Extreme Defender

[yyyz]

I was at the range today shot up a few targets.

 

I decided to shoot a few rounds of Underwood s Extreme Defender. It is a 65 grain for my M&P Bodyguard .380 ... Take a look a the the picture below. It was done at 21 feet. Rather than look at the grouping (it could be better) look at the holes in the target - they look like four pointed stars.

 

Underwood Ammo: https://www.underwoodammo.com/380-acp-p-65-grain-xtreme-defender/

 

The Extreme Defender also gets a few good reviews.

 

I have no relationship to Underwood except to sometimes send them money for ammo.

 

 

[gangrel]

More gimmick ammo. A few observations...

 

1) You know what it does to paper. Paper is not ballistics gel.

2) You say your grouping could be better. I be it could. Especially if the tips of your bullets weren't skewing their path.

3) In self-defense, you own every shot you fire. Do you want to go with something tried and true, or with something that might behave unpredictably? (See point 2)

4) They say it opens a bigger wound channel (if you hit the intended target), but they don't say anything about what inhibits it from overpenetrating.

5) How confident are you that that cross-shaped tip on those bullets are not going to hang up on your feed ramp just as you need to fire a life-or-death follow-up shot?

 

If you want to play with this stuff at the range to make pretty holes in the paper, that is one thing. For feeding your EDC, stick with the stuff we all know works already.

[TRJ]

Slightly different loading, but close

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/shootingthebull410-380-ammo-quest-sequel-lehigh-defense-xtreme-penetrator/

 

Also here

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=57813&do=findComment&comment=929341

[yyyz]

gangrel...

I will try to answer your questions/points.

1. You are right. Here is a review of the 9mm version. The 9mm produces that same type of pattern on the same type of target. Here is Video/Review I'm sure that there are also other reviews available.

2. Grouping isn't good, but it also isn't terrible at 21 feet for a very short barrel. I was laso more interested in the holes on the target than shooting the same hole twice.

3. I understand that part, it has been a few years (thankfully), but I have been there and done that. I agree, but does it really behave unpredictably? I don't really think so.

4. It does penetrate at least the 12 to 18 inches in gel... maybe a little more. When this type of ammo was first released, there were excess penetration issues which have been reduced in the Extreme Defender version.

5. Testing is always good. I ran a box of .380 in my Bodyguard and a box of 9mm in my Sig P290RS with no jams and no re-strikes needed with either.

[ChicagoRonin70]

More gimmick ammo. A few observations...

 

1) You know what it does to paper. Paper is not ballistics gel.

2) You say your grouping could be better. I be it could. Especially if the tips of your bullets weren't skewing their path.

3) In self-defense, you own every shot you fire. Do you want to go with something tried and true, or with something that might behave unpredictably? (See point 2)

4) They say it opens a bigger wound channel (if you hit the intended target), but they don't say anything about what inhibits it from overpenetrating.

5) How confident are you that that cross-shaped tip on those bullets are not going to hang up on your feed ramp just as you need to fire a life-or-death follow-up shot?

 

If you want to play with this stuff at the range to make pretty holes in the paper, that is one thing. For feeding your EDC, stick with the stuff we all know works already.

 

You're incorrect on every count, based on my experience with the rounds. I'll elaborate.

 

I've shot both Underwood's Xtreme Penetrator and Xtreme Defender into pig carcasses, in both .40 S&W and 10mm. This was done through leather jacket and multiple layers of clothing,

 

In flesh, including penetration through bone, both rounds do as much or more damage than any hollow point of the same caliber that I have seen. They pulverize the fat and muscle tissue, rip through connective tissue, and shatter bone with almost no deformation. Shoulder blades, skulls, and pelvises are catastrophically broken by these rounds. They also cause significant rupturing of organs in the body cavity, as if you had stuck a spade drill bit into the organ and turned it on.

 

Additionally, both the 10mm versions of the Xtreme Defender and Penetrator will penetrate Level II and even IIIA ballistic protective clothing. In .40 S&W, the Defender will go through Level II protection. They will penetrate auto glass, drywall, wood, and even multiple layers of sheet steel, like car door panels, and still perform almost as well as if fired directly into the pig carcass.

 

I have also fired several hundred rounds of both types and calibers through my Glock 29SF, using conversion barrels which have much tighter tolerance than the factory barrel, and have not had a misfeed or hangup with a single round. I alternately stack them with 165 grain Ranger-T rounds in my magazines .40 caliber magazines, to get the best possible options for shooting on any target, and I have also never had any problem with the feeding or firing of that.

 

Also, even the Xtreme Penetrator did not go entirely through the pig carcasses (about 200 pounds) on any of the shots that I fired, so the Xtreme Defender is almost guaranteed not to even in a very slim living tissue target.

 

They are also very accurate as compared to normal rounds; from a bench-rest position, they group less than 2" from 7 meters, sometimes considerably smaller than that. The tip shape of the bullet has absolutely no measurable effect on the flight path. They group very close to the Ranger-Ts, to the extent that I don't really have to change my point of aim regardless of the distance. Every shot I fire ends up inside of an 8" circle, usually inside a 4" circle or smaller depending on the range.

 

I've also seen video of them used by tactical security and military contractors, in actual field situations on human targets, including ones wearing body armor, and they perform as well or better than Ranger-Ts, Gold Dots, and XTP JHP rounds of the same caliber.

 

Since you haven't shot them in situations where their actual effectiveness and performance would be tested, and I have, everything you wrote about those rounds can be discounted as having no basis in fact.

[gangrel]

Just tell your lawyer they were ok to use because ChicagoRonin70 said they were safe to use.

 

Unless you are the type that prefers to keep your freedom.

[ChicagoRonin70]

Just tell your lawyer they were ok to use because ChicagoRonin70 said they were safe to use.

 

Unless you are the type that prefers to keep your freedom.

 

So, a round that has been well-tested, is specifically designed not to overpenetrate and put bystanders at risk, and is intended expressly for self-protection and defense is going to make you more likely to be prosecuted and convicted in a self-defense shooting?

 

Let me ask you a question. When exactly have you fired any of your traditional EDC rounds into actual flesh targets, or done any testing of them and how they would perform in real-world situations, ever? I'd wager never.

 

And yet, I've done extensive testing, seen real combat uses of the rounds that I carry, and know as accurately as possible how the ammunition performs in the situations that I could potentially be using it in, and you talk sh!t. I've also shot pretty much all of the other most popular options. Guess what? They perform, for the most part, less effectively and cause less damage, than the Underwood loadings of the Lehigh projectiles in actual flesh and living targets.

 

That isn't to say that more traditional rounds aren't effective, because they are, but in actual practice, these are at least as good and in many situations better.

 

Essentially, you have no logical or rational, fact-based rebuttal of what I wrote, which is based on actual experience with the round, while you have none.

 

Don't go all HRC on me, now.

[gangrel]

 

Just tell your lawyer they were ok to use because ChicagoRonin70 said they were safe to use.

 

Unless you are the type that prefers to keep your freedom.

 

So, a round that has been well-tested by ChicagoRonin70, is specifically designed not to overpenetrate and put bystanders at risk ​according to ChicagoRonin70, and is intended expressly for self-protection and defense ​according to ChicagoRonin70 is going to make you more likely to be prosecuted and convicted in a self-defense shooting?

 

Essentially, you have no logical or rational, fact-based rebuttal of what I wrote, which is based on actual experience with the round.

 

Don't go all HRC on me, now.

 

FIFY.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

 

So, a round that has been well-tested by Lehigh Defense, Underood Ammo, multiple well-respected firearm testers who posted videos online showing their results, and also by ChicagoRonin70 who tested it out on living tissue for the most accurate possible results, is specifically designed not to overpenetrate and put bystanders at risk according to its designers, Lehigh Defense, who spent several years developing and testing the round, and included these in their patents of the projectile, and is intended expressly for self-protection and defense according to its designers, Lehigh Defense, who spent several years developing and testing the round, and included these in their patents of the projectile, is going to make you more likely to be prosecuted and convicted in a self-defense shooting?

 

Essentially, you have no logical or rational, fact-based rebuttal of what I wrote, which is based on actual experience with the round.

 

Don't go all HRC on me, now.

 

FIFY.

 

 

RTSFY (removed the stupidity for you).

 

Again, you can't rebut what I wrote, and you've never tested any ammunition of any type similarly, so your argument and weak attempt at mockery fails.

[gangrel]

 

 

 

So, a round that has been well-tested by Lehigh Defense, Underood Ammo, multiple well-respected firearm testers who posted videos online showing their results, and also by ChicagoRonin70 who tested it out on living tissue for the most accurate possible results, is specifically designed not to overpenetrate and put bystanders at risk according to its designers, Lehigh Defense, who spent several years developing and testing the round, and included these in their patents of the projectile, and is intended expressly for self-protection and defense according to its designers, Lehigh Defense, who spent several years developing and testing the round, and included these in their patents of the projectile, is going to make you more likely to be prosecuted and convicted in a self-defense shooting?

 

Essentially, you have no logical or rational, fact-based rebuttal of what I wrote, which is based on actual experience with the round.

 

Don't go all HRC on me, now.

 

FIFY.

 

 

RTSFY (removed the stupidity for you).

 

Again, you can't rebut what I wrote, and you've never tested any ammunition of any type similarly, so your argument and weak attempt at mockery fails.

 

Really? You mean it has been tested by ChicagoRonin70, two companies who actually sell the product they are testing, and a bunch of other guys on YouTube? How could I have possibly missed the credibility of credentials like that?

[ChicagoRonin70]

Here's tnoutdoors9's review of the 9mm version of the Xtreme Defender in gel.

 

 

This is with a Glock 43, with a 3.39" barrel.

 

These rounds perform better the higher velocity they are, in my experience. The Underwood loadings do more damage than the Lehigh loadings, I have found. Especially once you start getting over 1,500 fps, they start approaching the kind of hydrostatic shock damage that rifle bullets can do. The 10mm, which gets over 1,700 fps out of a 5" barrel, and the 9x25 Dillon gets over 2,000 fps. Those velocities with this round not only cause tissue and structural damage due to the penetration of the bullet, but cause rupturing and tearing due to the violence of the non-compressible fluid (blood and other liquids) being rammed out of the way by the transferred force of the bullet.

 

In living targets, full of pumping blood, they are massively effective.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

Really? You mean it has been tested by ChicagoRonin70, two companies who actually sell the product they are testing, and a bunch of other guys on YouTube? How could I have possibly missed the credibility of credentials like that?

 

 

 

Again, all you offer is sh!t talking and nothing to rebut what I've posted to support my position. You've never tested any ammunition yourself, overwelmingly likely, and yet you think your opinion has any merit to it whatsoever on this subject in this discussion.

 

Ergo, you've lost the argument, unequivocally.

[gangrel]

 

 

Really? You mean it has been tested by ChicagoRonin70, two companies who actually sell the product they are testing, and a bunch of other guys on YouTube? How could I have possibly missed the credibility of credentials like that?

 

 

 

Again, all you offer is sh!t talking and nothing to rebut what I've posted to support my position. You've never tested any ammunition yourself, overwelmingly likely, and yet you think your opinion has any merit to it whatsoever on this subject in this discussion.

 

Ergo, you've lost the argument, unequivocally.

 

I'll rebut what you've said to support your position when you have supported your position.

[gangrel]

Here's tnoutdoors9's review of the 9mm version of the Xtreme Defender in gel.

 

 

This is with a Glock 43, with a 3.39" barrel.

 

These rounds perform better the higher velocity they are, in my experience. The Underwood loadings do more damage than the Lehigh loadings, I have found. Especially once you start getting over 1,500 fps, they start approaching the kind of hydrostatic shock damage that rifle bullets can do. The 10mm, which gets over 1,700 fps out of a 5" barrel, and the 9x25 Dillon gets over 2,000 fps. Those velocities with this round not only cause tissue and structural damage due to the penetration of the bullet, but cause rupturing and tearing due to the violence of the non-compressible fluid (blood and other liquids) being rammed out of the way by the transferred force of the bullet.

 

In living targets, full of pumping blood, they are massively effective.

...said ChicagoRonin70 and a YouTuber that someone on this board may have heard of...

[DD123]

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

 

 

Really? You mean it has been tested by ChicagoRonin70, two companies who actually sell the product they are testing, and a bunch of other guys on YouTube? How could I have possibly missed the credibility of credentials like that?

 

 

 

Again, all you offer is sh!t talking and nothing to rebut what I've posted to support my position. You've never tested any ammunition yourself, overwelmingly likely, and yet you think your opinion has any merit to it whatsoever on this subject in this discussion.

 

Ergo, you've lost the argument, unequivocally.

 

I'll rebut what you've said to support your position when you have supported your position.

 

 

And yet, you still offer nothing but keyboard monkey chatter in the face of me posting my testing observations and actual videos of the ammunition in use in the media that is the industry standard for such things.

 

You simply have no way of refuting anything I've said.

[DD123]

Personally I think everyone goes a little overboard with all of these SD rounds.

 

Buy HST's and call it a day. Except in 380, in which case buy anything with the Hornady XTP.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

This one has a test through ribs and into a pig carcass, although the tester does not cut the pig open. No overpenetration, though.

 

This one has penetration through all sorts of barriers, including a ballistic vest with a 9mm +P+ round:

 

 

Personally I think everyone goes a little overboard with all of these SD rounds.

 

Buy HST's and call it a day. Except in 380, in which case buy anything with the Hornady XTP.

 

You might want to take a look at this, on the subject of .380. Incidentally, the Xtreme Defenders outperform the Xtreme Penetrators significantly, due to the 1,300 fps versus the 1,100 fps muzzle velocity. These numbers are for the Underwood loadings, mind you, and the more velocity the better with these.

 

[tkroenlein]

Seems like the only "real" testing there is, is that FBI standard testing, which several on YouTube do. The rounds in the 380 at least, seem to solve a real problem, and that is the little round at low velocity has a problem both expanding and penetrating at the same time. The wound track left by the 90 gr penetrator loading shames everything else in the standard FBI test. (I haven't looked into the Defender at all, I believe I'd prefer the heavier bullet.)

 

So, while the real gimmicks like the RIP bullets fail when subjected to controlled and consistent testing, the Underwood's do not.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChicagoRonin70]

Seems like the only "real" testing there is, is that FBI standard testing, which several on YouTube do. The rounds in the 380 at least, seem to solve a real problem, and that is the little round at low velocity has a problem both expanding and penetrating at the same time. The wound track left by the 90 gr penetrator loading shames everything else in the standard FBI test. (I haven't looked into the Defender at all, I believe I'd prefer the heavier bullet.)

 

So, while the real gimmicks like the RIP bullets fail when subjected to controlled and consistent testing, the Underwood's do not.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That was my thought initially, since I used to use the Xtreme Penetrators. However, a heavier bullet, 140 grain to 115 grain in the case of the 10mm/.40 S&W for the Penetrator and Xtreme Defender respectively, would not allow for the momentum dump that enables the Defender to consistently penetrate around 18"–19" as it does. That makes it ideal for human-type targets and responsible self-defense shooting. It also goes faster and thus will penetrate ballistic protective coverings better, and once you get above 1,500 fps, you start being able to have a disproportionate hydrostatic shock effect added into the tissue damage on human-type targets. At least, that's what I've observed in my pig trials, and seen on operator-camera video of human target shoots in combat zones using the XD rounds.

 

For a field round, though, the Xtreme Penetrator is definitely the way to go. I know of several large animal stops with it, including a 600-pound bear dead in its tracks. In fact, I'd love to have that round in hardcast lead, which would put it around 190-200 grains. Underwood has a 220 hardcast 10mm that hits over 1,200 fps, and a 200 grain hardcast that exceeds 1,250 fps, so I think that you could squeeze 1,300 fps out of that. Hardcast lead can be made nearly as hard as the copper Lehigh uses for these projectiles, and being much more dense than the solid copper (I've recovered hardcast lead bullets shot into hard-packed earth that were barely deformed at all), you would have a very deep penetrating, massive wound-cavity anti-monster round.

[gangrel]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? You mean it has been tested by ChicagoRonin70, two companies who actually sell the product they are testing, and a bunch of other guys on YouTube? How could I have possibly missed the credibility of credentials like that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, all you offer is sh!t talking and nothing to rebut what I've posted to support my position. You've never tested any ammunition yourself, overwelmingly likely, and yet you think your opinion has any merit to it whatsoever on this subject in this discussion.

 

Ergo, you've lost the argument, unequivocally.

 

 

 

I'll rebut what you've said to support your position when you have supported your position.

 

 

 

 

And yet, you still offer nothing but keyboard monkey chatter in the face of me posting my testing observations and actual videos of the ammunition in use in the media that is the industry standard for such things.

 

You simply have no way of refuting anything I've said.

Really? "Monkey chatter," says the guy who posted once on this forum about how one of his "students" almost accidentally offer herself in his home withe the loaded "ray gun" he left laying unattended on the table? From the guy who has posted here about not one, not two, but three times he has drawn down on in "self-defense"? Who openly voiced his disdain for the notion of avoiding situations where he might face a significantly higher likelihood of needing to act in self-defense while armed? That guy? Talking to me about credibility? Interesting....

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? You mean it has been tested by ChicagoRonin70, two companies who actually sell the product they are testing, and a bunch of other guys on YouTube? How could I have possibly missed the credibility of credentials like that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, all you offer is sh!t talking and nothing to rebut what I've posted to support my position. You've never tested any ammunition yourself, overwelmingly likely, and yet you think your opinion has any merit to it whatsoever on this subject in this discussion.

 

Ergo, you've lost the argument, unequivocally.

 

 

 

I'll rebut what you've said to support your position when you have supported your position.

 

 

 

 

And yet, you still offer nothing but keyboard monkey chatter in the face of me posting my testing observations and actual videos of the ammunition in use in the media that is the industry standard for such things.

 

You simply have no way of refuting anything I've said.

Really? "Monkey chatter," says the guy who posted once on this forum about how a person who was a friend of a friend came by unannounced in the middle of me working out having taken my firearm off and set it on the table right beside the area where I had been working out previous to the unexpected interruption and picked up my firearm when I left the room briefly. From the guy who has posted here about having had the presence of mind and self-control to have NOT fired in situations which would have been legally justifiable, despite being threatened by attackers who either purported or actually had visible firearms, thus preventing crimes but not causing anyone to be harmed? Who openly voiced his intention to continue to exercise his freedom and rights to go where he previously had gone, and refused to be intimidated or restricted in his movements due to the unlawful acts of criminal malfeasants, the way every person in this country is legally allowed to? That guy? Talking to me about factually supported opinions based on extensive, objective testing and not blindly biased dogma that he's never actually done any supporting or disproving work on himself? Interesting....

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

RTSFY (removed the stupidity for you). Again.

 

So, did you get your truth distortion and out-of-context-fact-fudging training from watching the media pull things out of their @sses this election cycle? It sure seems like it.

[gangrel]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? You mean it has been tested by ChicagoRonin70, two companies who actually sell the product they are testing, and a bunch of other guys on YouTube? How could I have possibly missed the credibility of credentials like that?

 

 

 

Again, all you offer is sh!t talking and nothing to rebut what I've posted to support my position. You've never tested any ammunition yourself, overwelmingly likely, and yet you think your opinion has any merit to it whatsoever on this subject in this discussion.

 

Ergo, you've lost the argument, unequivocally.

 

I'll rebut what you've said to support your position when you have supported your position.

 

 

And yet, you still offer nothing but keyboard monkey chatter in the face of me posting my testing observations and actual videos of the ammunition in use in the media that is the industry standard for such things.

 

You simply have no way of refuting anything I've said.

 

Really? "Monkey chatter," says the guy who posted once on this forum about how a person who was a friend of a friend came by unannounced in the middle of me working out having taken my firearm off and set it on the table right beside the area where I had been working out previous to the unexpected interruption and picked up my firearm when I left the room briefly. From the guy who has posted here about having had the presence of mind and self-control to have NOT fired in situations which would have been legally justifiable, despite being threatened by attackers who either purported or actually had visible firearms, thus preventing crimes but not causing anyone to be harmed? Who openly voiced his intention to continue to exercise his freedom and rights to go where he previously had gone, and refused to be intimidated or restricted in his movements due to the unlawful acts of criminal malfeasants, the way every person in this country is legally allowed to? That guy? Talking to me about factually supported opinions based on extensive, objective testing and not blindly biased dogma that he's never actually done any supporting or disproving work on himself? Interesting....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

RTSFY (removed the stupidity for you). Again.

 

So, did you get your truth distortion and out-of-context-fact-fudging training from watching the media pull things out of their @sses this election cycle? It sure seems like it.

I don't need to. I can link to your actual threads and show it all in your own words.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? You mean it has been tested by ChicagoRonin70, two companies who actually sell the product they are testing, and a bunch of other guys on YouTube? How could I have possibly missed the credibility of credentials like that?

 

 

 

Again, all you offer is sh!t talking and nothing to rebut what I've posted to support my position. You've never tested any ammunition yourself, overwelmingly likely, and yet you think your opinion has any merit to it whatsoever on this subject in this discussion.

 

Ergo, you've lost the argument, unequivocally.

 

I'll rebut what you've said to support your position when you have supported your position.

 

 

And yet, you still offer nothing but keyboard monkey chatter in the face of me posting my testing observations and actual videos of the ammunition in use in the media that is the industry standard for such things.

 

You simply have no way of refuting anything I've said.

 

Really? "Monkey chatter," says the guy who posted once on this forum about how a person who was a friend of a friend came by unannounced in the middle of me working out having taken my firearm off and set it on the table right beside the area where I had been working out previous to the unexpected interruption and picked up my firearm when I left the room briefly. From the guy who has posted here about having had the presence of mind and self-control to have NOT fired in situations which would have been legally justifiable, despite being threatened by attackers who either purported or actually had visible firearms, thus preventing crimes but not causing anyone to be harmed? Who openly voiced his intention to continue to exercise his freedom and rights to go where he previously had gone, and refused to be intimidated or restricted in his movements due to the unlawful acts of criminal malfeasants, the way every person in this country is legally allowed to? That guy? Talking to me about factually supported opinions based on extensive, objective testing and not blindly biased dogma that he's never actually done any supporting or disproving work on himself? Interesting....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

RTSFY (removed the stupidity for you). Again.

 

So, did you get your truth distortion and out-of-context-fact-fudging training from watching the media pull things out of their @sses this election cycle? It sure seems like it.

I don't need to. I can link to your actual threads and show it all in your own words.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

Yep, I can also link my threads, which will show exactly what I wrote supporting my view and showing that yours is a biased distortion.

 

By the way, nice strawman and shifting of the topic for an ad hominem attack.

 

Again, did you pick up your logical fallacy training from watching the media circus?

[Glock23]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161014/05e833b17ab4159a9327a763d72f5889.jpg

[Mr. Fife]

 

Just tell your lawyer they were ok to use because ChicagoRonin70 said they were safe to use. Unless you are the type that prefers to keep your freedom. So, a round that has been well-tested, is specifically designed not to overpenetrate and put bystanders at risk, and is intended expressly for self-protection and defense is going to make you more likely to be prosecuted and convicted in a self-defense shooting?

In all the years I've been visiting this forum (not at all as long as some others), I've heard over and over again about how a self defense shooter would have to answer for the type of round they used.Since first hearing of this, I've read about hundreds of armed citizen self defense stories over the years. I have yet to hear of a single case where the ammo was scrutinized by a prosecutor or lawyer of a shot person.Now, I haven't been around as many others here and maybe I missed hearing about these cases. I'm still learning. Does anyone have examples of where ammo was scrutinized in a good shoot?

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

Just tell your lawyer they were ok to use because ChicagoRonin70 said they were safe to use. Unless you are the type that prefers to keep your freedom. So, a round that has been well-tested, is specifically designed not to overpenetrate and put bystanders at risk, and is intended expressly for self-protection and defense is going to make you more likely to be prosecuted and convicted in a self-defense shooting?

In all the years I've been visiting this forum (not at all as long as some others), I've heard over and over again about how a self defense shooter would have to answer for the type of round they used. Since first hearing of this, I've read about hundreds of armed citizen self defense stories over the years. I have yet to hear of a single case where the ammo was scrutinized by a prosecutor or lawyer of a shot person. Now, I haven't been around as many others here and maybe I missed hearing about these cases. I'm still learning. Does anyone have examples of where ammo was scrutinized in a good shoot?

 

 

Yeah, it won't have any bearing whatsoever. Two of my self-protection trainees who have, in fact, shot attackers actually used Lehigh rounds in their firearms, and there was no question whatsoever about their ammunition.

[papa]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161014/05e833b17ab4159a9327a763d72f5889.jpg

[Mr. Fife]

Let me stipulate... Not counting NJ or other places that outlaw certain ammo like JHP.

 

[MagSlap]

http://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11128/111281524/5154194-who+wants+popcorn.jpg