View Single Post
Old January 3, 2013, 01:00 AM   #39
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 20,281
However, handgun bullet don't produce the magnitude of cavitation that rifle bullets do (5-7 times caliber) and therefore lack the ability to exceed the tensile strength of most tissues they act upon failing to damage them.
Correct. Note added emphasis.
With handgun calibers, only permanently crushed tissue (that which comes into direct contact with the bullet) matters.
Note added emphasis. It is this word that makes this statement disagree with the first quoted statement and which also is largely responsible for its being incorrect.

Permanent wounding due to temporary cavitation is less reliable with handguns because handguns don't have the power to cause permanent damage with temporary cavitation in MOST tissues, i.e. in elastic tissues.

However, that fact is not sufficient to support a claim that only permanently crushed tissue matters in handgun wounding.

There are two reasons we should still consider temporary cavitation in handgun wounding.

1. It can and does cause permanent damage in some tissues. Inelastic tissues (liver, spleen, kidneys, brain and other CNS tissue, to name the most prominent ones) can suffer permanent damage from temporary cavitation from projectiles at handgun velocities.

2. Even if we were to completely dismiss temporary cavitation as a permanent wounding mechanism, we would still have to acknowledge that it can be a significant factor in "psychological stops" since it has the potential for causing a more immediately noticeable effect to the "recipient". Given that the FBI states that "psychological stops" are the primary factor in most handgun stopping scenarios, it's one that should not be dismissed.
You're kidding. I thought it was just my lucky guess. I always thought the 150 grain FMJBTs from the 30.06s and.308s did a good job at tissues damage.
The quote was specifically about "TC", i.e. Temporary Cavity or Temporary Cavitation.

Of course a .30 caliber does a good job at tissue damage. That's not what the statement was about. It said that they are "capable of producing TC (Temporary Cavities) large enough to damage tissue." as opposed to handguns which can not generally do so reliably since they can not generally produce an effect pronounced enough to damage elastic tissue.
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Page generated in 0.04013 seconds with 7 queries