I’ve always been bothered by the “trap” set by corrupt prosecutors on ammunition selection. Let’s take this part of the transcript from the Kyle Rittenhouse trial:

BINGER: So you didn’t know the difference between what a full metal jacket bullet would do versus a hollow point, right?

RITTENHOUSE: I believe a hollow point from — I just don’t know much about this. I believe a hollow point would cause more damage.

BINGER: To the first target. But it wouldn’t continue through to any other targets, right?

RITTENHOUSE: I don’t know the answer to that.

BINGER: Whereas the full metal jacket bullet is specifically designed to continue through its first target and keep flying, correct?

This is the trap that they set. If you select FMJ (as Kyle did), they claim that you were being reckless because an FMJ round will continue through the attacker and possibly hit a bystander. “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, this person used FMJ, which is an indiscriminate weapon of war designed to kill as many people as possible by passing right through the first target and harming others.”

If you select JHP, they claim that you picked a round that would do more damage and have a higher likelihood of killing the attacker. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this person used JHP, a round banned for civilian use in some states and illegal by the Geneva Convention, because they were hunting humans and wanted to kill them as efficiently as possible.”

Kyle got immediate stops from his FMJ rounds so it’s hard to argue that it was a bad selection. He also didn’t hit any bystanders. It would have been better if he hadn’t been there in the first place, but his results speak for themselves.

With a ~3,000 fps muzzle velocity at close range, it’s likely that a JHP is going to over-penetrate a human-sized target. But if you’re looking at ballistic gel tests, you can see that most of the energy is dumped fairly quickly with both FMJ and JHP. It’s not the expansion of the bullet that provides the stopping power, it’s the sudden dump of kinetic energy. When that round exits the other side it’s not likely to still have a lot of stopping power left.

This isn’t true of higher calibers. I’ve seen hunters that didn’t realize there was another deer standing behind the deer they shot and got a two for one out of their .30-06. Luckily they had plenty of tags. But Rule 4 applies everywhere and part of Rule 4 is knowing what your round will do.

For myself, I’ve selected JHP for my carry guns. Less penetration and more stopping power, especially from a pistol caliber. The more important thing is that they’re branded as “defensive ammo.” You don’t want the prosecutor showing a box of ammo with some crazy names like “full chaos” or “mankiller.” It’s even better if the round you select is also used by local law enforcement. Remember, we’re not looking to kill a potential attacker. We’re trying to make them stop.

If the worst ever happens and you find yourself forced to pull the trigger and you end up on trial, talk with your lawyer about how to answer this dilemma that the prosecutor may try to pose. The best answer I’ve heard on this came from an old instructor:

Prosecutor: You shot this man 4 times. Did you shoot to kill?

Defendant: No Sir, I shot to live.