Just wondering

[ContinentalOp]

FMJ will stop a self defense problem as well as most ammo. The military has been using it for years to good effect. Hollow points are good and sometimes they even expand as advertised. Have seen enough rounds recovered to put my money on shot placement. Put the rounds into the proper area on the target and you will end the fight rather quickly.

True, but I'm more concerned with FMJ's propensity for overpenetration compared to JHP. While generally not an issue on the battlefield, there have been several instances of FMJ exiting bad guys with enough energy to seriously injure bystanders and/or fellow good guys.

 

[AJ]

True, but I'm more concerned with FMJ's propensity for overpenetration compared to JHP. While generally not an issue on the battlefield, there have been several instances of FMJ exiting bad guys with enough energy to seriously injure bystanders and/or fellow good guys.

Would rather have a problem with overpenetration then lack of penetration. The FBI lost a couple of agents in April of 86 due to lack of penetration by a 9 MM. If it had been hardball the shot might have stopped the bad guy before he killed the agents.

One thing that my Grandfather taught me was use a big heavy bullet when you are trying to bring home some food. He used a .35 Remington and in it he stoked it with 220 grain soft points. Why? Because he could not find any bigger bullets for the rifle.

 

[tops]

One year before deer season I was going too shoot my M77 Ruger one time too see if it was still on. It was good but I decided to see how close I could get with the next shot. I decided too try a third shot and the gun wouldn't fire. I rushed to the local gunsmith and he fixed it while I waited. That was years ago and it's still working. I was glad I tried that third shot.
One day I was shooting a M29-2 at a target and when I quit I loaded it and put it in the holster and carried it for several days. When I tried shooting it again the trigger wouldn't pull. For several days I was carrying a gun that wouldn't work. If I had really needed the gun it would have got embarrassing in a hurry.
Guns are like everything else. If you use it enough it will finally break. Larry

 

[Echo40]

Frankly, I've never subscribed to the sentiment that one needs to shoot hundreds of rounds through any given firearm in order to ascertain reliability to begin with. It strikes me as a dated sentiment which really doesn't apply to modern firearms designs produced by reputable manufacturers.
Generally speaking, most modern firearms, or heck, firearms designs which date back to the 1980s, tend to be 100% reliable right out of their box, and those that aren't simply need to be properly cleaned/lubricated to get all the gunky factory preservative out prior to being fired.

Personally, as long as my carry gun can get through a single magazine of defensive ammo without a malfunction, then that's enough for me to trust it because that's the most rounds I'm likely to fire off in real-life should I ever have to defend myself from an attacker.
If other folks feel more secure firing off 500 rounds or whatever, then that's their prerogative, and depending on what they carry, might even be a good idea. But I'm not carrying a brand with a factory recommended break-in period like Kahr or a Kel-Tec, nor some high dollar custom 1911 with such tight tolerances and so little clearance between moving parts that it's liable to choke on dust/lint, so I'm not worried about that.

 

[ContinentalOp]

Would rather have a problem with overpenetration then lack of penetration. The FBI lost a couple of agents in April of 86 due to lack of penetration by a 9 MM. If it had been hardball the shot might have stopped the bad guy before he killed the agents.

The round in question was specifically designed for rapid expansion and shallow penetration. The current crop of JHP (HST, Gold Dot, Ranger, etc.) all provide good penetration without the overpenetration risk of FMJ, and have established good track records in actual shootings.

I think it's safe to say we're not going to change each other's minds on the subject. Apologies to OP for sidetracking the discussion from the original topic.

 

[ContinentalOp]

Personally, as long as my carry gun can get through a single magazine of defensive ammo without a malfunction, then that's enough for me to trust it because that's the most rounds I'm likely to fire off in real-life should I ever have to defend myself from an attacker.

FWIW, that was the basis of the rationale for the testing protocol I mentioned above.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Interesting discussion.

Any gun I take to the range, carry gun or not, is unlikely to be simply fired with just a very few rounds. Especially a carry gun. But for reliability I'm content with just a couple of magazines shot at targets at a couple of reasonable distances. Likely I'll shoot more than that but if I was concerned about wasting ammunition then at least two full magazines (revolvers get a couple of cylinders and then I'm done).

Unless I came to play, of course, and shoot shoot shoot. Then 50 rounds per gun is likely.

I need to know two things. Did it handle 20 rounds? Good to go. Do I know its point of aim? Fine. But the latter is secondary since I figure up close and personal is going to be the rule rather than the exception in a confrontation.

And I have no qualms about carrying hardball in my pistols even though I prefer hollowpoints. If it works I'm fine with it.

 

[Bozz10mm]

I don't disagree with vetting a carry gun before trusting it. I wonder though, how many of you have guns/ammo that proved to be unreliable during the course of firing several hundred break-in rounds?

I've had 3 that got off to a rocky start in the first 200 rounds. A Shield 9, an XDm 3.8 compact in 45 ACP, and the latest, a Springfield 1911 Ronin in 45 ACP. They are all solidly reliable now.

 

[Ziggy2525]

New gun owner asked me for training advice
posted by SchemaEnigma got me thinking. ( can't ya smell the wood smoke and dust ) for a number of years we have all listened to, I wouldn't trust a def. gun till I put 100,200,500,whatever rounds thought it. Better still those round have to be the ones I will be carrying. With today's ammo shortage anyone still hearing or preaching that? Not picking on anyone or trying to start trouble. If that is the standard what are the options today for a new gun/gun owner.

I'd be more concerned about the new gun owner only having 20 or 50 total rounds of experience than the reliability of the pistol.

IMO, if the pistol is an M&P, an S&W J/K frame revolver, a Glock, or an HK, and it's reliable with 50 rounds of ball and 20 rounds SD ammo, it will be reliable for the 10 more rounds someone might need for self defense.

 

[swsig]

I don't disagree with vetting a carry gun before trusting it. I wonder though, how many of you have guns/ammo that proved to be unreliable during the course of firing several hundred break-in rounds?

I have a Shield 9 with over 5,000 rounds through it that has had persistent failure to eject and occasional failures to to feed throughout its history. A trip back to the factory didn't help. I had given up on it, and carried my M&P 40c or my Shield 45 instead. After a year of not firing it, I wondered if I could rehabilitate it by finding some self-defense ammo that would work with complete reliability. My criterion was that an SD round would have to fire a minimum of 200 times without a failure before I would trust my Shield as a carry pistol. Fortunately, after much testing, I found two rounds that met that standard. To date, Hornady Critical Duty 135g +P (387 rounds), and Federal HST 147g (225 rounds) have worked perfectly, so I now have enough confidence in my Shield 9 to carry it with those rounds. However, since my 40c and my Shield 45 are much more accurate than my Shield 9, they are what I carry. But it's good to know I could carry my Shield 9 if I needed to.

 

[fatcat3]

Frankly, I've never subscribed to the sentiment that one needs to shoot hundreds of rounds through any given firearm in order to ascertain reliability to begin with. It strikes me as a dated sentiment which really doesn't apply to modern firearms designs produced by reputable manufacturers.
Generally speaking, most modern firearms, or heck, firearms designs which date back to the 1980s, tend to be 100% reliable right out of their box, and those that aren't simply need to be properly cleaned/lubricated to get all the gunky factory preservative out prior to being fired.

Personally, as long as my carry gun can get through a single magazine of defensive ammo without a malfunction, then that's enough for me to trust it because that's the most rounds I'm likely to fire off in real-life should I ever have to defend myself from an attacker.
If other folks feel more secure firing off 500 rounds or whatever, then that's their prerogative, and depending on what they carry, might even be a good idea. But I'm not carrying a brand with a factory recommended break-in period like Kahr or a Kel-Tec, nor some high dollar custom 1911 with such tight tolerances and so little clearance between moving parts that it's liable to choke on dust/lint, so I'm not worried about that.

About time the voice of reason.
Add to that it twist my tail to hear gun people say If someone was really serious about SD they would already have a gun....... What about the people that have finally awaken from the sleep of the police will protect me after seeing this last summer of "peaceful protests" or the young person who Finally came of age to buy/own a handgun. Are they any less serious than us? In my not so humble opinion such statements are demeaning, self righteous, and unhelpful. So much for a call for civility

 

[cmansguns]

Obviously a very personal decision!

From the widely (very widely) posts and opinions above the matter of EDC, practice, ammo availability, old vs young philosophy, etc. really boils down to personal choice.

When my son's and daughters became interested in possible EDC I tried to stress the mindset above all else. Choice of gun, carry gear, State Permit, ammo, even practice...became second place in my opinion.

If one doesn't have the strict mindset to actually USE the firearm in a SD situation then enjoy the firearm and the shooting sports but forget EDC. By USE I mean the possibility (maybe even probability) of taking a human life.

I came back after Army with that mindset, and I have had EDC permits in 5 different States since. Found a platform (J frame) that works well for me, and I do practice, but I don't project anything towards anyone else, other than my own children (6 girls, 3 boys). All are either gun owners, or shooters, but only 1 daughter became a LEO, and 1 son now that he has a family is looking into EDC.

I do see others at the range carrying guns with a zillion rounds, sporting hidden carry holsters but have to bring the gun in a rug or case, because they don't have a EDC permit. They are looking to get "holster qualified" before even applying for a EDC permit. The RSO's have to tell them it doesn't work that way, and they really need to think about taking a course in EDC.

Anyway........just my two cents, and again, not bumming anyone else's opinions or theories and I'm sure most will agree that EDC has to be given some serious thought and personal insight before having lethal force on your person.

 

[w.r.gun]

Its not a mater of will it go click or bang, but what you do when it goes click instead of bang. Malfunction drills should be part of every practice session. no one has address dry practice. Why would you want to beat the daylights out of your mini wonder gun. Practice is a good thing and maybe a second IDENTICEL gun for the range. One to show and one to go

 

[AJ]

Its not a mater of will it go click or bang, but what you do when it goes click instead of bang. Malfunction drills should be part of every practice session. no one has address dry practice. Why would you want to beat the daylights out of your mini wonder gun. Practice is a good thing and maybe a second IDENTICEL gun for the range. One to show and one to go

For Autos folks need to learn "Tap, Rack, Bang" for revolver just pull the trigger unless you have already fired your gun limit. When teaching there were drills where we loaded the students guns before the drill. Sometimes with an auto would hand them a Condition 1 pistol (however, the chamber was empty) or a pistol with a stovepipe in it. They would have to figure out the problem and clear the weapon to continue. In revolvers we may only load two out of six chambers. Anything we could think of to get them a malfunction that they had to clear to get back in the fight.

 

[tops]

About time the voice of reason.
Add to that it twist my tail to hear gun people say If someone was really serious about SD they would already have a gun....... What about the people that have finally awaken from the sleep of the police will protect me after seeing this last summer of "peaceful protests" or the young person who Finally came of age to buy/own a handgun. Are they any less serious than us? In my not so humble opinion such statements are demeaning, self righteous, and unhelpful. So much for a call for civility

There have always been "peaceful protests" and mean people. Many in my lifetime and I can read history about before my time. This past year has not been any more dangerous then many previous years so I do wonder why so many people have decided that now they need a gun and are upset because they can't find ammo. I told a couple of people last Jan. to buy some extra ammo. One listened and has told me that was good advice but the other is upset because he is short on ammo.
I make exceptions for people that just turned of age but some of them could have planned ahead and not got caught short. There was plenty of talk and rumors of guns and ammo getting short because of the election. The virus just started the shortage a little early. If I had been within a couple of years of 21 I would have bought some ammo and have a relative buy a pistol. When I reached 21 we would go to a FFL and get the pistol transferred to me. All legal and all it takes is some prior planning. Larry