Back when I did a lot more shooting than I do now, I used to load the cast flat-point 124 gr. bullet from Western Nevada not only in 9mm but in .38 and .357. Both my shooting partner at the time and I got excellent accuracy from that bullet in all three chamberings. I now try to use a similar plated bullet because, on the rare occasions that I shoot 9mm, it's usually out of a gun with a polygonally rifled bore.

I found the 3 inch gun on the Ruger website, but not the 2.25 incher. A small difference, but I'm persnickety.

I'd really like to see Smith make a 2 inch gun in the .327...

I know Charter makes a 2" .327 called the Patriot, but I don't know if I'd trust their quality.

I remember that too, but in Iraq never saw anything but 9mm NATO ball. We had several AF types in my unit, never thought to ask them.

Somewhere in my ammo locker I have a 20 rd box of the .45 ACP 230 grain JTC loads by Hornady. JTC stands for Jacketed Truncated Cone, IIRC.

I heard about the "USAF" 9mm load but never saw any. I was in the USAF from 78-98 and was never issued any FMJ/TC, flatpoint, whatever you want to call it for the M9 or M11. I was issued USM882 NATO round nose FMJ, some IMI 115 NATO round nose FMJ, and some 147 JHP from Win and Fed.

The city cops here issue the Fed 9BPLE (115 +P+ JHP) in M&Ps. While this round performed poorly in the FBI test series, they have stopped bad guys just fine w it shooting through auto and plate glass, auto and apt doors. In those cases whatever penetration they got from it was enough at that time. Could just one failure where it didn't go deep enough change that? Probably.

IIRC, these are the avgs in the FBI test series for the old stuff:

115 Sivertip 11.4 penetration/.54 expansion/35% at least 12 inches (14 of 40)
115 Fed +P+ 11.5/.50/35%
147 Win JHP 14/.46/62.5% (25 of 40)
147 Fed HS 17.2/.51/82.5% (33 of 40 and FBI issue until 2009 )

The new FBI 9x19 load (Win 147 Bonded) is better, as is the 357SIG GD LP used by USSS and FAM: 15.7/.55/100%. FWIW the Speer 9x19 124 +P GD is pretty darn close if you gotta have a fast, high pressure 9 minimeter load.

The projectile was designed and patented by Jack Robbins and Dale Davis of the USAF Armament Laboratory at Eglin AFB. Robbins passed away in the 1980s, and I understand that Davis is now gone as well.

US Patent #4,517,898 - Highly accurate projectile for use with small arms

Trivia: Booya Sam interviewed Robbins and his son after the latter turned in a record table time at an early Second Chance match. Davis came up with the idea for the Colt IMP "arm gun" which Mack Gwinn, Jr. used as the basis for the Bushmaster Pistol.

Why was the 9mm NATO FMJ-TC never standardized by the US back then? I suspect that two factors came into play. 1) Some of the pistols and/or SMG used to qualify 9mm NATO ammunition wouldn't feed it; and/or 2) Some high-ranking officer saw the flat point and freaked out about Hague implications.

I have always been a little leery of the current FBI standards, and all the expensive rounds built to them. As a free citizen of the Republic who carries a 9mm I have to be concerned with over penetration. I've been sticking with Winchester 115 gr HPs in either silver tip or the generic equivalent in "personal defense" rounds.

Geoff
Who can still remember when Federal LEOs were carrying .38 Special 95 gr. Hollow points in their 2" Model 10 S&Ws (1980s)

The FBI has always made it clear that the test was to find the best ammunition for their specific needs. Citizens rarely have the need or legal justification to shoot into automobiles or through walls but the test involving heavy clothing is applicable to all.

When the Winchester white box hollowpoints came out I tested them and found them to be close to a par with the more expensive "premium" bullets in performance through heavy clothing. That's the single most important test in my view.

Overpenetration is something everyone talks about but really is a rare event. My question has always been why should we throttle back our ammo to prevent something that hardly ever happens. My friend at the FBI Academy said something like,... shouldn't we worry more about the 70-80% of rounds that simply miss anyhow?

One scenario comes to mind - you have to take a rescue shot to save a loved one, say one who has a knife-wielding attacker hovering over her. Given the choice of firing a round with a predicted penetration of 11 inches in human tissue and one with a predicted penetration of 16 inches, which would you choose?

In his book The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft, Mike Conti describes such a shooting scenario, albeit with a police officer and an unrelated victim. The officer's hesitation to take the rescue shot resulted in the victim being stabbed as he fired the shot; fortuitously, she survived.

True, this is not the most likely scenario but, when a bit of planning and, perhaps, a bit more expenditure can reduce that risk, it does not seem judicious to ignore it. I have misplaced the figures, which I neglected to save in a more permanent form but several years back The New York Times abstracted the numbers from a few years of NYPD SOP-9 reports and listed numerous cases of unintended human targets being struck by bullets fired by officers, after they had passed through their intended targets. These involved both FMJ and hollowpoint bullets. (Some may recall that NYC's Transit Police were the first to be authorized hollowpoints due to the increased likelihood that they would have to shoot in a crowded environment.)

Perhaps Mas Ayoob will weigh in on this issue and save me the need to paraphrase his argument on this topic.

Overpenetration happens often enough to worry about, and to warrant preventive measures in terms of ammo selection. MikeO, I believe, has the stats from NYPD that led to their adoption of the 124 grain +P Speer Gold Dot JHP. I would invite him to plug them in here.

We have to worry about missed shots no matter what type of ammunition we are shooting. However, the miss that strikes an unintended innocent, vis-a-vis the overpenetration that does so, is something of an apples and oranges situation for more than one reason.

While a bystander in the line of fire may go unseen due to darkness or tunnel vision, that bystander will at least sometimes under some circumstances be visible to the shooter, causing the shooter to fire with greater care or to hold fire. However, NONE of us under ANY circumstances will be able to see a bystander if our view of him is obscured by the body of our opponent. This is a reasonably predictable situation, and one we should reasonably be expected to try to prevent with careful selection of ammunition beforehand.

If a bystander should be struck by EITHER a miss or an overpenetrating bullet, those who judge us will want to know why that happened.

In the case of the miss, it was probably due to factors initiated by the man who forced us to shoot at him: we were ducking from him, he was ducking from us, we were under great stress or had to fire from an awkward position, etc. These things were caused by his attack, and therefore, HIS actions are the proximate cause of the missed shot that struck the bystander.

In the case of the overpenetrating bullet, however, we will be asked why we violated a fundamental rule of gun safety and fired a bullet we knew was likely to pierce through the backstop, which in this case is the body of the offender. I'm hard put to come up with a reason that won't sound like callous disregard for the lives of bystanders, and therefore do not carry or recommend carrying of ball ammo in the "serious calibers." If we knew it posed a danger and we disregarded that danger, then OUR selection of the ammunition beforehand has become the proximate cause of the injury or death to the bystander struck by our overpenetrating bullet.

Dan Watters-Thanks for the correction on Robbins vs Robinson. The recollection (and a few other things) aren't what they usta be. I suspect the non-adoption of the improved bullet had more to do with budget....and to a degree, what we'd term workplace culture today.

Charlies also correct, the FBI has been upfront on their testing protocols from the start. Their full test series were designed to select ammo for their perceived needs. If your needs differ, you need to eliminate those test series that don't apply. A similar statement is in the front of every copy of their testing documentation.

That said, their requirement for a absolute minimum of 12 inches penetration must be related to the supersized folks mentioned earlier in this thread (OK, we all know it's about that bullet that "stopped short" in Miami!). I used to run into their R&D honcho at matches at the time and questioned the auto penetration testing. I was told that slightly over 50% of their shootings at that time involved automobiles. My comment about that being a hint to have heavier weapons systems available got a response that indicated that option wasn't part of their culture at that point. Arguing against the entrenched culture is very heavy lifting.

From the NYT around March 97, their source was the SOP9 for 95/96.

In NYC in 1995 and 1996:

0 of 6 bystanders hit by NYPD JHPs were hit by JHPs that passed through other people first.

5 of 15 bystanders hit by NYPD FMJ were hit by FMJ that passed through other people first.

17 of 40 officers hit by NYPD FMJ were hit by FMJ that passed through other people first.

1 of 4 officers hit by NYPD JHPs were hit by JHPs that passed through other people first.

14 of 41 suspects hit by NYPD FMJ were hit by FMJ that passed through other people first.

4 of 15 suspects hit by NYPD JHPs were hit by JHPs that passed through other people first.

So 41 of the 121 people (34%) hit by NYPD bullets were hit by bullets that passed through other people first. 5 of 25 JHPs (20%), and 36 of 96 FMJs (38%). No idea how many of the initial hits in the twofers were COM v peripheral.

IIRC, the ammo above was Win 115 FMJ and 147 JHP. The switch to the Speer 124 +P GD was made 2 yrs later in 1998. Don't have more current info on how that load compares in this regard.

NYC is a good source for info (39,000 cops generate a lot of stats), but I'm not sure how it translates to other locations. Locally, the cops have not hit anybody w a pass through in over 20 yrs. In the last 20 yrs they have had from 3-11 OIS a year. Issue ammo has been 115 and 147 Silvertip, 115 9BPLE (115 +P+). 45 ACP is optional (usually in 1911s and Glocks), 230 Fed HS and Rem GS.

Back in the 90s SDPD looked at the Win 147 JHP in about 50 OIS. In bare gel it avgd 13 inches (range from 12 - 14). In real people it avgd the same 13 inches, but ranged from 10 - 17 inches when it did not exit/hit bone.

Gotta remember the odd angles and paths bullets sometimes take in real bodies that are often moving targets, as well as the hands/forerams/arms they may hit first? Kinda like the difference between hitting a tubular heavy bag that doesn't hit backcand and a guy w hands/forearms/arms who is moving around and hitting back while he does it?

How much penetration is enough/too much? Beats me. The feds can't agree either. FBI tests for the DOJ (DEA, ATF, USMS, etc) and has a 12 inch minimum penetration requirement. The ICE tests for the DHS (CBP, FAM, etc) has a 9 inch minimum. FBI 40 duty ammo (165/180g) penetrates about 14 inches in bare gel, the ICE/CBP 40 duty ammo (135/155g) about 10 inches. The FAM 357 duty load (125g), despite it "LP" (limited penetration) designation, does about 15 inches. All seem pretty happy w their choices.

Thanks, Mike.

Are there any stats regarding the old SWC lead loads?

in the FMJ's were any of those 230 GI ball in .45 acp? just wondering, NOT fighting..

I'm pretty sure the 158 HP was in one of the early FBI tests.

I saw a few recovered bullets when my PD used it. IIRC there was minimal expansion, but we didn't shoot enough people to have much of a data base. Nor was there any great concern over expansion. back then.