A few thoughts on defensive cartridges

 

We've covered this subject before in these pages, on more than one occasion.  However, some of the comments on a recent blog post spoke of needing a more powerful cartridge to deal with urban terrorists of the Antifa ilk.  Examples:

• "Maybe that .308 is a good idea after all."
• "I do agree with Anon (above), I think it's time to temporarily retire the 5.56 and check the zero on the 7.62X51."
• "not in a place to add x51 to the logistics. I will have to concentrate on placement."

I'll be the first to agree that, all other things being equal, the more powerful round (in this case, 7.62x51mm NATO) is more likely to incapacitate an attacker than the current military standard 5.56x45mm NATO.  Trouble is, all other things seldom are equal.  Many factors will help to determine whether you can stop an attacker or not.

I used an FN FAL rifle (South Africa's R1 version, chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO) in action, and later a clone of the Israeli Galil (South Africa's R4 rifle, chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO).  I was far more impressed with the "stopping power" of the former rifle and round compared to the latter.  I was taught the Rhodesian "drake shooting" technique, which worked very well in our bush warfare environment.  If a bush was behaving aggressively (or even if it just looked suspicious), one put a couple of rounds through it, low down.  Generally, the bush resumed its normal peaceful existence at once!  One couldn't guarantee that with 5.56;  their very high velocity and light bullet weight (they were first-generation M193 rounds) meant that they didn't have adequate penetration, and often broke up or were diverted by hitting twigs and branches.  If the bush was shooting at you at the time, that was a distinctly sub-optimal result!  The contemporary view was that 5.56 was a great "spray and pray" round, giving you the ability to carry a lot more smaller rounds compared to the bigger, heavier 7.62;  but if you really wanted to put someone down and keep them down, the latter was a better choice.

However, in the USA today, we're not talking about a bush warfare environment.  The heavier bullet, deeper penetration (up to and including over-penetration) and greater energy levels of a 7.62 round are contra-indicated if innocents may be exposed to danger.  That danger can be minimized by good marksmanship, but if one's any distance from one's target, and that target is moving and/or has cover or concealment available, the chances of getting a hit get steadily worse.  One can minimize risk by selecting ammunition that's less likely to pass through an attacker to hit someone else, but such rounds are hard to come by and usually very expensive.  That's the penalty one pays for selecting the more powerful cartridge.

The 5.56 cartridge, on the other hand, has been steadily developed.  I devoted an entire article to it not long ago, which I invite you to read for more details.  Briefly, one can select ammunition that's very unlikely to overpenetrate;  and one can practice more intensively with cheaper ball ammunition until one is less likely to miss one's target.  Shot placement, after all, is critical.  A powerful non-expanding bullet through a non-vital part of the body may irritate rather than incapacitate.  An expanding round in the same place will do a lot more damage to critical organs even if it near-misses them, making it more likely to end the fight.

The same applies to handgun rounds.  Probably the most common defensive handgun cartridge, by far, is the 9mm Parabellum/Luger.  The FBI has adopted it, the majority of law enforcement agencies use it, and it can be bought almost anywhere.  However, it's no more than adequate as a "stopper", and that's provided it's put in the right place.  If it's simply fired without proper aim or target selection, it's a whole lot less successful, simply because it doesn't deliver very much power.  Want an illustration?  See this article, which contains a video clip (scroll down at the link:  WARNING - GRAPHIC) of a sheriff's deputy firing no less than twelve rounds of 9mm. hollowpoint ammunition into the torso of a man advancing on him at point-blank range and striking him with a tree branch.  The aggressor absorbed all 12 rounds before finally falling over.  If he'd delivered a solid blow to the deputy's head during that time, the officer might not have survived his injuries.  Clearly, not one of those twelve rounds hit a vital spot that would have stopped the attacker in his tracks.  Shot placement was deficient every time.  It was the cumulative damage that eventually brought him down.  (The shooting was later ruled to be justified.)

If you want to contrast that with another actual case, consider the Kyle Rittenhouse affair in Waukesha Kenosha, Wisconsin a few years ago.  Mr. Rittenhouse fired only a few rounds.  According to some reports, they were standard M193 ball - nothing out of the ordinary.  However, most were fired accurately.  Two were center-of-mass hits in the chest, and killed the attackers stone dead.  A third took out a large part of a critical arm muscle, preventing the attacker using his arm and the weapon he held in his hand - what the military would call a "mission kill", even though not an actual kill.  You'll find video clips of the shootings on YouTube and elsewhere.

Again, let's point out that extremely accurate, precise shooting, particularly with a handgun, is not easy in the excitement and confusion of an armed encounter.  Someone who shoots high scores in practice or in competition might find himself shaking with tension in a real fight, and hard put to it to remember even to use his sights!  This is not uncommon.  That being the case, to use a merely "adequate" round for personal defense may not be good enough.  There's always been a strong school of thought - backed up by a great deal of combat experience - that says a more powerful round is more likely to end the fight quickly, particularly with multiple hits.  That was my experience in African conflicts during the 1980's and later.  I know several members of US special forces who'll emphatically agree with that perspective.

If you're going to use a less powerful round - rifle or pistol - in combat, you have to compensate for that lower power level by being more accurate.  Many people don't practice enough to be sure of that.  I carry a 9mm pistol almost every day, because it's small and concealable, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with its "stopping power".  Instead, I make sure that I can put my rounds where they need to go, and I won't hesitate to aim at particularly vulnerable areas of an attacker's body if that's what it will take to stop him.

In the light of the urban terrorism, rioting and unrest fostered by Antifa, BLM and their ilk, I'm also trying to find a solution that will allow me (despite my weakened spine and limited mobility) to employ heavier weapons in defense of my wife and myself if necessary.  New ammunition technology has produced some rounds that offer lighter recoil than earlier ones, both in handguns and in long guns.  If the reduction in recoil is sufficient, I may revert to heavier calibers and cartridges in my primary defensive armament.  I'm still testing them, and I'll let you know in due course.  (If you'd like to test them for yourself, consider Sellier & Bellot's XRG range of solid copper ammunition for handguns.  It looks like they've developed a viable alternative to the excellent Barnes TAC-XPD bullet range, at a lower price point.  There are also some interesting alternatives in rifle ammo, of which I'll have more to say soon.)

In general terms, as far as handgun rounds are concerned, I'm coming to the conclusion that anything that fires an expanding bullet generating muzzle energy approaching 500 foot-pounds or more is likely to be a good, efficient "stopper", provided you put the bullet where it needs to go.  That energy level appears to "jolt" the human body sufficiently that it can't be ignored or fought through - although, as always, circumstances alter cases.  If an attacker is hopped-up on drugs, or in the grip of fear or excitement, that will likely change his physiological response to being shot.  Rifles are a different case altogether, as discussed elsewhere.  More on that later.

Peter