What is your preference for personal defense ammunition?

[hunto]

I like the idea of Critical Defense, I just hate that Hornady doesn't seem to make an economic target load variant. Like their .45 Auto weighs 185 grains...where the fuck do I get a factory loaded target equivalent of that? Guess I should buy a progressive press and some dies before getting anymore new guns.

UMC offers a 185 gr FMJ target load, and so does Speer/Lawman and Winchester.

 

[Lord of Lies]

And go heavy. For 9mm, 147 grain. For 45 ACP, 230 grain.

 

[jlagman]

I like something in the middle for 9mm and .357 Magnum, 124 and 125 grain bullets respectively. I like shooting 230 grain .45 Autos though, mainly because they seem much easier to find.

 

[exHeavyHippie]

FMJ is battle ammo. It is the most reliable, smoothest feeding cartridge, and is designed to cause a traumatic, bleeding exit wound. I have some 9mm frangible rounds, and I love their terminal ballistics, but they don't cycle the action of my Sig Sauer, so what good are they?

FMJ is battle ammo because of the Hague Convention not because they are superior. Frankly if you are having a problem with you Sig cycling ANY ammo you need to call Sig. I am guessing you have a newer, US made one.

 

[SMEAC]

FMJ is horrible at causing a wound and the US should get off the misguided notion of adhering to the Hague Convention

 

[lesterdiamond]

i have 12 guage #2 shot in my 870 and hornady zombie max for my 9mm.

 

[Roaming East]

FMJ is horrible at causing a wound and the US should get off the misguided notion of adhering to the Hague Convention

that we were never a signatory of anyway.

 

[jericksen5]

I like the idea of Critical Defense, I just hate that Hornady doesn't seem to make an economic target load variant. Like their .45 Auto weighs 185 grains...where the fuck do I get a factory loaded target equivalent of that? Guess I should buy a progressive press and some dies before getting anymore new guns.

Critical defense, at least in 9mm, has the same load as target ammo (115 gr). That's why I bought it. IMO, you should practice with the same load you plan on using for self defense. Under the stress of that type of scenario, you want everything to be second nature.

 

[Roaming East]

Been using Speer Gold dots forever. Guess i should evolve with the times.

 

[exHeavyHippie]

Been using Speer Gold dots forever. Guess i should evolve with the times.

Gold Dots have yet to fail me. I see no need to move away from them.

 

[Jory]

FMJ is battle ammo because of the Hague Convention not because they are superior. Frankly if you are having a problem with you Sig cycling ANY ammo you need to call Sig. I am guessing you have a newer, US made one.

I suppose it depends on how you measure superiority.

FMJ cycle better than lead nose, that's why modern hollow points are all jacketed.

FMJ are designed to create a wound that will cause you to bleed out and die.

Hollow points are designed to transfer muzzle energy to the target and have superior "stopping power" because they will literally knock you down, but the bullet (assuming it stops in the target as designed) plugs the wound, so it bleeds less.

Or so I've been told. I've never shot anybody personally, and all my hunting experience has been with a shotgun (as if duck hunting were relevant to home defense anyway).

Gold Dots have yet to fail me. I see no need to move away from them.

How many people are you shooting? This post may have saved your opinion in my eyes, not that you care what I think of your opinion.

However, I care what I think of your opinion, so please, elaborate.

FMJ is horrible at causing a wound and the US should get off the misguided notion of adhering to the Hague Convention

Yeah? But you think shotguns suck at killing people:

First shotguns suck for killing people, no matter the load

Second, get good jacketed hollow points. Google Dr Roberts he has testing on good defense rounds.

So I believe I will disregard your opinion.

 

[SMEAC]

One of the two of us has shot people, but you go with duck hunting bro

 

[Roaming East]

One of the two of us has shot people, but you go with duck hunting bro

Which is relevant how? If a NASCAR driver told me an inline 4 couldnt hit 60 on the Freeway id look at him the same way id look at a Force Recon Marine who told me a Shotgun was bad at killing a man. With mild contempt. Which incidentally is how I view a lot of your post. For all we know you're some REMF paper pusher doing your dream tour in whereverstan. Your yearly trip to the range to fire off your 150 rounds is no more impressive to me than any other internet commando offering his expertise on a subject.

 

[SMEAC]

One of us is going off feelings about things and one is going off experience. That is all you have, its cute that a nothing is trying to call poser though.

You can keep harping on the shotgun if you want, but it does suck at killing people. The people whose job is to kill people only use it for breaching.

You can't refute a damn thing about FMJ sucking, but focus on something that you just feel like shotguns.

 

[Jory]

One of us is going off feelings about things and one is going off experience. That is all you have, its cute that a nothing is trying to call poser though.

You can keep harping on the shotgun if you want, but it does suck at killing people. The people whose job is to kill people only use it for breaching.

You can't refute a damn thing about FMJ sucking, but focus on something that you just feel like shotguns.

I don't value your opinion because you state something which contradicts volumes of ballistic evidence with no more support than an appeal to your authority as one who has "shot people." Especially since the authority you told me to google disagrees with you regarding the shotgun.

The single biggest mistake people make is to assume that the power of the shotgun is such that it negates having to select proper ammo. Through no experience or research they might come to the conclusion that birdshot is a perfectly acceptable choice for self defense? Why? Because the "feel" it's adequate for the most part.

Nothing is further from the truth. Once again, the shotgun ammunition needs to perform the same function as rifle and pistol ammo, which is to penetrate about 12" into ballistic gelatin. Fragmentation/expansion are usually not an issue in shotgun ammo, so that factor can be ignored for the most part....

While #1 buck might be ideal IF the the shot is hardened, the reality is that these loads might be hard to find. If finding hardened #1 proves elusive, 00 buck is a great choice instead.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

It has nothing to do with you being a poser or not.

 

[exHeavyHippie]

How many people are you shooting? This post may have saved your opinion in my eyes, not that you care what I think of your opinion.

Bad wording. I shoot my carry ammo annually to keep it fresh. I have used gold dots for a long time. I have not had a single issue with them.
I did spend four years as a police officer but I never came close to shooting a person. I did shoot an "attacking" opossum one time. And yes it was with Gold Dot.

 

[Jory]

Bad wording. I shoot my carry ammo annually to keep it fresh. I have used gold dots for a long time. I have not had a single issue with them.
I did spend four years as a police officer but I never came close to shooting a person. I did shoot an "attacking" opossum one time. And yes it was with Gold Dot.

That's fair.

btw, I reread my own post in the quotebox of your reply, and realized that I am probably coming across as an asshole. That was not my intention at all.

Rather than "saving" your opinion, I should have used words to the effect of "elevating" your opinion. Both expressions deal with a relative weight of value, but it isn't that I don't value each opinion so much as I especially respect the opinion of people with direct experience.

 

[SMEAC]

I don't value your opinion because you state something which contradicts volumes of ballistic evidence with no more support than an appeal to your authority as one who has "shot people." Especially since the authority you told me to google disagrees with you regarding the shotgun.



http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

It has nothing to do with you being a poser or not.

Dr. Roberts does ballistics testing; where did he say to choose a shotgun over something like an AR?

You all want to read into me saying a shotgun sucks at killing people as it can't kill people, obviously it can and has. So can a .22LR and in fact .22 has probably killed more, I would not use either given a preference though. There are tools much better at the job and unless you are dead broke and were just given a shotgun get a better tool.

That you would even refute FMJ being a terrible choice is straight laughable no matter how you would quantify it.

 

[Jory]

Dr. Roberts does ballistics testing; where did he say to choose a shotgun over something like an AR?

You all want to read into me saying a shotgun sucks at killing people as it can't kill people, obviously it can and has. So can a .22LR and in fact .22 has probably killed more, I would not use either given a preference though. There are tools much better at the job and unless you are dead broke and were just given a shotgun get a better tool.

That you would even refute FMJ being a terrible choice is straight laughable no matter how you would quantify it.

You said a modern high capacity pistol with hollow points is better at killing people than a shotgun with any load.

Do you stand by that statement? Or do you acknowledge that you misspoke?


If you think a 40 grain .22LR traveling at 1300fps is a more effective killing weapon than nine 53 grain .32 pellets traveling at 1700+fps, a 385 grain .50 sabot round traveling at 1900 fps, or a 550 grain .72 slug traveling at 1550fps, then I think that speaks for itself.

 

[SMEAC]

You said a modern high capacity pistol with hollow points is better at killing people than a shotgun with any load.

Do you stand by that statement? Or do you acknowledge that you misspoke?


If you think a 40 grain .22LR traveling at 1300fps is a more effective killing weapon than nine 53 grain .32 pellets traveling at 1700+fps, a 385 grain .50 sabot round traveling at 1900 fps, or a 550 grain .72 slug traveling at 1550fps, then I think that speaks for itself.

Being able to kill is not just about the ballistics, otherwise people would just have barretts around.

A pistol with good ammo and especially a light is much better and "more lethal" than a shotgun. It is more maneuverable, concealable if needed, easier to deploy, more readily takes a light, higher capacity mag, detachable mag, quicker followup shots, better followup shots, lower recoil and you can definitely take a longer shot with one and be lethal if needed.

I never said that a .22lr was good, you can't seem to read or just want to put words in my mouth. I specifically said it was not preferable, but you want to just make shit up.

You have straight up given up on the FMJ ammo thing I guess since you know that you are absolutely wrong?