2 Questions, both possibly stupid

[BRVTVS]

Possibly Stupid Question the First: I recently bought a Bulgarian Makarov pistol which I sometimes use for concealed carry. I wanted some more punch than FMJs, so I purchased some Hornaday 95 gr. JHPs rated XTP. I'm wondering now if my pistol can handle this high a charge. Any thoughts?

Possibly Stupid Question the Second: When I started to carry, I talked to some friends about it, and one recommended that if I carry chambered, that the first round be FMJ with the mag loaded out with JHPs. His reasons, which I agree with, were as follows:

1. It makes for a cheaper warning shot. I don't think there's any argument that FMJs are cheaper than JHPs in almost every caliber, so in the event that a warning shot is desired, you get it a few cents cheaper.

2. It might look better if you ever end up in court over a shooting. I know that JHPs aren't banned in the Commonwealth, but depending on where you are, ie Philadelphia, the prosecutors might make an issue of a JHP being fired as the first shot, no matter how stupid that argument is.

3. It gives more penetration and accuracy through a barrier: Let's say you have to engage someone behind plate glass or in a vehicle, a JHP might not penetrate and will almost certainly get deflected. An FMJ gives a better chance of scoring a hit on the first shot through barriers than a JHP.

4. It's less damaging if you shoot to wound. I can agree that a FMJ will do less damage if you were in a shoot to wound situation. The guy who recommended this is a crack pistol shot, so while it might work for him, I'll just stick to center of mass. I thought this was his weakest argument, but some of that is based on my own more limited skill with a pistol. On the other hand, I'll bet that he'll go center of mass in a situation where he'd be shooting, so maybe it doesn't make that much of a difference. And getting hit with any bullet, be it FMJ or JHP is still going to hurt, so perhaps it's not that big a deal.

5. It offers quicker follow up due to less recoil and lower noise. I know this one is relative, but if a regular FMJ doesn't stop the guy, the JHP probably will and the faster the follow-up, the better.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

[Exbiker]

If you choose to fire a lethal weapon there is no warning shot or shoot to wound shot. All shots should be on target.
What you say in court may be very different.

[Dave in PA]

1) Hornady's XTP is their bullet style, eXtreme Terminal Performance, as long as your pistol is in good condition and the appropriate caliber ammo is used, and if it will tolerate JHPs, you should be OK. Make sure the firing pin is not gunked up and frozen in place.

2-1) I don't believe in warning shots, most places they will place you in a less than ideal situation. If you have enough reason to fire a warning shot, you should probably be shooting center mass. The price of 1 bullet is offset by the price of your practice ammo, you do practice, right?

2-2) JHP vs FMJ is not really an issue, if you ever have to use a defense lawyer, he SHOULD be able to make that a moot point. JHPs are safer for bystanders, as they tend to ricochet less.

2-3) Shouldn't be in a position where you have to shoot through glass or a vehicle door in a personal defense situation. If so, you need a bigger gun than a Mak.

2-4) Most people will agree that you don't shoot to wound, nor do you shoot to kill. You shoot to stop an agressor of whom you have a fear of serious bodily injury or death. There are no magic bullets or calibers, there have been people shot in the head with a .44 and discharged from the hospital within hours and people who have been killed by a .22LR. Shoot for the center of your target, it is easiest to hit.

2-5) Practice will make this a moot point. If you carry a spare magazine, you should practice quick reloads, too.

All of the above is my current opinion, I am not a lawyer, I am not a firearms trainer, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express!

[Karl/PA]

I have five 9 x 18 eaters and always carry one of them. I would offer this:

First, the 95 grain load is optimum for all of the Maks and Mak eaters (P64, PA63 & CZ82).

Secondly, get to the range and shoot it in. For some reason many, and I mean many of the Mak eaters will not feed hollow points without some work on the mag feed lips or feed ramp. You gotta know it will work if you ever need it. The Hornadys seem to be the best and also have the best test ratings. And do it again IF you ever change ammo.

If you ever feel the need to have something more than an eight shot, look at the CZ82. Its a beaut, inexpensive, well balanced, truly ambidexterous, holds 13 rounds (12 + 1) and the safety pushes DOWN instead of up like most Europeans.

[knight0334]

my answers are in red.

Possibly Stupid Question the First: I recently bought a Bulgarian Makarov pistol which I sometimes use for concealed carry. I wanted some more punch than FMJs, so I purchased some Hornaday 95 gr. JHPs rated XTP. I'm wondering now if my pistol can handle this high a charge. Any thoughts? As explained in above threads XTP is a bullet type/model. You should be good to go.

Possibly Stupid Question the Second: When I started to carry, I talked to some friends about it, and one recommended that if I carry chambered, that the first round be FMJ with the mag loaded out with JHPs. His reasons, which I agree with, were as follows:

1. It makes for a cheaper warning shot. I don't think there's any argument that FMJs are cheaper than JHPs in almost every caliber, so in the event that a warning shot is desired, you get it a few cents cheaper. warning shots are a legally bad idea. if you feared for your life that much - you should be shooting the badguy, not the ground. If you give warning shot - apparently you didn't fear for your life enough to justify "deadly force".

2. It might look better if you ever end up in court over a shooting. I know that JHPs aren't banned in the Commonwealth, but depending on where you are, ie Philadelphia, the prosecutors might make an issue of a JHP being fired as the first shot, no matter how stupid that argument is. I think there is one, uno, (1), single, recorded case that bullet type or power was a factor in a case across the entire United States. I think it was in Arizona and the defendant's last name was "Fish". In PA, you will be prosecuted on the basis that the use of deadly force was justified or not - not because of the ammo or weapon. ...if you were so justified to take someone's life with a 38spl with roundnosed bullets to protect yours, someone elses, or to stop certain crimes - then it was legal to do so with a 155mm howitzer.

3. It gives more penetration and accuracy through a barrier: Let's say you have to engage someone behind plate glass or in a vehicle, a JHP might not penetrate and will almost certainly get deflected. An FMJ gives a better chance of scoring a hit on the first shot through barriers than a JHP. This part has some merit, but what do you do when the person isn't behind such cover and you need that first slug to slow/stop in the badguy due to innocents behind him

4. It's less damaging if you shoot to wound. I can agree that a FMJ will do less damage if you were in a shoot to wound situation. The guy who recommended this is a crack pistol shot, so while it might work for him, I'll just stick to center of mass. I thought this was his weakest argument, but some of that is based on my own more limited skill with a pistol. On the other hand, I'll bet that he'll go center of mass in a situation where he'd be shooting, so maybe it doesn't make that much of a difference. And getting hit with any bullet, be it FMJ or JHP is still going to hurt, so perhaps it's not that big a deal. you dont shoot to wound, you shoot to stop the attack. deadly force is deadly force no matter how you apply it.

5. It offers quicker follow up due to less recoil and lower noise. I know this one is relative, but if a regular FMJ doesn't stop the guy, the JHP probably will and the faster the follow-up, the better. not true. most of today's defense loads are powderpuff loads just like FMJ's (just look at the .357mag for example). ...actually, most defense loads are less than mil-spec FMJ ballistic in energy. ...which energy, bullet weight, velocity, acceleration and gun weight will determine recoil.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

[OneLungMcClung]

Possibly Stupid Question the First: I recently bought a Bulgarian Makarov pistol which I sometimes use for concealed carry. I wanted some more punch than FMJs, so I purchased some Hornaday 95 gr. JHPs rated XTP. I'm wondering now if my pistol can handle this high a charge. Any thoughts?

This is not a stupid question at all. You need to be worried that that pistol may explode from overpressure....especially if you don't know what it is rated for.

ETA sorry I thought the XTP rounds were high pressure. See other comments, they answered better.

Possibly Stupid Question the Second: When I started to carry, I talked to some friends about it, and one recommended that if I carry chambered, that the first round be FMJ with the mag loaded out with JHPs. His reasons, which I agree with, were as follows:

1. It makes for a cheaper warning shot. I don't think there's any argument that FMJs are cheaper than JHPs in almost every caliber, so in the event that a warning shot is desired, you get it a few cents cheaper.

Nonsense. Warning shots are irresponsible IMHO, especially in an urban area. That bullet goes somewhere. You are responsible for all your shots. You fire a warning shot and it kills some bystander, how are you going to feel? Sure, the law generally protects you - you can't be held accountable for it in a civil court; still, YOU are the one fired that lame warning shot and killed that little kid.

Warning shots should go center of mass. Just a little insight, too: If you do fire a warning shot, and it hits something, a JHP is more likely to fragment and not ricochet as bad as a FMJ.

Also - if you fire a warning shot, you obviously have enough time to do so, so inherently your life really isnt in danger. That is the case that could be made against you.

2. It might look better if you ever end up in court over a shooting. I know that JHPs aren't banned in the Commonwealth, but depending on where you are, ie Philadelphia, the prosecutors might make an issue of a JHP being fired as the first shot, no matter how stupid that argument is.

Let 'em. I carry JHP all the time. Think about this: I always felt that if there was a threat to my life, I needed to end that threat immediately. JHPs are more likely to do that, and have far less of the bad possibilities such as overpenetration.

3. It gives more penetration and accuracy through a barrier: Let's say you have to engage someone behind plate glass or in a vehicle, a JHP might not penetrate and will almost certainly get deflected. An FMJ gives a better chance of scoring a hit on the first shot through barriers than a JHP.

I don't know how to answer this. Penetration is a two edged sword, the same advantage you get from shooting an attacker in a vehicle is one that could kill a bystander.

Also - train harder. You need to be precise with those shots.

4. It's less damaging if you shoot to wound. I can agree that a FMJ will do less damage if you were in a shoot to wound situation. The guy who recommended this is a crack pistol shot, so while it might work for him, I'll just stick to center of mass. I thought this was his weakest argument, but some of that is based on my own more limited skill with a pistol. On the other hand, I'll bet that he'll go center of mass in a situation where he'd be shooting, so maybe it doesn't make that much of a difference. And getting hit with any bullet, be it FMJ or JHP is still going to hurt, so perhaps it's not that big a deal.

See above. If you have to shoot someone, you are in imminent danger of being killed or seriously hurt. You don't have to play nice - the time for sweetums went away when the perp assaulted you.

5. It offers quicker follow up due to less recoil and lower noise. I know this one is relative, but if a regular FMJ doesn't stop the guy, the JHP probably will and the faster the follow-up, the better.

So train harder. Also - see above. You aren't going to have time to assess "follow up". You're going to have just enough time to dump half your mag or maybe two shots and possibly piss yourself.

I'll offer you one good reason to carry a first round FMJ - I'm cheap. My JHP rounds for my .45 are like 2.00 a shot. If you are clearing and re chambering that firearm, such as at my range where they require all carry guns unloaded, you start hammering the bullet down into the neck of the case. This lets me dispose of the cheaper FMJ round and replace it, rather than losing a $2.00 round. I clear my gun alot. I know it's not good for the mag or the bullet, but I do it.

[TonyF]

1. It makes for a cheaper warning shot. I don't think there's any argument that FMJs are cheaper than JHPs in almost every caliber, so in the event that a warning shot is desired, you get it a few cents cheaper.

2. It might look better if you ever end up in court over a shooting. I know that JHPs aren't banned in the Commonwealth, but depending on where you are, ie Philadelphia, the prosecutors might make an issue of a JHP being fired as the first shot, no matter how stupid that argument is.

3. It gives more penetration and accuracy through a barrier: Let's say you have to engage someone behind plate glass or in a vehicle, a JHP might not penetrate and will almost certainly get deflected. An FMJ gives a better chance of scoring a hit on the first shot through barriers than a JHP.

4. It's less damaging if you shoot to wound. I can agree that a FMJ will do less damage if you were in a shoot to wound situation. The guy who recommended this is a crack pistol shot, so while it might work for him, I'll just stick to center of mass. I thought this was his weakest argument, but some of that is based on my own more limited skill with a pistol. On the other hand, I'll bet that he'll go center of mass in a situation where he'd be shooting, so maybe it doesn't make that much of a difference. And getting hit with any bullet, be it FMJ or JHP is still going to hurt, so perhaps it's not that big a deal.

5. It offers quicker follow up due to less recoil and lower noise. I know this one is relative, but if a regular FMJ doesn't stop the guy, the JHP probably will and the faster the follow-up, the better.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

1. Warning shots are ill-advised. Period. And to concern oneself with a few pennies over a shot that should not be taken in the first place borders on the absurd. Wait, I take that back .................... it is absurd.

2. Using premium ammunition is easily defended in court.

3. To begin with, the .380 / 9x18 is anemic. The notion that one FMJ round through a barrier will make a difference is also absurd. And given that 99.99999% of the time you will probably not be facing a lethal threat behind cover, to select a particular type of bullet for such an unlikely scenario is ............ absurd.

4. For anyone to think anyone can or should "shoot to wound" is absurd.

5. This point is equally absurd.

In fact, all five points indicate to me your friend has contracted a severe case of PII.

Get him to the nearest professional firearms instructor and immediately enroll him in a training class before he actually follows his own advice and gets himself KIA.

I apologize for being blunt but his recommendations are ridiculous (and absurd). He should not be advising people on ammunition selection.

Seriously.

[NoPegs]

[B]
SNIP
Possibly Stupid Question the Second: When I started to carry, I talked to some friends about it, and one recommended that if I carry chambered, that the first round be FMJ with the mag loaded out with JHPs. His reasons, which I agree with, were as follows:
SNIP
Thanks in advance for any comments.

I carry a blank chambered. I do this because after giving it a lot of thought I have concluded that:

1: Glock 26 has no safety, "double action safe" and all, so it could go off by accident (I'm imagining being groped by a hot chick or something... lol) at least this way if it did go off, no projectile comes out...

2: If I decided to carry nothing in the chamber, I'd have to actuate the slide anyway (no warning shots, the sound of me working the slide is all you're gonna get) so the blank will just drop out when i do.

3: If somehow my gun was removed from my possession and pointed at me, I would be reasonably sure it had a blank in the chamber (providing they didn't run the slide).

4: If need be, the blank could be fired on purpose for fear generation purposes.


In recent times Ive been considering working a CCI 9mm shot-shell into the mix, I still haven't decided on whether it will be in lieu of the blank or following the blank... After patterning a few of them at the range today, I'm liking what I'm seeing... SPREAD THE PAIN! 15 feet away it covers the abdomen of a standard silhouette without too much falling outside the boundaries of man-sized-target... They reliably cycle the action on my G26...

In short, either way I do it, I'm gonna have to rack the slide once... Might as well be able to get noise from a non-racked pull...

[JoeWilliams]

I carry a blank chambered. I do this because after giving it a lot of thought I have concluded that:

1: Glock 26 has no safety, "double action safe" and all, so it could go off by accident (I'm imagining being groped by a hot chick or something... lol) at least this way if it did go off, no projectile comes out...

2: If I decided to carry nothing in the chamber, I'd have to actuate the slide anyway (no warning shots, the sound of me working the slide is all you're gonna get) so the blank will just drop out when i do.

3: If somehow my gun was removed from my possession and pointed at me, I would be reasonably sure it had a blank in the chamber (providing they didn't run the slide).

4: If need be, the blank could be fired on purpose for fear generation purposes.


In recent times Ive been considering working a CCI 9mm shot-shell into the mix, I still haven't decided on whether it will be in lieu of the blank or following the blank... After patterning a few of them at the range today, I'm liking what I'm seeing... SPREAD THE PAIN! 15 feet away it covers the abdomen of a standard silhouette without too much falling outside the boundaries of man-sized-target... They reliably cycle the action on my G26...

In short, either way I do it, I'm gonna have to rack the slide once... Might as well be able to get noise from a non-racked pull...

Well, I don't see the sense in carrying a blank instead of chamber empty is safety is really a reason. Assuming you carry IWB, you need to re-evaluate the injury you will cause yourself if you ever discharge the weapon with the muzzle right next to your skin. Do yourself a favor next trip to the range, stick the muzzle of your gun loaded with blanks next to the target, and let a round loose. Imagine that being your body.

As for snake shot, if you've just gotta either make it the first round and know that you will have to rack the slide afterwards, or just go chamber empty. Snake shot will not cycle the slide all the time. Or just go to carrying a revolver. BTW, snake shot won't even be felt by the BG if they are wearing so much as a denim jacket.

Frankly, warning shots, blanks, snake shot... none of these have a place in defensive carry scenarios. Chamber empty is preferable, IMHO, though you simply MUST be aware that you are robbing yourself of the firearm in the scenarios and ranges when you are actually most likely to need it. If you are considering using blanks, firing warning shots, or considering shooting to wound instead of shooting center mass, I would urge you to consider adding non-lethal weapons such as tasers or pepper spray to your carry regime. These are all more suited to such uses as trying to warn a bad guy away, may be able to buy you needed time to chamber a round if need be, and pose much less threat to innocent bystanders than warning shots or missed shots from a failed attempt to hit a small target and wound.

[Montanya]

I carry a blank chambered. I do this because after giving it a lot of thought I have concluded that:

1: Glock 26 has no safety, "double action safe" and all, so it could go off by accident (I'm imagining being groped by a hot chick or something... lol) at least this way if it did go off, no projectile comes out...

2: If I decided to carry nothing in the chamber, I'd have to actuate the slide anyway (no warning shots, the sound of me working the slide is all you're gonna get) so the blank will just drop out when i do.

3: If somehow my gun was removed from my possession and pointed at me, I would be reasonably sure it had a blank in the chamber (providing they didn't run the slide).

4: If need be, the blank could be fired on purpose for fear generation purposes.


In recent times Ive been considering working a CCI 9mm shot-shell into the mix, I still haven't decided on whether it will be in lieu of the blank or following the blank... After patterning a few of them at the range today, I'm liking what I'm seeing... SPREAD THE PAIN! 15 feet away it covers the abdomen of a standard silhouette without too much falling outside the boundaries of man-sized-target... They reliably cycle the action on my G26...

In short, either way I do it, I'm gonna have to rack the slide once... Might as well be able to get noise from a non-racked pull...

IMO trade in that gun on one that you feel comfortable carrying with one in the pipe. When seconds count a blank is not gonna save your life. If you find yourself in the situation where you HAVE to draw your weapon to save your life and you have a blank in the pipe, that is not a place i would want to be, cause once that BG gets to you he is gonna wrestle that gun free and the 2nd shot is NOT gonna be a blank, so he gets the blank, you get the live round.