Lighter Bullet versus Heavy?

The IWBA is now a long defunct organization. Here's the link that the so called "Firearms Tactical" pages gives. http://www.iwba.com/

I don't listen to those who pontificate the virtues of shooting blobs of jello and then have them tell us which loads are "best" to use to fend off human attackers, who most definately are not made up of blocks of chilled ballistic gel that are callibrated with a .177 steel BB shot from a BB gun before applying some "IWBA Approved" bullets into the tissues of someone who's wanting to maim or kill me!

As stated before, if you have a better source of information, feel free to share. Your post adds nothing to the discussion except your opinion, and even that lacks support.
 
Street records

I would say go with either HST, Ranger T or Gold dot in 165 gr or 180 gr. These rounds have a good street record. The 180 gr HST that I use in my G23 have good street results in Columbus and San Diego. Go to M4Carbine.net and choose from Dr. Robert's list of approved rounds or go to Glocktalk.com and ask Massad Ayoob in the self defense forum. The only exception would be the 165 gr Gold dot round because I have seen gel tests where it failed to expand.
 
In the .40 s&W all the bullet weights using JHP are quite effective and the solids are no slouch either but the lighter JHP loads (<180gr) show a slight advantage in the Marshall Sanow continuing study. See the data at 40 S&W Stopping Power
 
I think the reason this debate goes on forever is because both light and heavy bullets work. These days, I don't think you can make a mistake. Personally, I prefer the heavier bullets because of the superior penetration, and because no matter the velocity it's always a heavy bullet.

I'm an old guy, and grew up reading Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton, so that's what formed my opinion.
 
I generally prefer heavier bullets,but there are some mid weights in .40 that work really well. The 165 gr. Ranger comes to mind.
 
Back
Top