Hello and first off the bat, welcome.
"I realize I may be insulting some of you who are more informed and financially better off than myself by even asking this question.No, sir. There are no "experts" here, just interested folks sharing what they've seen or think or asking for information they don't have from others who very well might.
The fact remains I am still a newcomer to the idea of using a pistol-only when required and clearly permissable by local law- in self defense. I only know as much as I do because I have spent the past 10 years practicing at the range and studying everything I find credible on the Web, including Mr. Camp's hipowersandhandguns.
That said, I live in a very small town and the only source I can find for 9mm (the only pistol I own, so caliber selection is easy) JHPs at a reasonable price (again, required for me) is at the local Wal-Mart. It is therefore very tempting to accept that the Rem/UMC 115 grn. JHPs are the best compromise I can find between quality, lethality, and affordability. (Their code L9mm1B). Do any of you find this completely unacceptable? Am I making a big mistake?While bullet/cartridge/caliber selection occupies much internet space and is an important factor, it is not the only factor and probably not the major one in determining the outcome of a lawful defensive shooting. It is one that we can usually "control" and there's just lots and lots of discussion on it. The primary differences I've seen between the newer "designer rounds" is that they perform more consistently over a wider selection of scenarios than the "old technology" bullets. I do not think that this suddenly equates with only the new being effective and the old no longer being so! Despite the Miami Fiasco, I'm very aware of some folks who were "stopped" and are still "stopped" from the frequently maligned Winchester STHP in 115-gr.
From what I've seen the "value pack" and "generic" Winchester, Federal, and Remington ammo consists of ammo that doesn't quite meet specs, be they dimensional or velocity spreads, that the respective companies have set for their ammunition. Most seem to be in FMJ, but there are also JHP's available. Winchester quietly "tweaked" the 115-gr. STHP for a bit deeper penetration and their generic "USA 115-gr. JHP" is the same bullet but w/o the e-nickle finish on the bullet. (Originally, several of the STHP line had aluminum jackets, but I believe that now this is only true with the .32 ACP.) When I've checked this ammo over the chronograph, it frequently is pretty darned consistant; other times not so close in velocities, but I've not seen any that were way, way off as in 200 ft/sec or so.
You would probably still get decent performance with a 9mm using this type ammunition, particularly if the pistol has a 4" or longer bbl.
If the bbl is really short as on some of the little compacts, velocity swings below the bullet's threshold velocity for expansion could occur. Though not desireable, that does not mean that such a hit would be something akin to a flea bite.
The main thing to check in my opinion is reliability and with each separate lot of the lower priced ammo you buy. I have a STAR Model BM that normally feeds and functions just fine with Remington's UMC 115-gr. ball. A while back I took it and a new box to the range and it failed to extract repeatedly! I happened to have some of the older stuff available in my range box and it worked like a champ. I took a couple of the "new" hulls and a couple of the "old" home and measured them. The "new" lot's rim diameter was less and it was also out of round by nearly 0.01"! With that gun, this was enough. I guess this is just another version of the caveat to always check ammo for function in any pistol intended for serious purposes.
Remington's JHP has been changed over the years and in my own informal expansion/penetration tests, it does pretty good.
Between the UMC or the USA, I'd go with whichever worked best in my particular pistol. If they both run 100%, I'd go with the one that grouped the best. If still the same, I'd go with the brand costing less.
Best and again, welcome.
Thanks for allowing a "newbie" question."
