can then set about doing whatever it was he planned on (or whatever new plan he improvises).  And there’s not a thing you can do to stop him — or is there?  What about when he looks away, you pull out your pocket 9mm and give him a magazine full of lead?  Didn’t see that one coming, did he?

Third scenario — someone rings the doorbell.  You don’t know who they are, but you decide to answer the door anyway.  Two big guys shove past you, and now they’re in your house.  You’re thrown to the ground, and — what’s next?  Whatever they want, that’s what.  And what can you do about it?  What if you have an AR15 right in the next room? Too bad, because you’ve got a 230-lb thug blocking the path to it.  However, a quick dip in the pocket, a double-tap of some pocket-9mm Federal HST’s, and all of a sudden the dynamics of the situation change — now you’ve only got one thug to worry about, and his hands are up in the air.  Now you’ve got time to call 911 and get the authorities there to deal with the second invader.

Is the threat you face one of a personal nature — a jealous ex, a bitter divorce, an alcoholic stalker?  I’d say for most people, we don’t have dangerous individuals in our life, but for those who do, this is a very real threat.  Which home weapon should you have to protect yourself in that scenario? Obviously, the answer is the same — the pistol you have on you beats the arsenal you have locked up in a safe somewhere where you can’t get to it.  If you have a person who may attack you, whose motivation is personal and who will not be scared off by a burglar alarm or a barking dog, then you need to be able to defend yourself whenever and wherever you are.

Wait — Isn’t This Crazy?

Isn’t carrying a pistol while you’re at home a little… paranoid?  Well, again, let’s think about it — why have a shotgun or rifle at home at all?  Is that paranoid?  Some may say yes, others may vigorously argue that notion, but let’s consider this simple fact: 100% of home invasions happen at home.  So why be defenseless when you’re at home?  If you can’t get to your weapon, you’re defenseless.

If you want to have the ability to protect yourself and your loved ones from a home invasion… if you’ve already made the decision to defend your home with force… if you’ve already come to the conclusion that the potential threat is real enough to need to take action to do something about it … then … isn’t it kind of crazy to NOT pocket-carry?

Back in the days when everyone lived on farms, when you could see a neighbor (or stranger) driving up to your house, then having Pa go and grab the shotgun made sense.  Today it’s not that way — today, your door could be kicked in and invaders in your house in literally seconds, and you have no time to prepare.  At all.

If you’re concerned about home defense in a world where the threat can be on you in literally seconds, then the answer is obvious: pocket-carry a 9mm (or, if you want an even smaller, lighter option, a pocket .380).  I would argue that you’d be much better prepared to meet any threat with the pistol you have on you, than you would be with the long gun you can’t get to.  Most of us don’t really want to wear a shoulder holster and a big double-stack full-size duty pistol when we’re relaxing at home, but I think all of us could find room for an LCP or TCP or DB9 in our pocket or tucked in a Remora in the waistband.  And maybe the pocket pistol will buy you the time you need to get to your fightstopper; maybe a quick couple of rounds to the doorway buys you the time to get to your master bedroom safe where you can unleash the mighty 12-gauge behemoth you keep there.

But if you don’t have the pocket pistol with you, then there are many potential scenarios where you will just plain lose.  The pocket pistol gives you a multitude of options and an immediate ability to act.  And for those reasons, I would make a case that a pocket pistol (or other easily-carried handgun) may be the “best” weapon to have for home defense.

Share Button

More on Overpenetration – What About FMJ’s?

Since finishing and posting my article on overpenetration, and why so much of the worry about overpenetration is simply overblown, it’s brought me back to the subject of full metal jacket bullets (aka “FMJ’s”, usually used strictly as “range ammo” or “training ammo”).

FMJ’s For Self Defense?

FMJ’s are not generally recommended for self defense purposes, as they’re really rather ineffective as compared to modern hollowpoint ammo.  An FMJ is really just a hunk of lead, sheathed in copper; when it hits a target it pokes a hole in the target, and that’s really about it — there’s no expansion, no big temporary wound cavity to speak of, it’s pretty much the simplest and least effective bullet design for causing wounds.

Now, don’t get me wrong, FMJ’s can certainly kill, and they can cause critical hits if they happen to hit the central nervous system or a major artery or the heart.  It’s not like an FMJ won’t do damage, it will, it’s just that — well, just about any other kind of bullet will do more damage than an FMJ would.  The FMJ is the least damaging type of projectile in common use.  A wadcutter is a much more effective wounder than an FMJ, and a hollowpoint can be a significantly superior wounder than an FMJ (assuming, of course, that it penetrates deeply enough).

That’s where FMJ’s excel — penetration.  Because they’re basically a round-nose, slippery design, they present a very low-drag profile and they slip through tissue (or air or water or whatever) easily.  And because they slip through tissue so easily, FMJ’s present a very real prospect of overpenetrating.  Even in a relatively weak caliber like .380 ACP, an FMJ will easily be able to penetrate 22 to 25 inches of ballistic gelatin — and anything over 18″ is considered an overpenetrating bullet.  That’s another reason why, in contrast to some other terminal ballistic experts, I consider FMJ’s a poor choice for the .380 — they provide weak wounding and high overpenetration dangers.  They’re unquestionably a better choice than an underpenetrating bullet would be, but I’d much, much rather use a properly-engineered hollowpoint that penetrates deeply and avoids overpenetration and has an aggressive wounding profile, than use a slippery little FMJ that will sail right through the attacker, causing minimal damage as it goes, and still presents a potentially significant threat to anyone behind the attacker.

How much of a threat is an overpenetrating FMJ?

Let’s consult Charles Schwartz’s excellent Quantitative Ammunition Selection to find out.  In my previous article I had demonstrated that a good .380 or .45 ACP hollowpoint, after penetrating through 9″ of an attacker’s torso, wouldn’t likely have enough residual velocity to even break the skin of a person standing behind the target.  Even if the bullet overpenetrated, it would still have enough energy to cause a nasty bruise, sure, but it wasn’t likely a significant risk to still be lethal; the journey through the attacker’s body would slow the bullet down below 300 feet per second, rendering it unlikely to be able to even break skin.  Applying the same formula and calculations to an FMJ, we get very different results — frightening results.  A 90-grain .380 ACP FMJ, for example, would travel at about 900 feet per second from the muzzle.  After penetrating through 9″ of muscle tissue and exiting out the other side, it would still be traveling at 385 feet per second — and that’s enough to penetrate almost 8.75″ of ballistic gel!  And that means that while it doesn’t exceed the FBI/IWBA minimum 12″ penetration depth, it could still easily cause serious damage or even possibly a fatal hit on a bystander.

Of course, the story is much worse with the .45 ACP FMJ.  Using a 230-grain projectile at 850 feet per second from the muzzle, it’d penetrate through that 9″ torso and when it overpenetrated it’d still be going 498 feet per second.  That would give it enough energy to be able to penetrate over 16″ of ballistic gel, definitely capable of a fatal hit.  But let’s put it in perspective — let’s say that the .45 ACP FMJ penetrated through the 9″-thick attacker, and continued on to hit a bystander — at 498 feet per second, it’d have enough energy to easily pass completely through 9″ of bystander, and still be going at 252 feet per second!  After exiting the bystander, it’d still maintain enough energy to reach almost 8″ deep into ballistic gel — again, far enough to cause serious damage, and depending on where it hits, it may even cause a critical/fatal hit on a person behind the bystander behind the attacker.  Yes, one .45 ACP FMJ could pass completely through two people and lodge deeply enough in the third to cause a fatal hit.

Is overpenetration a concern?

Yes, but it’s only a significant concern if you’re foolish enough to load your defensive weapon with FMJ bullets instead of hollowpoints.  If hollowpoints are legal for self defense where you live, USE THEM.  They’re much more effective wounders, they’re much more likely to stop an attacker, and they vastly minimize any risk of overpenetration.  A hollowpoint expands so large that it slows down dramatically while it’s traveling through the attacker’s body; even if it overpenetrates it’ll be going so slowly that it won’t be nearly as dangerous as an FMJ would be.  The only time I’d recommend against hollowpoints is when you’re using a tiny caliber (specifically .22LR, .25 ACP, or .32 ACP) where there just isn’t enough energy available to push a hollowpoint deep enough to cause a critical hit — in those cases, you have to go with a non-expanding bullet; wadcutters would be preferred, but use FMJ’s if you can’t get wadcutters.  And in .380 ACP, careful ammunition selection is vital — some hollowpoints grossly under-penetrate and can leave you at risk; you have to choose a hollowpoint that penetrates deeply enough to have a chance of causing a critical hit, while minimizing the risk of overpenetration.  See my articles on the .380 Ammo Quest for test results on ammo that can achieve this goal.  And for any caliber more powerful than .380 (such as 38 Special, 9mm, 10mm, 357 Magnum, 357 Sig, 40 S&W, 45 ACP, or 45 Colt) there’s no question — for safety and effectiveness you should be using hollowpoints, and avoiding FMJ’s, for defensive purposes.

Share Button

What About Bullet Overpenetration?

Even a cursory scouring of gun forums, or listening to discussions at shooting ranges, will frequently uncover a discussion about “overpenetration” and the terrible dangers it represents.  Which is entirely understandable, as those of us interested in armed self defense are repeatedly lectured that “You are legally responsible for every projectile that leaves your weapon” and — if a bullet overpenetrates your attacker and strikes someone behind them, you are facing some substantial legal, financial, and emotional consequences.

Furthermore, fear of overpenetration is firmly ingrained by reading The Four Laws Of Gun Safety, where it’s stated: “Always be sure of your target, and what is behind it!”

With all that said, I’m going to raise a few eyebrows by just plain flat-out saying it: the paranoia about “overpenetration” is grossly overblown.  It’s not what you should be worrying about — or, well, it’s something you should be aware of, but it’s definitely not the most important thing and it’s not something to expend a tremendous amount of energy being concerned about.

Why Is Overpenetration (usually) Overblown?

There are a few reasons why I say this, but let me start with reason #1: you should be much more concerned with shots that miss the target entirely, than shots that penetrate through your attacker and keep going!  Missed shots are much, much more problematic than overpenetrating shots are.  There are lots of reasons for this, but I’m going to focus on two:

1.) You’re probably going to miss more than you hit.  Now, I’m not indicting you, or your marksmanship, or telling you you need more range time (although hey, we all need more range time).  I’m just acknowledging a simple, obvious fact — it’s really, really hard to hit a moving target when you’re terrified and fearing for your life and you’ve got more adrenaline coursing through your veins than you’ve ever experienced before and your body is overwhelming you with the “Fight Or Flight” instincts.  How hard is it?  Consider the statistics from the NYPD for officer-involved shootings — they’ve been keeping track of these stats for decades, and a brief study of them will reveal that for every six shots officers fired, they missed five of them.  Not “hit somewhere other than the desired point of aim”, not “hit in the shoulder” or “hit in the leg” or whatever, but — missed completely.  Five out of six shots fired by NYPD officers, on average, over the last several decades, missed the target completely.  Now, I know that some of you are thinking “well, that’s just because the NYPD has lousy training and officer certification, I KNOW I’m much better than they are!”  I’ve heard that argument advanced many times.  So I’d like to point out — the NYPD isn’t the only organization keeping statistics.  I’ve seen reports of more than a few, and in no case have I seen reports of the officers hitting more times than they missed.  Sure, the NYPD was the lowest ranked, but some other examples reported are Miami (between 15% and 30% from 1988-1994) and Portland at 43% (1984-1992); the highest I’ve seen is Baltimore reporting a 49% hit ratio.  Keep in mind, these are trained police officers.  Does that mean their training is superior to yours? Maybe, maybe not — how much do you train?  If you’re absolutely fervent about taking classes and training in true defensive scenarios, then maybe your training is on par or even better than the NYPD, but I’d dare say that that would be the case in only a minority, if not even a small or even tiny minority, of self-defense shooters.  For most of us, we go to the range once in a while, and we shoot paper targets.  That’s not training, that’s just rote marksmanship, and it has little (or nothing) to do with surviving a defensive encounter against a determined, fast-moving, armed attacker!

Secondly, I’d like to point out that police officers (yes, even those in the NYPD) are human beings who love their lives every bit as much as you love yours.  None of them wants to die.  I think it’s not likely that they’re blatantly ignoring training; whether the department offers top-line training or not, I think it’s likely that officers (who know very well that they’re far more likely to be shot at than the average citizen) even supplement their training.  And, given all this, they still only hit one time out of six.

What does that tell you?  It tells me that hitting a target, in that scenario, is really, really hard.  And you shouldn’t be surprised if you miss.  You should do your very best to hit, you should try your very hardest to hit, but — it ain’t easy.

Does this mean you shouldn’t even try?  Should you be so paralyzed by fear of missing, or fear of overpenetration, that you just put the gun away?  Again, let’s go back to why you’re carrying the gun in the first place… it’s likely (or should be) that you’re carrying it to protect you, or a loved one, from death or great bodily harm.  So if it’s a case of “don’t shoot and be killed” or “shoot and maybe you’ll have some consequences, maybe you won’t” then the old adage may apply here: “Better to be judged by 12, than carried by six.”

Now, on to reason two to not sweat overpenetration nearly as much as we seem to:

2.) Bullets get slowed down as they pass through someone.  A lot.  Let’s take the example of a .380 hollowpoint impacting an attacker at 1000 feet per second.  That bullet is capable of penetrating 13″ of ballistic gel.  Let’s say that it hits and passes completely through a thin attacker, and keeps going.  Assuming the bullet passed through, say, 9″ of soft tissue, how much of a threat will it still be? Using the formulas in Quantitative Ammunition Selection, we can find out — and doing the math, that bullet will still be traveling at 290 feet per second when it exits.  So yes, it’s capable of still doing some damage, certainly, but nowhere near as much as a missed shot would be!  Remember, the missed shot still has 100% of its velocity, so it’s still travelling at 1,000 feet per second, and it’ll hit something (a car, a wall, or maybe a bystander) and it will still be highly deadly.  The overpenetrating shot will still hit something too, but it’s at greatly reduced power.  It is much less likely to be deadly to a bystander than the missed shot would be.

Let’s take another example, the 230-grain .45 ACP JHP that travels at 850 feet per second — how much of an overpenetration threat would it be, after passing through 9″ of soft tissue of your attacker? Perhaps quite a bit less.  According to the QAS formula, that bullet would exit a 9″ torso traveling about 203 feet per second.  Now, that’s still capable of creating damage, but it’s certainly a much minimized threat as compared to a missed shot!

How much damage will these overpenetrating shots do to a person standing behind the target?  While there’s no way to predict exactly what will happen in any given scenario, we can look at probabilities and determine — they probably won’t do much damage.  How can I say this?  Thanks to ballistics experts and mathematicians who have modeled these parameters, we know that there’s a pretty good chance that these example overpenetrating bullets wouldn’t even break the skin of someone they pass-thru and hit.  Henry Hudgins of the US Army’s RDECOM Aeroballistics Division developed a formula for determining the velocity necessary for an expanded hollowpoint to break skin (with or without any chosen layer of clothing).  And according to Hudgin’s model, the .380 JHP I mentioned (exiting a 9″ torso and traveling at 290 feet per second) would probably sting when it hit someone else, but it’d be going slower than the 301.2 feet per second necessary to penetrate through 4 ounces of light clothing and then break skin.  And the .45 ACP example I gave, which exits a 9″ torso traveling 203 fps, wouldn’t even come close to the 295.6 feet per second necessary to punch through that 4oz clothing and then break skin.  So yes, that person may be bruised, but it’s probably unlikely that they’d sustain substantial or life-threatening injuries due to being hit by these example overpenetrating bullets.

Note, I’m not saying to ignore the concept of overpenetration.  I’ve embarked on an extensive quest to find the best .380 ammunition because I really don’t like the idea of using full-metal-jacket bullets that will easily penetrate 22″ of ballistic gel, because it seems like they’re guaranteed over-penetrators.  I certainly don’t want to accept the guarantee of overpenetration, when I don’t have to!  Hollowpoints are designed to expand so large that they minimize or largely eliminate the prospect of overpenetrating; most modern hollowpoints are designed to deliver about 12-13″ of penetration maximum.  But here’s the far bigger danger, to you: worrying so much about overpenetration, that you select ammo that actually under-penetrates.  That’s the real danger in this whole scenario.  Understand that an overpenetrating bullet will still stop an attacker; it just will also represent a threat to others (or property) by overpenetrating.  But an underpenetrating bullet is much more likely to fail to stop the attacker — and that means that the attack will continue.  Underpenetrating ammo was the whole reason for the debacle of the Miami FBI shootout, and the reason the wound ballistic conferences were called in the first place.  Underpenetration gets self-defense shooters killed.  Overpenetration may present some risk of collateral damage, but underpenetration presents the very real risk that you may not survive the encounter.

Overpenetration is bad, but underpenetration is much worse, and missing is far far worse.  Try to choose suitable ammo, and if you ever have to use it, try to be as accurate as possible, and you should be able to minimize your worries about overpenetration.

So what’s the general upshot?

Shoot only when you absolutely have to.  And be absolutely sure of your target, and do your very very best to hit them.  Be worried about missed shots, as those are far worse than overpenetrating shots.  And if a bullet overpenetrates, that’s disappointing, but the alternative (either not shooting, or using underpenetrating ammo) are both likely to get you killed.  A solid torso shot with a modern hollowpoint should minimize the risks of overpenetration.

Overpenetration can happen, but there are far worse things to be concerned about.  Don’t let fear of overpenetration unnecessarily cloud your judgement.  Choose reliable, effective ammo, and then train train train train with it, and pray you never have to use it.

Share Button

More on Bullet Penetration — and Why We Don’t Use Bones When Testing Ammo in Gel

In an earlier article I discussed the reasoning behind the recommendation that a bullet needs to be able to penetrate at least 12″ of ballistic gel.  But I’m still seeing confusion and commentary about how people think that’s totally unnecessary, and the reasoning usually goes like this:

“I just measured my torso.  I’m 8″, front to back.  And that means my heart (and other vitals) are only about 6″ deep.  Therefore, a bullet would only need to penetrate 6″, and needing 12″ is just useless overkill.”  Simultaneously, these are usually the same folks who say “Why don’t you (or why doesn’t anyone) ever use bones in your ammo tests?”

The answer to both is the same — ballistic gel, while a tissue simulant, is not a BODY simulant!  Ballistic gel doesn’t attempt to mimic a human body.  It never has been used for that (by professional testers) and it never will be.  Bodies are made of all sorts of tissue — soft stuff, squishy stuff, hard stuff, nearly-empty stuff, really wet stuff, all sorts of things.  No ammo test can accurately simulate all that.  And it’s unnecessary to even try.

Here’s the thing, and I hope that this comes across as non-confrontationally as I mean it to be: the standards that we’re discussing (such as ballistic gel, and 12″) were made by people far, far more expert than the average person.  These standards were arrived at by consensus of ballistics experts, trauma surgeons, doctors, E.R. personnel, coroners, all sorts of people who deal with bullets on a daily basis.  So when considering these recommendations, please understand that a LOT of serious thought went into making them, by the best minds in the business.

Okay, so — back to the bones & 12″ part.  What you need to understand is — the 12″ requirement already includes the presence of bones!  If a bullet can penetrate 12″ of ballistic gel, then it also can penetrate a ribcage and still have enough energy to reach those 6″ into your 8″ torso and hit the vitals.  That’s the whole point, really — specifying 12″ of gel penetration (not body penetration, but gel penetration) means that the bullet has enough reach to hit the vitals from any angle, and through any barrier on the body.  It will have enough power to blast through a bone and reach the vitals underneath.

So when you see people testing bullets by putting pork bones in front of ballistic gel, they’re really going about it the wrong way.  The bone factor is already accounted for in the 12″ recommendation!

Yes a bullet might be able to hit your vitals if it penetrates only five inches of body.  But five inches of body, and five inches of ballistic gel, are not the same thing — not at all.

Think about it from a backwards perspective — gather a bunch of trauma surgeons and ER doctors and combat medics and coroners/medical examiners together, and ask them what bullets have most frequently shown the ability to hit the vital structures.  Then take those same bullets and fire them into ballistic gel, and report the results.  That’s a simplified view of how the 12″ number was arrived at — effective, manstopping bullets that reached deep into the vitals, were then compared using ballistic gel, to see how much penetration is necessary.  And the results were that 12″ of ballistic gel performance equates to “able to reach the vitals from any angle, through bones, and even through a raised arm or sideways through a shoulder or lowered arm.”

In the FBI report “Handgun Wounding Factors & Effectiveness”, the recommendation is made that while penetration up to 18″ is preferable, a bullet MUST be able to reliably penetrate 12″ of soft body tissue at a minimum, whether it expands or not.  For emphasis, let me repeat: “reliably penetrate 12” of soft body tissue“.  Bodies are not made solely of soft tissue, obviously, and the heart isn’t always 12″ deep.  But ballistic gel is a soft tissue simulant.  It doesn’t simulate bones, and it doesn’t need to.  The bone factor has already been considered, and the determination is: if a bullet can travel through 12″ of soft tissue, then it also has enough power to hit the vital organs even when passing through the ribcage.

Now, a bullet may deflect when it strikes a bone, that’s true.  But how can we possibly test for that? Because a bullet may not deflect when it strikes a bone, it might just pass right through.  There are so many variables involved, that you could literally drive yourself mad trying to account for all of them.  Accordingly, ballistic experts don’t bother with all that.  The one overriding, underlying, and immutable factor is: if a bullet is going to have the power to reach the vital organs, through all foreseeable barriers (such as a raised arm, or an angled shot), then that same bullet, when fired in ballistic gel, will travel at least 12″ and preferably up to 18″ through ballistic gel.

Do you see the difference?  It’s not saying your vital organs are located 12” deep in the body (although, for some particularly fat or particularly muscular individual, I guess that’s possible).  Ballistic gel is not a body simulant.  It is a soft tissue simulant, and all experts involved with its creation and use are well aware that bodies are made of more than just soft tissue.  They’ve put some serious thought into this, they’ve conducted some serious science on it, they’ve correlated it against many, many “real world” shootings and autopsies, and the consensus recommendation coming from the 1987 and 1993 wound ballistics workshops is: performance of 12″ minimum, and up to 18″ maximum, penetration through ballistic gel is necessary for a bullet to be considered reliably capable of causing instant incapacitation of a target (assuming, of course, that the shot placement is suitable).

So what about overpenetration?  More on that, in the next article.

Share Button

The MacPherson Wound Trauma Incapacitation Factor

How’s that for an attention-grabbing title?  Yeah, I know, sounds like no need for sleeping pills, it sounds like this article will put you right out, right?

Well, hopefully not so.  Hopefully this can shed some light on a new factor I’m introducing to my YouTube channel’s ammo tests: The MacPherson Wound Trauma Incapacitation (WTI) Factor.

I discussed the WTI factor in a previous blog article, http://shootingthebull.net/blog/how-effective-is-a-hit-from-a-judge/.  But I wanted to address it more head-on and more specifically, here in this article, so that when people see the end of my ammo tests and see a “MacPherson WTI Factor” quoted, they’ll know what it means.

What Is The WTI Factor?

In the simplest possible terms, the MacPherson WTI factor is an attempt by Duncan MacPherson, author of one of the seminal works on wound ballistics (“Bullet Penetration“), to quantify just how effective a bullet would be in stopping an attacker.  Now, there have been many attempts at doing this before; an example would be the TKO (“Taylor Knock Out Factor”).  The problem with prior models of bullet effectiveness is that they didn’t actually take into account what makes a bullet effective!  Instead they relied on (seemingly arbitrarily) assigning factors to caliber, diameter, speed, weight… all the right things, yes, but without knowing and modeling how they work together, and without knowing what actions of a bullet actually STOP an attacker, how can you rank them?

Voluntary Incapacitation

Let’s go through the reasons why an attacker would stop attacking.  There are many, but they basically break down to two categories: voluntary, and involuntary.  Voluntary factors include:

  1. They see that you have a gun, and they decide to call it quits right then and there.  If not, then:
  2. They see a gun pointed at them.  That can be a real attention-getter, staring down the barrel of a loaded gun.  It might be enough for them to decide that they’d be better off somewhere else, and fast.  If not, then maybe when:
  3. They hear a gunshot, or see the muzzle blast.  Now, they may or may not have gotten hit, but just hearing the shot or seeing flames erupt from the front of a gun can be enough, in some cases, to get an attacker to drop what they’re doing right away.  If not, then perhaps:
  4. They get shot.  This one starts to cross the line between voluntary and involuntary, but let’s stay strictly voluntary here — let’s say they get shot, with a flesh wound.  Nothing serious.  Maybe they got grazed.  Maybe they got shot in the leg.  Doesn’t really matter, all I’m after here is: it’s not life-threatening, but maybe it’s bleeding.  That right there will stop many attackers; many people will choose to stop their attack when they feel the panic of “I’ve been shot — I need to get to the hospital immediately or I’m gonna die!”

Okay, that basically covers the voluntary reasons someone might choose to stop an attack, in progressive order.  But what if they won’t?  What if they simply will not stop attacking, even after being shot?  Maybe they’re high, or so enraged, that they just don’t care or don’t even notice that they’ve been shot at all.  What then?  Well, at that point you will be relying on your defensive gun to FORCE them to stop attacking.  And that’s where you need to know how effective your bullets will be in causing wound trauma, and what level of wound trauma you’d need to be able to inflict in order to force even a determined attacker to stop.

Sometimes, Any Bullet Will Do

A side diversion here — sometimes, really, any bullet from any gun will do equally as well as any other bullet from pretty much any other gun.  Look through the list of “voluntary” reasons: in those scenarios, it very likely wouldn’t matter what bullet or what caliber you had on hand; if someone’s going to be stopped by hearing a gun fire, it’s not very probable that they’ll be thinking “oh, wait, that was only a .380, never mind, I’ll keep attacking.”  Instead, it’s pretty much the case that if someone sees a gun pointed at them, they’re not likely going to process the barrel size as part of their decision-making process.  Even the process of getting shot — obviously a big bullet would cause more wound trauma than a small bullet, but if we’re discussing the psychological reasons of when attackers stop attacking, then when it comes to a flesh wound, it probably wouldn’t make that much difference to an attacker.  Seeing blood pouring out of their bodies will be what forces their decision; they’re not likely to go measuring the hole in them to see what size of bullet they got hit by.

So this is good news, for those who advocate smaller pistols and smaller bullets — yes, there are many cases where they will be equally effective in deterring an attacker.  But (and, as Pee Wee Herman said, “everybody’s got a big but”… what about when you need to force them to stop?  What if you need to invoke an involuntary incapacitation?

Involuntary Incapacitation Factors

Sometimes the bad guy isn’t going to cooperate.  Sometimes they won’t go away.  Sometimes, you may need to use deadly force to bring the attack to a halt RIGHT NOW.  Sometimes you need to take away an attacker’s capacity to attack you — you need to take away their ability to attack you.  This is what we’ve been referring to as “incapacitation” — when the attacker’s ability to attack is taken away from them.  This can be through many different ways, including rendering them unconscious, or even dead or paralyzed.  Regardless of the method of forcing them to stop, this section is about the hard business of making them stop immediately.

There are two basic ways to bring about involuntary incapacitation — either through an attack on the vital structures of the body, or through overall collective damage to the body that the body just shuts down.

Attacking the vital structures is called making an “incapacitating hit”.  Damaging the vital structures (such as the brain stem, spinal column, or destroying something in the circulatory system that causes a big drop in blood pressure) will cause an attacker to stop immediately (in the case of a brain stem or spinal column injury) or will cause them to stop very soon (in the case of hitting an artery or the heart).  Those types of hits will interrupt the flow of blood and therefore will soon deprive the brain of oxygen, although this is not immediate; even in a case of completely destroying the heart, the brain may have enough oxygen to continue attacking for up to about 10 seconds.

Scoring an incapacitating hit on a determined attacker is no easy task.  Bullets are small, and the vital areas on a human body are also quite small; the spinal column is maybe 2″ in diameter.  In order to hit these structures you’ll need immaculate shot placement (more on that later)  Here, again, the caliber doesn’t really matter much — a .22LR hit to the brain stem will stop an attacker immediately, just like a .45 ACP or a 10mm hit to the brain stem.  It’s true that the bigger bullet will have a higher likelihood of hitting something than a smaller bullet would (meaning, the larger the bullet, the more chance it would have to turn a “near miss” into a “partial hit”) but, assuming your shot placement is perfect, then any bullet (that penetrates deeply enough) can get the job done.

The Myth Of Shot Placement

So now we get to the controversial part.  Scoring an incapacitating hit on a determined attacker requires immaculate shot placement.  And just about the only way to get that is dumb luck.

Luck?!?!  Yes, I said it.  Luck.  Because if you manage to place that bullet exactly where you wanted to, in the heat of an absolute life-or-death situation where you are facing imminent death (or great bodily harm, as the law allows) and your attacker is moving rapidly — well, good luck with your shot placement.

It’s often said “Shot Placement Is King.”  Yes, it is — that is absolutely true.  The problem is, the odds of you being able to control your shot placement to where you want it, are very low.  Think about what’s going on — you’re not facing a paper target.  You have a living, breathing human being, who isn’t standing placidly, they’re trying to kill you.  You’re going to have the mother of all adrenaline dumps going on.  You’re going to be gripped in the most severe case of “Flight Or Fight” that you will ever experience.  Your fine motor skills are going to go by the wayside.  You’re going to have tunnel vision.  And you’re going to have barely a second or two to draw, aim, and fire.  Oh, and your attacker is bearing down on you, moving as fast as he can — and moving targets are always much harder to hit.

Still feeling absolutely confident about your shot placement?  Still think that you’re going to hit that 2″ wide spinal column?  I wouldn’t be so sure about that.  I wouldn’t want to rely on my ability to bring about a “one shot stop” in such a scenario!  And I certainly wouldn’t want to count on my ammo because some guy wrote in some column that “this is a great round, it dumps a lot of kinetic energy into the target” or whatever.

Accordingly, MacPherson wrote a 300+ page book to describe exactly what bullets do, how they behave, what they do to living tissue, what effects will stop someone immediately, and so on.  The net result is a formula that MacPherson predicts will have the potential for stopping an attacker, through general tissue damage — i.e., not relying on an incapacitating hit to the central nervous system.  He bases his formula on the general idea of overall tissue damage causing the body to shut down, as verified in an old Thompson-LaGarde test where steers were shot in non-vital areas with various calibers until they dropped.  It can be presumed that the steers weren’t influenced by any of the psychological factors, because the steers wouldn’t know what a gun was, wouldn’t know that having been shot meant they needed to get to the hospital, etc.  And, by avoiding the central nervous system or circulatory system, they showed that general damage to the body in sufficient quantity would be enough to cause the steer to drop.

So How Do I Use This?

In MacPherson’s work, he produced a formula that takes into account the penetration depth, the amount of tissue destroyed, and the type of bullet (a hollowpoint, a round-nose FMJ, a buckshot ball, etc) and comes up with a mathematical number that represents the amount of vital tissue that will be destroyed by that particular bullet.  MacPherson says that about 40 grams of tissue would need to be destroyed in order for the body to undergo such shock that it might shut down (again, there’s no guarantee, but this is about as good as he could predict).  40 grams of tissue is about as much as a hot dog, and I think you could imagine how substantial an injury would be if someone carved a complete hot dog out of your body!

In my ammo tests I’ll be reporting the MacPherson WTI (Wound Trauma Incapacitation) Factor, which will let you get a general idea of how one bullet compares to another when considering how much tissue it damages.  The MacPherson WTI is biased away from shallow-penetrating flesh wounds (for example, a really big-diameter bullet that only penetrates a few inches, would rate a zero on his scale; his scale requires bullets to reach deep enough that they’re not just damaging muscle, but are reaching the deepest internal sections of the body).  It also penalizes overpenetration; if a bullet just zips right through the attacker and wastes its energy by exiting the attacker, then he only credits the bullet with the damage it would have done within the attacker.  Obviously, an overpenetrating bullet won’t be as effective as one that puts all its available energy to work damaging as much tissue as possible.

It is in this arena, the involuntary incapacitation through tissue damage arena, where caliber becomes much more important.  For voluntary cessation of activities, any caliber will do.  And for critical hits on the central nervous system or major blood vessels, a hit by any caliber will be effective.  But when it comes to stopping an attacker without those critical hits, then the bigger, deeper-penetrating bullet that damages the most tissue is the one that will bring about involuntary incapacitation sooner.

MacPherson’s level of damage necessary for incapacitation is about 40 grams.  In the .380 ACP hollowpoints I’ve been testing, most are delivering MacPherson WTI factors of around 18 to 23.  What this means should be pretty obvious — don’t go betting your life on a “one shot stop” with a .380!  It’s going to take at least two or three good solid hits before you’ve damaged enough tissue in the attacker that they may be forced into an involuntary shutdown.  CAN you stop an attacker with one shot of a .380? Of course, if you have perfect shot placement and you hit a vital structure or the central nervous system.  But considering that the odds are quite against that, it would be wise to not rely on a “one shot stop”.  Instead you should count on the idea that you’re going to have to “shoot until the threat stops” — and that will likely mean at least two or three shots.  Now, I’m not going to guarantee to you that someone will stop after getting hit in the torso with two or three .380 ACP hollowpoints!  Obviously every shooting scenario is different, and the performance of bullets can vary from shot to shot, and it would also depend on whether the bullets hit something important (a vital organ) or just passed through muscle.  But in general, if you do your part and place the shots at least in the main torso, destroying 40 grams of tissue is perhaps going to bring about incapacitation even if you don’t get that rare CNS or artery shot.

Bigger bullets and bigger calibers make this easier, obviously.  Many .45 ACP hollowpoints will deliver a MacPherson WTI of about 55, meaning that it’s possible (not saying probable, but possible) that one solid shot to the body might bring about incapacitation.  Even then, I would still recommend following the advice of your firearms instructor when she says “shoot until the threat stops”.  But the larger bullet will give you a higher likelihood of hitting one of the critical structures in the body, and it will also destroy more tissue which may lead to faster incapacitation even in cases where it doesn’t hit one of those critical structures.

Reporting the MacPherson WTI will let you gain a better idea of how effective the bullets I test may prove to be if you ever need to use them.

In Summary

When selecting your defensive ammunition, here are the factors as I see them:

  1. Any bullet, placed perfectly and penetrating deeply and hitting the central nervous system (CNS) or a major artery or the heart, will stop an attacker just as well as any other bullet would.  In this case, caliber does not matter.
  2. Under the stresses of actual combat and the massive adrenaline dump that goes on, and the nature of a moving target who is attacking you and everything else that’s happening… there is practically no way that the average shooter is going to place that bullet perfectly.  It just will not (likely) happen.
  3. Knowing the results of the Thompson/LaGarde tests, and knowing that there were no psychological factors involved that caused the steers to drop, it seems obvious that with enough tissue destruction, even hits in nonvital areas CAN cause incapacitation.  They won’t always do so, but they could.
  4. Given the uncomfortable but clearly obvious truth of #2 above, it seems prudent to have a backup plan — being, have on hand the capability to administer enough non-critical wound trauma that you can still incapacitate the attacker even without that miracle CNS shot.

Place your shots as well as you can.  Practice as much as you can.  Practice speed and accuracy, practice moving while shooting, practice practice practice.  But when it comes to betting your life on being able to hit a tiny spinal column in a moving attacker while you’re moving and dodging and your fine motor skills are gone due to a huge influx of adrenaline… well, let’s just say that I wouldn’t want to rely solely on my ability to make that miracle shot.  Knowing how bullets work, knowing how they damage tissue, and knowing how much tissue damage is necessary before involuntary incapacitation might come into play, prepares you to be better equipped to successfully defend yourself if the time ever comes.

Share Button