I stagger my rounds...wait, what?

[griffin]

I can see maybe doing this for .380, because sufficient penetration is always a concern there (some say .380 should only be FMJ because of that), but for anything else? No, use the best SD round you can find.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I can see maybe doing this for .380, because sufficient penetration is always a concern there (some say .380 should only be FMJ because of that), but for anything else? No, use the best SD round you can find.

I only use FMJ in my Kel Tec P32 for better penetration and so they rounds are less likely to rimlock in the magazine. I have never had a rimlock in it before.

 

[jgreiner]

Lately I've come across a few people who alternate ammunition in their carry magazines...

JHP-FMJ-JHP-FMJ-JHP-FMJ-JHP-FMJ....etc.

They all basically say it's because if they had to use their pistol it would be easier to pass off to a potential jury of how they just wanted to protect themselves as opposed to being stacked with JHP's and be labeled as someone with intent to kill. How does this logic work in a self defense shooting scenario? Does anyone else do this? Comments, thoughts?

Silly argument. FMJ is far more likely to penetrate more than you want, and increases the likelihood of collateral damage than a JHP.

 

[IndyBeerman]

FMJ is just as deadly as a JHP, if I'm the one being shot at by a BG, I don't want hit by either one.

That's said, I want the best round in my firearm that protects me the most, after all, "I feared for my life" otherwise I would not have pulled the trigger.

 

[yotewacker]

I would not stagger rounds. If you use your gun in self defense, then the prosecutor will try to make you look bad. Saying that you modified your ammo because you were eager to shoot someone.

 

[Hammerhead]

I would not stagger rounds. If you use your gun in self defense, then the prosecutor will try to make you look bad. Saying that you modified your ammo because you were eager to shoot someone.

What part of "any legal jeopardy whatsoever" is so difficult to understand?

If you're following the self defense laws, then you will not and cannot be prosecuted.

Ammo type in an honest to god self defense shooting does NOT matter.

 

[Sylvain]

What part of "any legal jeopardy whatsoever" is so difficult to understand?

If you're following the self defense laws, then you will not and cannot be prosecuted.

Ammo type in an honest to god self defense shooting does NOT matter.

I dont care so much about being prosecuted or not.
Even if I cant be prosecuted I dont want to shoot at innocent people because my rounds did not stop into the bad guy's body.
You have less chance of that happening buy using JHPs compared to using FMJs.
Not only im responsable legally for each round fired but im also responsable morally.
Even if I cant be legally prosecuted I dont want to hurt or kill anyone that is not a threat to my life.
So for me ammo type does matter.
Even if I can legally defend myself with a 50 BMG Barrett inside my apartment im not going to do it because I know I could kill innocent people in the next building.

 

[LordTio3]

Even if I can legally defend myself with a 50 BMG Barrett inside my apartment im not going to do it because I know I could kill innocent people in the next building.

... or the next ... or the next ... or the next.

~LT

 

[Hammerhead]

I don't have a problem with the moral or personal implications that people have with carrying a certain type of ammo in a SD situation. I understand the desire to not harm innocents or damage property unnecessarily.

That still doesn't change the legal situation. Legally, ammo type doesn't matter if the SD shoot is good.

 

[Doug]

I think it was in The Truth About Self-Defense that Ayoob reported that the number of times a person was shot has more to do with how likely they are to die than what type of ammunition you use.
Therefore, use the most effective ammunition you can get and just shoot until the threat stops.
The sooner the threat stops, the fewer times the attacker is shot, and the more likely he is to survive.

 

[lrahm]

I would think that there would be more questions about staggering your rounds. I would pick one round and carry it. Rounds have a tendebcy to shoot different than others. Stick with one and practice with it

 

[hoosierdoc]

Yeah, the whole penetration/over penetration I can understand. That being said, if that were to happen the same logic could be spun against you.

Civil Case:

"Your Honor, FMJ's are more deadly then JHP's! They penetrate further into the body and in this case went through my cracked out meth head client causing two holes from which he bled from as opposed to the one hole if the defendant had chosen to only use JHP's.

You generally don't die from bleeding out "too many holes". You die from head injuries, major vessel trauma, heart lacerations, lung injuries, spinal trauma, and internal bleeding. "bleeding out" from peripheral vascular hits should be controlled by tourniquets or pressure.

That leads me to my next post....

 

[1nthechmber]

How would you know what order you needed to use the ammo in, FMJ 1st of JHP? I've heard ppl say use the same type ammo the local cops use but I'm no expert by any means. I have tried several different types of SD ammo but it has all been JHP. If you had to shoot someone with a FMJ there is also the possiblity of over penetration and wounding or killing a family member or innocent bystander. This is JMHO though.

I agree...fmj most likely will make 2 holes,quicker bleed out,and less actual stopping power

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

I think it was in The Truth About Self-Defense that Ayoob reported that the number of times a person was shot has more to do with how likely they are to die than what type of ammunition you use.

True, but Massad Ayoob has also written numerous articles giving examples of how over-zealous prosecutors (for criminal cases) or plaintiff's attorneys (for the civil suit even after a good shoot) can and DO manipulate a jury's ignorance of firearms to help win their case against innocent people. The case of Harold Fish is an example that comes to mind whenever I read posts (this is a general statement, not directed at any posters in this thread) stating that the ammo/caliber used won't matter if it is a good shoot. In his case against Mr. Fish, the prosecutor did exactly that:

"The firearms investigator said that Fish’s gun — a 10mm — is more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection. And the ammunition Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times, called “a hollow-point bullet,” is made to expand when it enters the body.
When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be.

Lessler: Mr. Fish knew well what a hollow-point bullet does.
Larson: And the end product of his shooting is going to be death?

Lessler: Yes.


...


Michael Lessler, prosecutor: Mr. Fish shot him three time (sic) in the chest with this high powered gun, hollow point bullets and caused his death. That’s murder."


...And it worked. The sheeple of the jury bought the BS the prosecutor was selling:


"And this juror was disturbed by the type of bullets Fish used.

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill. "
​

Mr. Fish spent about 2-3 years in prison before common sense prevailed (AZ law was changed specifically due to this case, placing the burden of proof on the State to prove that it wasn't self-defense, not on the defendant to prove that it was...), the trial judge and prosecutor's mistakes (criminal misconduct IMO!) were pointed out and recognized upon appeal, and Mr. Fish was rightfully freed and his conviction expunged.
I think his attorney could/should have done a better job in countering the exaggerations and flat-out lies made by the prosecutor regarding the alleged "deadliness/murderous intent" of Mr. Fish's 10mm pistol/hollow point combo.

Massad's comments on the reversal of this travesty...

Some food for thought...

 

[Goodcat]

I carry
JHP, FMJ, Glacier slug, Lead round nose, JHP, Glacier, FMJ, tracer round, JHP, tracer round, JHP, Glacier, Flachette, 9mm buckshot, incendiary high explosive, JHP, JHP, FMJ, Glacier, tracer, FMJ, FMJ.

You know, just in case.

 

[superjoe76]

All three of our EDC's are loaded JHP while carrying. Sure FMJs are cheaper, but Hollow-Points just sounds cooler too!

Even my bedside Judge has JHP's in it.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I agree...fmj most likely will make 2 holes,quicker bleed out,and less actual stopping power

No, failed thought process.

If shot in a fatty area, it is meaningless, it's a through and through and there will be less blood exiting than you think.

True, but Massad Ayoob has also written numerous articles giving examples of how over-zealous prosecutors (for criminal cases) or plaintiff's attorneys (for the civil suit even after a good shoot) can and DO manipulate a jury's ignorance of firearms to help win their case against innocent people. The case of Harold Fish is an example that comes to mind whenever I read posts (this is a general statement, not directed at any posters in this thread) stating that the ammo/caliber used won't matter if it is a good shoot. In his case against Mr. Fish, the prosecutor did exactly that:

"The firearms investigator said that Fish’s gun — a 10mm — is more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection. And the ammunition Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times, called “a hollow-point bullet,” is made to expand when it enters the body.
When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be.

Lessler: Mr. Fish knew well what a hollow-point bullet does.
Larson: And the end product of his shooting is going to be death?

Lessler: Yes.


...


Michael Lessler, prosecutor: Mr. Fish shot him three time (sic) in the chest with this high powered gun, hollow point bullets and caused his death. That’s murder."


...And it worked. The sheeple of the jury bought the BS the prosecutor was selling:


"And this juror was disturbed by the type of bullets Fish used.

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill. "
​

Mr. Fish spent about 2-3 years in prison before common sense prevailed (AZ law was changed specifically due to this case, placing the burden of proof on the State to prove that it wasn't self-defense, not on the defendant to prove that it was...), the trial judge and prosecutor's mistakes (criminal misconduct IMO!) were pointed out and recognized upon appeal, and Mr. Fish was rightfully freed and his conviction expunged.
I think his attorney could/should have done a better job in countering the exaggerations and flat-out lies made by the prosecutor regarding the alleged "deadliness/murderous intent" of Mr. Fish's 10mm pistol/hollow point combo.

Massad's comments on the reversal of this travesty...

Some food for thought...

A simple process of placing a LEO on the stand and asking him what type of bullet is in his firearm and asking if is loaded that way with their intent to kill is the question to be asked.

That way the defense is using a basic easy way to contradict the prosecutors line of attack. After an officer will be able to state that it is the intent to stop the threat, not to kill.

 

[Llamaguy]

If I ever have to shoot someone, I'd rather kill them than wound them and then get sued. Dead men don't tell wild stories about how you "continued attacking them, etc".

 

[9mmfan]

My mistake, I though this was about not mixing DRINK rounds up. My mistake

 

[jstwrit]

LEO...

I use what local LEO's use. If I were on a jury, that would make sense to me.