Editor asks: 9mm ammo for home protection

As I mentioned in my first forum posting, I've been writing about personal protection and home protection handguns for about 6 months and my "poster child" weapon is the Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm with 4.25" barrel.

I've done a lot of homework into ammunition for this specific use and I am personally very impressed by the engineering that's going into many of the new offerings.

Let me define some precepts. In this defensive context, a cartridge should penetrate clothing and bloom when entering soft tissue but even if it should moss or exit soft tissue, it should not penetrate walls. It should be capable of penetrating a forearm held up to block the shot. Its goal is to stop the bad guy as assuredly as possible with as few shots as possible, but still do so within the 9mm 9x19 Luger limitation.

I've seen some interesting modifications of the +P JHP, perhaps most notably the Hornady Critical Defense cartridges.

But I'm here to learn from you, so please tell me your own nominees for best defensive ammunition, and what about them is behind your recommendation.

Along the same lines, I'd be happy to hear your rules of thumb; for example, whether you seek to optimize mass with more grains per bullet, or velocity, or some other factor - and again, why.

I would especially value any stories you'd care to share based on real-life experiences.

As most interior walls these day are nothing but a couple of sheets of sheetrock, any 9mm bullet that's not Nerf has a pretty good chance of penetrating. Interestingly, tests have shown that 45-55 gr. .223 hollowpoints penetrate walls less than just about any pistol or shotgun round. So maybe switch to a nice AR carbine...

Cor-Bon has some interesting ammo with Barnes copper bullets.
I have used it in .38 Special carry guns, but so far, not in 9mms.

You mention Hornady Critical Defense, I would suggest you take a look at it's results in 4 layer gel, they are not inspiring, I would not carry it. I bought some when it first came out thanks to industry/press hype only to find out it was all show and no go.

Have you looked at Doc Roberts FBI Gel results?

Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo

There is a short list of rounds that do well in gel results for 4 layer denim at the above link.

Check out Evan Marshall's findings as well, they are based on actual real world shooting results.

Based on that and my own personal and LEO experience there are not but a few rounds that combine real world success and Gel results that I would carry personally.

The 124 +p and 127 +p+ Winchester Ranger rounds, Ranger T and the Bonded are each a little better than the other in certain aspects. The bonded are better for barriers and the T for expansion.

Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +p rounds, the most street proven round.

The Corbon DPX offering

Any Federal HST offerings, the hydra shoks etc are older inferior rounds.

That would be about all I would carry, with one exception.

The Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel 124gr +P is a fantastic load for under 4 inch barrel pistols, the round is designed to expand at lower velocities and still has fantastic penetration.

That's my opinion, you can value it as you like, I am not representing myself as an expert.

First, there are no magic bullets.
After that there is, in no particular order, Gold-Dot, Ranger T and Federal HST. Take your pick.

The exact bullet you use is immaterial. SO LONG AS YOU HIT A VITAL AREA! If you don't hit a vital area, it's also immaterial what you use. As noted above, there is no magic bullet/caliber that will compensate for a lack of skill on the users part. Any of the JHP offerings from major manufacturers should do nicely if placed in the right spot.

Now then, any conventional projectile able to cause lethal injury will pass through drywall like it was tissue paper. You need to learn to know the safe firing lanes in your home and practice sufficiently to minimize the chance of misses.

That you've been writing "about personal protection and home protection handguns for about 6 months" and are only now asking basic questions is worrisome in the exteme.

WR Moore said:

The exact bullet you use is immaterial. SO LONG AS YOU HIT A VITAL AREA!
- - -
That you've been writing "about personal protection and home protection handguns for about 6 months" and are only now asking basic questions is worrisome in the exteme.

Click to expand...

My research does not support your oversimplification. There is first the question of hitting a vital area which has to do with a great deal more than where you aim. Thicknesses of leather have, for example, been documented to cause particular rounds to leave a bruise rather than a hole in the flesh beyond. Those are quite definitive examples of when the exact bullet you use is not at all immaterial.

As to finding my research worrisome, I'm not your Mother and will not advise you as to when you should or should not worry.

I have of course read a great deal of the published research, including the FBI findings and many gel tests. I have spoken directly with several of the ammunition manufacturers. And I have interviewed a good number of LEOs. Not one of them has shown your level of disrespect and not one of them has been dismissive of my questions.

I have a substantial engineering background and I understand the physics of cartridges. I have looked at deconstructed examples of a number of "safe load" rounds. I have viewed the various bloom, mushroom and cutter edges of a large variety of rounds. I have seen tests involving sand, water, gel, board, block and more.

Whether or not I draw conclusions from those, whether or not I share those conclusions here, whether or not I allow any conclusions I state to bias the responses of others is, frankly, none of your business.

I am here on a fully disclosed agenda asking questions of a community that, in any reasonable expectation, has some degree of experience with any variety of ammunition. I am asking for anecdotal testimony as to their experience.

If you seek to respond by pontificating, please do so with greater credulity.

If I was looking for somebody to lecture and preach, I would have gone to church.

Are we clear now?

I continue to invite the good-natured and indeed helpful responses of the majority here.

Fell free to boycott my questions the next time you feel an urge to participate.

First choice: Speer 124+P Gold Dot.
Second choice: Federal 147gr. HST.
Honorable Mention: Winchester 124+P and 147gr. Ranger T. Dale

martywinston said:

My research does not support your oversimplification. There is first the question of hitting a vital area which has to do with a great deal more than where you aim. Thicknesses of leather have, for example, been documented to cause particular rounds to leave a bruise rather than a hole in the flesh beyond. Those are quite definitive examples of when the exact bullet you use is not at all immaterial.

As to finding my research worrisome, I'm not your Mother and will not advise you as to when you should or should not worry.

I have of course read a great deal of the published research, including the FBI findings and many gel tests. I have spoken directly with several of the ammunition manufacturers. And I have interviewed a good number of LEOs. Not one of them has shown your level of disrespect and not one of them has been dismissive of my questions.

I have a substantial engineering background and I understand the physics of cartridges. I have looked at deconstructed examples of a number of "safe load" rounds. I have viewed the various bloom, mushroom and cutter edges of a large variety of rounds. I have seen tests involving sand, water, gel, board, block and more.

Whether or not I draw conclusions from those, whether or not I share those conclusions here, whether or not I allow any conclusions I state to bias the responses of others is, frankly, none of your business.

I am here on a fully disclosed agenda asking questions of a community that, in any reasonable expectation, has some degree of experience with any variety of ammunition. I am asking for anecdotal testimony as to their experience.

If you seek to respond by pontificating, please do so with greater credulity.

If I was looking for somebody to lecture and preach, I would have gone to church.

Are we clear now?

I continue to invite the good-natured and indeed helpful responses of the majority here.

Fell free to boycott my questions the next time you feel an urge to participate.

Click to expand...

Don't let it get to you.

Common sense says a round that expands wider than another round has a greater chance of hitting a vital area, giving a larger margin of error, increasing the crush zone, thereby causing more damage etc. Real life is not like shooting paper, you need all the edge you can get.

Then there is also the matter of a bullet that passes through deposits less energy than one that transfers all of it's energy in the body of the BG.

The point is to neutralize the attacker, only head or spine shots shut it down instantaneously. Otherwise, barring a psychological shut down of the BG, it's a matter of inducing shock, blood loss or hitting vital organs. Many of the rounds lack penetration enough to get to the vital areas and the smaller the caliber, the fewer the available rounds that offer both penetration and expansion ie the more important the round choice is.

So, yes accuracy is important, but so is bullet choice.

One other FYI, all of the people I know who've seen "safe rounds" Glaser etc say they cause spectacular looking wounds, but lack significant penetration.

Again, Just my opinion.

martywinston said:

My research does not support your oversimplification. There is first the question of hitting a vital area which has to do with a great deal more than where you aim. Thicknesses of leather have, for example, been documented to cause particular rounds to leave a bruise rather than a hole in the flesh beyond. Those are quite definitive examples of when the exact bullet you use is not at all immaterial.

As to finding my research worrisome, I'm not your Mother and will not advise you as to when you should or should not worry.

I have of course read a great deal of the published research, including the FBI findings and many gel tests. I have spoken directly with several of the ammunition manufacturers. And I have interviewed a good number of LEOs. Not one of them has shown your level of disrespect and not one of them has been dismissive of my questions.

I have a substantial engineering background and I understand the physics of cartridges. I have looked at deconstructed examples of a number of "safe load" rounds. I have viewed the various bloom, mushroom and cutter edges of a large variety of rounds. I have seen tests involving sand, water, gel, board, block and more.

Whether or not I draw conclusions from those, whether or not I share those conclusions here, whether or not I allow any conclusions I state to bias the responses of others is, frankly, none of your business.

I am here on a fully disclosed agenda asking questions of a community that, in any reasonable expectation, has some degree of experience with any variety of ammunition. I am asking for anecdotal testimony as to their experience.

If you seek to respond by pontificating, please do so with greater credulity.

If I was looking for somebody to lecture and preach, I would have gone to church.

Are we clear now?

I continue to invite the good-natured and indeed helpful responses of the majority here.

Fell free to boycott my questions the next time you feel an urge to participate.

Click to expand...

Hi Marty. i am writing a book on internet etiquette. Do you mind if I include the text of the above post in my book? With proper attribution of course.

I've got a chapter that it would fit right in.

StatesRightist said:

So, yes accuracy is important, but so is bullet choice.

Click to expand...

Thanks - that's exactly my point in this research - trying to find ammo that disappoints among ammo that performs.

I have some field testing planned but I need to make sure I'm surveying the right selection of products.

Very good, NKJ. Funny, I was thinking the same thing

NKJ nut said:

Hi Marty. i am writing a book on internet etiquette. Do you mind if I include the text of the above post in my book? With proper attribution of course.

I've got a chapter that it would fit right in.

Click to expand...

I could hardly refuse - this is a public forum and my posting here constitutes an act of publication - so you would be free to cite me without asking permission - but the fact that you asked makes me all the more happy to grant it.

Opinions about ammo are like backsides, we all have one. A legend in the hi power world passed away last year named Stephen Camp. He did a lot of research and spent a great deal of time testing different 9mm ammo. His reads are still online and well worth the read.

Stephen Camp

martywinston said:

I could hardly refuse - this is a public forum and my posting here constitutes an act of publication - so you would be free to cite me without asking permission - but the fact that you asked makes me all the more happy to grant it.

Click to expand...

Thanks Marty. Could you please be so kind as to tell us what publications you write for? Otherwise I am going to knock myself out looking through every gun-zine in the rack to see if you have an article in it. Magazines are so expensive these days.

First, I'd suggest you heed the advice previously stated, and review the data presented by Dr Gary K Roberts (online handle DocGKR) on M4Carbine.net

Next I suggest you read the International Wounds Ballistics Association papers made available on FirearmsTactical.com - Home. In specfic, I reccomend the timeless terminal ballistics paper written by SA Urey Patrick entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness".

A book you may be interested in is by Dr Duncan MacPherson, Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics & the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma.


Dont waste your time with Ayoob, Marshall, Sanow, or Courtney

Things to consider with service pistol caliber ammo, after accuracy, the most important thing is penetration. Without it you are not going to reach the CNS, vital organs, arteries, and major vessels all which enhance and expedite incapacitation.
The reasons for the minimum desired amount of penrtration being 12 inches is because badguys hold things in front of them, like weapons, and your bullet must penetrate them. Furthermore, badguys dont always stand front and center, their torsos can be canted, presenting oblique angles which increase the need for penetration.

A distant second is expansion. For expansion to be effective, the bullet must expand after encountering soft intermediate barriers like clothing, and hard intermediate like car bodies, laminated auto glass, among others. Its best that the expansion be jagged so that tearing and cutting occurrs as opposed to shoving tissue aside.

If you dont mind me asking, what publication are you writing? Who is your editor? I ask because I have some friends that a writers for some firearms magazines.

martywinston said:

I could hardly refuse - this is a public forum and my posting here constitutes an act of publication - so you would be free to cite me without asking permission - but the fact that you asked makes me all the more happy to grant it.

Click to expand...

Marty, I don't think you felt the breeze. Had you opened with the reply to my comments, minus the personal invective, I think things would have gone much better for you.

Now then, some of the literature you've reviewed is relevent, some is not. Very briefly, the bullet designs and performance of today are far more advanced than 20 odd years ago, hence my comments. In addition, if you really paid attention to the FBI testing protocols, you'd see that many of the tests are not relevent to most self defense shootings. Indeed, the protocols specifically state that one should eliminate testing phases that do not match your expected usage. However, your engineering background should also have tipped you that the FBI didn't conduct enough tests on individual rounds to exclude random chance from affecting results.

Perhaps the biggest issue is the warning in the FBI test protocols that the testing is to provide a level playing field and uniform test procedures to compare the performance of projectiles, the results do not pretend to predict performance in the real world.

Speaking of the real world, having shot a statistically significant number of man sized critters (in vital areas) with Glasers, I find the penetration inadequate even without an intervening object.

I'd suggest the writings of Dr. Vincent DiMaio, specifically "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques".

Okay, I will give you real world testing on 3 types of ammo, and what I think of them. (These have all been used by myself- all 3 in hunting situations, at close range as the 9mm is my backup sidearm while hog depredation shooting at night. 2 of the 3 have been used in defense, not hunting.)
1. Speer Lawman. 124gr and 147 gr. The 147 grain is a good hunting round, but the 124gr is better. It's faster, and more accurate. I say this because several very fast and close shooting situations with hogs have left me rather impressed by the manageable recoil and it still hits hard, and does not fall apart easily. The bullet holds a good bit of weight; 80% even when shooting bones. The 124gr also works well in self defense. Did not see what the bullet looked like after it was fired.
2. Federal Hydra shock. 147 grain. These hit hard, fly straight, and penetrate well. They retain their weight, between 80-95% and have been able to break big bones on hogs; femurs, hips, spines, skulls. On a 200lb hog, they do not go thru and thru. They go in about 10" to 13" and STOP. Coincidentally, so does the hog! These bullets have saved my life. They go thru car doors and make hits.
3. Remington Golden Sabre. 124 gr. So far, hogs have not enjoyed this bullet much. On the side, I do not like it much. Weight retention was terrible; the bullets came apart completely. The jacket flowered beautifully; nearly 3/4". But the core separated, and the jacket stopped after a measly 3" of penetration (No bone contact) the core broke upon impact on bone, and one piece was approx. the size of a .22LR bullet, while the rest was in pieces that were tiny. Total penetration was less than 6". I will not buy these bullets again; but if you want a bullet that opens up FAST, and yes, has impact power?? This might be your bullet.

I will forever be partial to the Hydra Shock. If I am ever in that position again where I am depending on a bullet, I want it to have as much hit power as it possibly can. And a 9mm is not likely to go too far, but it will do it's job cutting thru most barriers for you.