TexasCHLforum.com

Does anyone carry frangible ammunition as primary defense ammunition? From what I can tell, they have the expansion of a hollow point, but with minimal secondary penetration. Seems like it would make a good defensive round from my research. If these aren't the best for defense, what (specific) round do you suggest?

They have minimal "primary" penetration too. Check out youtube and you'll see that most of them just blow apart on the surface and the little bits only penetrate a few inches. Some of their bases may go further, but since the bullet came apart, they leave a very small wound channel.

Stay away from frangibles and other "boutique" rounds. Stick with a good quaity hollowpoint. What's "best" is very subjective. Find one your pistol likes and stick with it.

Frangible bullets are a compromise that I would not want to make unless I was living to in an apartment or something like that. They do not penetrate, therefore they rarely over penetrate. I use them on my property ( Rifle application. .223 50 grain VMAX) for killing squirrels and other critters. They do not ricochet, or if they do they are in tiny pieces when they do.

Unfortunately I am living in an apartment for now, until I get done with school most likely. I watched a few videos on the DRT 150gr frangible rounds, and they seem to consistently be getting decent penetration with a relatively large permanent wound cavity. I guess I'll stick with the trusty hp's!

I used to carry the top six rounds in my 40 cal as Glasers. I liked them except for one major factor. They are very expensive. As for the reports of them not penetrating, I wasted $25 (the cost of six rounds then) testing them. It was an informal test using carpet, a leather wallet, and newspaper. One round into the paper only, two rounds through a doubled piece of carpet (simulate heavy clothing) that was hung in front of the paper, then three rounds through the leather wallet and into the paper. All of them penetrated very well and did not break up too fast, IMO.

This was not a scientific test and the paper may not be a very good simulation of the body for either penetration or breakup of the frangible round, but it gave me a lot of confidence in them. I stopped when I was allowed to carry a 45 off duty and felt comfortable with the hollow points. As I said, I would do it again if they were not as expensive as they are. I trust them.

If I remember correctly, isn't that the round of choice for Air Marshalls? As I recall, the reason is that there is less chance of punching a hole in the fuselage and decompressing the aircraft with frangibles. But maybe I'm not recalling that correctly. Even if it is the best choice in that application, I'm not personally inclined to stake my health on gimmicky bullet designs, when there are established designs.....or mild variations on those designs....that already have a good track record. Examples of "mild variations" might include things like the polymer inserts in JHPs like the Critical Defense and Critical Duty bullets, or differences in the skiving and/or thickness of the jackets from one manufacturer to the next's products.

I believe the Air Marshalls use a 357 Sig. for maximum penetration through the seats and perhaps another passenger to hit their intended target,

Liberty wrote:I believe the Air Marshalls use a 357 Sig. for maximum penetration through the seats and perhaps another passenger to hit their intended target,

The Annoyed Man wrote:If I remember correctly, isn't that the round of choice for Air Marshalls? As I recall, the reason is that there is less chance of punching a hole in the fuselage and decompressing the aircraft with frangibles. But maybe I'm not recalling that correctly. Even if it is the best choice in that application, I'm not personally inclined to stake my health on gimmicky bullet designs, when there are established designs.....or mild variations on those designs....that already have a good track record. Examples of "mild variations" might include things like the polymer inserts in JHPs like the Critical Defense and Critical Duty bullets, or differences in the skiving and/or thickness of the jackets from one manufacturer to the next's products.

I went through the Federal Flight Deck Officer training in 2003 and I retired from Delta in 2005. We were issued H&K USP Compacts in .40. Our issued round was Speer Gold Dots. I think that hole in the fuselage was something the media made up. A small hole might be noisy but that would be about it.

howdy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:If I remember correctly, isn't that the round of choice for Air Marshalls? As I recall, the reason is that there is less chance of punching a hole in the fuselage and decompressing the aircraft with frangibles. But maybe I'm not recalling that correctly. Even if it is the best choice in that application, I'm not personally inclined to stake my health on gimmicky bullet designs, when there are established designs.....or mild variations on those designs....that already have a good track record. Examples of "mild variations" might include things like the polymer inserts in JHPs like the Critical Defense and Critical Duty bullets, or differences in the skiving and/or thickness of the jackets from one manufacturer to the next's products.

I went through the Federal Flight Deck Officer training in 2003 and I retired from Delta in 2005. We were issued H&K USP Compacts in .40. Our issued round was Speer Gold Dots. I think that hole in the fuselage was something the media made up. A small hole might be noisy but that would be about it.

Well I guess that wouldn't be the first time.

This is a pretty good discussion of the topic.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 248-2105r/