The other day, I was unloading my handgun during retiree pistol qualifications at the police department when one of the instructors commented on the fact I was carrying, by his reckoning, a bullet that was designed sometime in the sixties — the 1860s.

I just laughed and then proceeded to shoot a perfect score, just to show those of us on “the senior tour” still remember how to use them newfangled shootin’ irons.

In truth, this exchange awoke a major pet peeve from among the thousands on my huge peeve ranch, one of the largest in the lower 48 states. Among this fine and well-fed herd of irritations, there is one which stands shoulders above the rest: all the incessant talk and debate around defensive handgun bullet design and performance.

I understand, really I do. It’s understandable when you consider the only actual physical connection between yourself, the heroic good guy (or gal), and the target is a bullet.

The Needs

When you are legally and morally justified to stop a troublemaker, there are few better ways to do it than sending along some copper-jacketed love. It’s not hard to un-grudgingly admit handgun bullets are pretty darned important in the scheme of things, but here is my plea: can we just stop all this debate, chatter, argument, pseudo-scientific introspection and general discourse for five minutes??

Rifle bullets are just as important for social work, but don’t get the same attention because virtually all centerfire rifles pack enough kinetic energy to do exceptionally rude things to an assailant. Thus, the whole argument is rendered moot because, with reasonable marksmanship, the bad guy’s entire chest cavity looks like leftover corned-beef hash when hit by a rifle bullet.

But handguns are a different kettle of fish because they are an underpowered weapon carried primarily for convenience rather than “ultimate stopping power.” Being barely adequate, it stands to reason we want a handgun bullet to perform as well as possible when it hits someone, which is why we talk, talk, talk and talk some more about handgun bullets.

However, stop and listen to what we just agreed upon: handguns are an “underpowered weapon.” This is highlighted by the somewhat dubious but still reasonably accurate urban legend that says 80% of handgun wounds are non-lethal.

Clearly, we’re engaging in ballistic naval gazing when it comes to defensive handgun bullets, but we’re collectively determined to squeeze one last ounce of “lethality” (whatever that is) from the designs. This is all well and good, but there are a few points I’d like to bring into the discussion.

Voodoo at 1000 fps

There are very few people who truly understand terminal ballistic performance in flesh. Many make claims, but even leading scientists don’t often agree on important characteristics when focused on the infliction of maximum damage.

Also, there is such a thing as a “technological plateau,” in which a field of knowledge reaches the point where further improvement is evolutionary, not revolutionary. I would humbly suggest handgun bullets have reached this stage.

In all likelihood, you personally have not performed scientific, repeatable bullet testing on calibrated ballistic gelatin in a laboratory under controlled conditions. I haven’t, and I write about guns for a living.

If you aren’t a cop, soldier in a combat zone or emergency medical person, your real-world experience with fresh bullet wounds is (thankfully) limited. Even if you are experienced, such evidence is useful but highly anecdotal.

Taking all this into account, I would say that everything most of us “know” about “the best handgun bullet” is pure hearsay driven primarily by marketing and/or gun media spin.

I’ve shot a lot of handguns, hung around with real experts on the topic and had occasion to ponder the few people I watched die from bullet wounds. And yet, in spite of a well-rounded career, I don’t have the slightest idea of the “best” or “ultimate” bullet for a particular handgun caliber.

And be very, very skeptical of gun writers who write such prescriptions.