I have come to agree with this position regarding HP bullets.  After almost 40 years of hand gun shooting, hand loading for just about every caliber, and 23 years as a cop, I carry 240 grain hard cast swc in my 3" 44 mag.  I load to about 950-1000 fps in magnum cases.  I have used bullseye, unique, green dot, 2400, powders and its all about the same.  Load a batch, sight the gun for point of impact as it may change with a powder change, But once thats done, I don't worry about the rest.  I do the same with .357 mag... 158 Gr. swc.   so thats where i stand, agree or not I'm happy.

mac.

And now it's my understanding that they are going back to 9mm.

So which FBI is right?  I guess you could argue they all are as the times and technology(?) of bullets have changed.
Once upon a time a military genius said, "Use your handgun to fight your way back to your rifle, which you should have never laid down to begin with."
Personal note...I haven't been to nearly as many autopsies as some others, but have been to about a dozen dozen.  And about that many crime scenes.  A 22lr has killed a lot of people, as has (gasp) birdshot.  I once interviewed a victim who had been shot 5 times with a 9mm, one of those to the face.  He lived and the rounds were FMJ.  Whoever said badguys don't buy premium ammo, I say is true.  At least in my experience.

One final thought.   Bullets I've held and autopsies I've attended, hold mountains more weight that what I read on some gun sight on the internet.  Sorry, too many years on patrol to completely trust unseen strangers from unknown locations where everyone is an expert.  Me included.

Everyone keeps thinking the FBI is never wrong about handgun calibers, yet they keep changing back and forward.

That's because all handgun rounds suck when you think about it.  The human body has a very hard time having the finesse to fire handguns accurately under the stress of a life and death situation.  It takes a lot of good training and a ton of training to just get hits versus misses using handguns in gunfights.  Plus, handgun rounds are all wimpy compared to good rifle or shotgun rounds.

As a side note, I've put down deer with handgun rounds and have found that the bullets have expanded as designed.  I also googled "hollow point bullet wound xrays" and see several images of expanded bullets in bodies (note: a lot of the images are graphic so don't google that term if you have a soft stomach).

ETA: I'm sure there has been real life shootings where 9mm vs 40 vs 45 would've made a difference, whether it would've been the additional capacity of the 9mm, or the larger bullet of a 45, or the compromise of the 40.  The fact is that we can't see into the future so we won't know what feature we will need more if we are involved in a gunfight.

IDK, from what I've seen people either drop like puppets with their stings cut or they don't.



That's pretty much the first thing to worry about.



 

I use, "gasp", hard cast in my carry weapons.

If all else is a variable, go with penetration.

Tell that to my SRH .454.

Sorta kidding but sorta not. I have my .357 Sig P226 near the bed along with a 6920 with Rangers. In reality, though, my SRH is the nightstand gun (350gr flatpoints) and at my bedroom door is the Guide Gun .45-70 (405gr flatpoints at 1900fps). One of the big bores would be what, at least initially, would be in my hands, unless I felt some urgent need to exit my home.

Part of that is because of the extremely rural area I live, I'm more likely to have a bear in my house than a bad guy. The one time I touched off the .454 inside the house was actually at the bear halfway into my kitchen. I also don't expect Seal Team 6 to come in, one or two home invaders at most and I frankly don't give a shit if they have body armor with either big bore at household distances.

I bet the guy hasn't seen Critical Duty or HST. New bullet designs are the key.

PigBat; thank you so much for sharing your expertise and experiences with us. It's always nice to hear from someone who has so much experience on a subject...

I like to carry the heaviest bullet for caliber, 230gr (45acp) with either HST or Ranger's ...

I think those observations are basically on the money…they're anecdotal; not a rigorous study, but basically correct.

The problem is that the only way to get repeatable results is to use ballistic gelatin tests, but those do not actually replicate real world conditions, which are highly variable.

There have been a few articles that have been posted recently that pretty much say the same things about handgun ammunition.  And they pretty much amount to a "return to earth" view that no handgun ammo is a sliver bullet that will reliably and consistently put down the werewolves.

I have always adhered to the philosophy that there are only three things that you really control as a hand gunner; 1) the caliber of the bullet (its diameter), 2) its weight, and 3) the velocity at which it leaves the barrel.

Now it can't hurt to use the latest bullet designs; HPs or whatever, but beyond the three things I have mentioned above, whatever happens, happens.  You might get some additional terminal ballistic benefit from the design of the bullet you have chosen or you may not.  To a certain extent, it's all just a roll of the dice.  

The most important things are to have a reliable firearm and ammo combination, your bullet placement, and a willingness to fight.

^^^^^all this.  Especially the bold underlined part.  
I would argue one point, on gel testing penetration depths have been shown to closely match real world penetration (with properly prepared and calibrated gel).
 

To paraphrase several in this thread:  In my experience, the earth is flat.  I've had 60 years of experience with this.  So I know.  It's flat.  I don't really care about all that science stuff.. it's not what my experience tells me.


Really?  Because your life experience is what matters and is *the* indicator for how materials and physics works in the real world?

Things like black holes, bending time and space, and quantum mechanics must really blow your minds.

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter . . . and suggest the following graphic for the cover-art of your next issue.


(artist illegible)