Originally Posted by 24th ID
Originally Posted by ClueByFour
Shoot somebody wearing a thick coat with frangible ammo and they might very well laugh at you--shoot 'em with the .357 SIG and they probably won't get getting back up.
Frang will kill you graveyard dead if hit with it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../frangible.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs5.htm
Bottom line is this: one better hit the heart or head with frangible stuff, because the energy dumps at very shallow penetration depths. If you google (or even cook some up yourself) for a test with frangible ammo versus a block of ballistic gelatin with a layer or two of denim it would bother you a little bit.
Or it bothers me. I roll with GDHP, but that's also because I can actually afford to shoot it at the range (most frangible ammo is too expensive for most civillians to practice with, but I suppose that's not a problem for the feds).
I also look at it like this: frangible ammo has been around long enough that if it really did protect innocent bystanders, you would see more LEO agencies issuing it--I've yet to meet a cop whose carry load is frangible.
I've used frang on many different occasions during my career and never had a problem with the ammo. Personally, if working the streets again, I would prefer to carry Gold Dot. It is probably one of the hottest rounds on the market.
That it is. Deals well (or so the theory goes) with glass (among other things).
Frang ammon is ideal for use in training enviroments, such as shoot houses and indoor ranges. The risk of a ricochet is dramitically decreased. I have also shot just as well with frang as I have with non-frang.
I'm a big fan of being able to reach vitals with anything shot to the torso, which is why I'm a Gold Dot fan. It's also (unsuprisingly) why I'm not a frangible fan.
I have no clue as to why the Service decided to use Gold Dot over frang. I have no idea why they decided to use the weapon we do. I do agree that there are many different alternatives to weapons and ammo that could be used. Many are probably more adequate.
The old director (or the current?) came over from the USSS, right? That's probably why.
I do know one thing. Poor freaking OPSEC that would allow this type of info to be leaked to the outside world. The enemy never needs to know several things. IE: Number of good guys. Location of good guys. Type of weapons good guys carry. Anyone who has been in a combat arms MOS in the military will know exactly what I speak of.
I had a chat with a FAM
after a flight to PHL about this awhile ago, and my synopsis was that I'd rather shoot myself than work for an agency whose OPSEC and permitted procedures are damn near laughable.
You had some good post CluebyFour, wasn't meaning to pick on your post. Just adding my two cents.
True that.
Originally Posted by exerda
My bad for just skimming the quotes from the article in the OP and not reading the whole article itself. I just couldn't imagine a modern hollowpoint round passing through multiple people (to be fair, the article I believe indicated this was more likely with peripheral hits).
I'm sure that if a FAM lined up and took aim, he could blow away 3 arms or 3 legs hanging into the aisle. I'm not convinced that he's going to get an exit wound (.357 sig fps and all) thru an adult target if the round enters the torso or head.
Originally Posted by exerda
It is interesting that Ayoob states that increasing velocity by 150 fps would solve the problem (I believe this would cause the bullet to mushroom & potentially fragment much more quickly and thus spend its energy on the target body more quickly and effectively--converse to "common sense," of course). I wonder how well their service-issue sidearms would handle that "hotter" load over the long run; I suspect it would be fine, but I haven't looked at any data along those lines in a long, long time.
I shot at an event once with Mas. He shoots very, very well. I tend to tune him out when he starts discussing ammo selection. It's not him, per se, I'm just not really convinced by any of the zealots one way or the other on the subject (my personal ammo thoughts are based on being present for a wide variety of tests involving a day cooking up gelatin, followed by some rather boring shoot and then shoot photo sessions). I'm of the (probably incorrect) opinion that a base .357 SIG round is already moving at a fast enough velocity that increasing it by 10 percent or so is not going to make a remarkable change in it's penetration tendencies. That, and I suspect that it would beat the crap out of a service sidearm over the long term.
Originally Posted by exerda
I personally like the .357 Sig round and know a lot of LEOs looked foward to it as having the approximate stopping power of the .45 but the magazine capacity of the 9mm, but the points made are indeed quite interesting.
I owned a Glock 32 for a time. I don't reload. The cost of practice ammo meant that I could not shoot nearly as much as I'd like. Again (my opinion only), I'm a firm believer in "carry the most powerful round you can afford to shoot lots of in practice." Again, that probably does not hinder the feds, since presumably the practice ammo is on the taxpayer dime.