I dunno.  I guess on some level alternating ammo in the same magazine may make tactical sense, but it seems to be a solution looking for a problem. 

 

There are a lot of factors to be considered when you are picking a weapon or ammo to carry, and one of the most obvious ones is your reason for carrying and the tactical environment.  There has been a lot of research and testing on the issue of ammo effectiveness, and there is a consensus that the most desireable bullets for law enforcement and self defense are ones that will cause the most amount of tissue damage without overpenetrating (i.e., going all the way through the bad guy).  There are a number of good rounds out there that do this quite well, and there are literally thousands of dead bodies (most of them bad, but unfortunately a few good) that have backed up the science. 

 

It is widely held in law enforcement circles that overpenetration is at best undesireable, and at worst a very bad thing.  You don't want bullets going through walls and hitting an innocent victim on the other side.  I've heard several stories of pistol bullets going through several different trailer homes and apartment units.  As cops we have to be careful because we are responsible for every round we fire, and from a liability standpoint we want any rounds we fire in the bad guy to stay in the bad guy.  If we miss we want to make sure that the rounds will stop their dangerous flight as soon as possible, preferably as soon as they hit something reasonably solid, such as a wall, tree, or vehicle. 

 

Still, there are times when you want good penetration from the rounds you carry (man, that doesn't sound very good, does it?).  Anyway, there are plenty of conceivable scenarios in which expanding, low penetrating rounds may not be all that desireable.  The one that comes to my mind is if you were facing bad guys that were wearing body armor.  Several years ago two body armor clad bank robbers in North Hollywood literally held the LAPD at bay for nearly an hour.  The officers were carrying 9mm pistols and shotguns, neither of which fired ammo that could penetrate the robbers' body armor.  A head shot killed one dirt bag, and rifle rounds fired by a SWAT officer stopped the other. 

 

I suppose there are also scenarios where you might want your rounds to penetrate walls or automobiles, but for reasons stated above this is usually going to be considered a potential liability, particularly for pistols. 

 

If you knew that you were going up against terrorists or criminals wearing body armor then I could see the logic of alternating hollow points and armor piercing rounds in pistol magazines, but I would probable try to compensate for this threat by issuing my team rifles.  For regular patrol or off duty carry I think you would be better off going with magazines loaded with hollow point ammunition.  If anything, you might want to consider loading a magazine with armor piercing or "hot" rounds in case you find yourself in a situation where you need extra penetration.  All you would need to do is switch magazines in your pistol.

 

I like Joaquin Jackson's stories of life on the border, but I think I'll stick with Hydrashocks in my pistols. 

It is widely held in law enforcement circles that overpenetration is at best undesireable, and at worst a very bad thing.  You don't want bullets going through walls and hitting an innocent victim on the other side.  I've heard several stories of pistol bullets going through several different trailer homes and apartment units.  As cops we have to be careful because we are responsible for every round we fire, and from a liability standpoint we want any rounds we fire in the bad guy to stay in the bad guy.  If we miss we want to make sure that the rounds will stop their dangerous flight as soon as possible, preferably as soon as they hit something reasonably solid, such as a wall, tree, or vehicle.

I'm not a plice officer, but I certainly understand the point about law enforcement and liability.  I'm sure you're right regarding "over-penetration" within the context of law enforcement.  However, regarding self-defense...

 

I've read a fair amount of gun press over the years, and yes the idea of "over-penetration" gets plenty of column inches.  But I have yet to *ever* (and I've been interested in firearms and reading the gun magazines since I was a lad in the 1970s) read an account of a projectile fired during a self-defense situation that perforated a bad guy and then went on to strike a good guy.  In fact, I'm not sure that I have ever even read of a projectile fired during a self-defense situation that completely missed a bad guy and then went on to strike a good guy.  Certainly the latter seems more likely to happen than the former, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened.  However, it appears to me to occur extremely rarely, if ever.  I want my 9mm (.356cal) bullets to reliably expand to well over .500cal *and* then to penetrate as far as possible, even if that means going completely through the bad guy if it misses any bones, etc.

 

Lawman, obviously my opinion (or certainly at least my "experience") is pretty meaningless to your question, since I have no experience carrying a weapon for professional reasons.  It seems to this amateur that 1) I realize I probably can't tell you anything you don't already know, 2) a service pistol isn't a rifle and never can be, but I'm sure a police officer rightfully should be concerned about the possibility of needing to act too quickly to allow time to go for the carbine in the trunk, and 3) you might want to consider some recent handgun ammunition developments that essentially use the equivalent of Barnes X-bullets, hollow point but solid copper, to yield expansion as well as penetration through hard materials.

 

Does anyone think this is sensible, or see a problem with it?

 

I have fired many thousands of rounds in competition. With a given pistol/round combination you naturally find a rhythm that the shooter, recoil, slide, & ammunition all seem to jell into. It seems to me your reaction to different bullet

weights-powder charges will throw off that rhythm and cause you to limp wrist or inadvertently jam the weapon in a fight (right when you need reliability to be operating at its peak). It takes the system off (which includes you) of its best game in my view.

 

That is strictly anecdotal and I have nothing to back it up with but a hunch. It is enough so that I wouldn't do it for a defensive weapon.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 

I don't think the mix on one magazine would be something I'd feel real solid about.  Mainly because I don't know that I'd have much faith in having the right round in the chamber when the specific optimal circumstance for it came up.  I could see carrying, say, a spare magazine loaded with FMJ in case barrier penetration was an issue, however.