The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 1, 2013, 10:06 AM   #26
Officer's Match
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2007
Location: LANCASTER,OHIO
Posts: 3,935
Most common loads for each caliber I would guess.
__________________
REAL EYES
REALIZE
REAL LIES
Officer's Match is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 11:06 AM   #27
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer's Match:
Most common loads for each caliber I would guess.
Exactly.

Rather than attempt an exhaustive comparison of all calibers and their respective bullet weights, I simply went with the 9mm and .45ACP FMJs that most of us typically find on the shelves in the big box stores.

If anyone wants a specific weight of a non-expanding design bullet put through the ringer (a penetration depth vs permanent crush mass chart), I'd be happy to do so.


JHPs are out unless I have water test data- expanded diameter, retained weight, and impact velocity to work with; that's what the Schwartz bullet penetration model requires to work with JHPs, if they expand.

Here's an example of such a chart from another forum-

Winchester Ranger 9mm 127 gr. +P+ JHP vs. water medium:


9mm Winchester Ranger 127 gr. +P+ JHP (RA9TA) - no barrier, water test medium

Recovered Projectile Data:

Average Recovered Diameter: 0.605 inch
Retained Mass: 115 grains
Impact Velocity: 1250 feet per second

Predicted Terminal Performance:

Penetration Depth (S) = 28.09 cm (11.06 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 44.39 grams (1.57 ounces)

In the following Velocity/KE chart- each chart division is equal to about 2.8mm of bullet travel:



Not surprisingly, the exit velocity predicted by the Schwartz bullet penetration model is 153.9 fps after passing through 10 inches of soft tissue (corresponds to the 91st and 92nd divisions of the chart above) - well below the 294.3 fps required for it to break the skin of, and re-enter, another body according to the US Army skin penetration model that I've been using to determine such stuff.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; January 1, 2013 at 04:45 PM.
481 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:14 AM   #28
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa:
What are the units on the horizontal axis?
The maximum/entire predicted penetration depth of 11.06" or (28.09cm) is divided along the horizontal axis into one hundred equal elements.

Therefore, for that particular graph (in post #27), each horizontal division is equal to ~2.8mm or about 0.11".

Does that help?
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:29 AM   #29
warningshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 7, 2009
Posts: 995
Is this chart from the same hit piece that said a 9mm is too small for self defense?

Well, if that's the case then you will be happy to know that I've decided to leave my 226R at home and show the next MS13 Member that hassles me a copy of the chart.
warningshot is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:32 AM   #30
BrokenBottles
Member
 
Join Date: September 16, 2010
Location: The worst Lancaster in the U.S.
Posts: 98
I didn't read all of the original post(I have to wake up for work in about 4hours and only slept 6 last night ) but I didn't notice anything about cavitation.
The damage that's caused by the shock wave of a bullet can be more deadly than the bullet itself given that the cavity created can be something like 30 times the diameter of bullet.
__________________
"Lube the hell out of your Llama. Run it wet and it should be a decent pistol."
BrokenBottles is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:36 PM   #31
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokenBottles:
I didn't read all of the original post(I have to wake up for work in about 4hours and only slept 6 last night ) but I didn't notice anything about cavitation.
The damage that's caused by the shock wave of a bullet can be more deadly than the bullet itself given that the cavity created can be something like 30 times the diameter of bullet.
This true with rifle calibers.

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.

With handgun calibers, only permanently crushed tissue (that which comes into direct contact with the bullet) matters.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 02:44 PM   #32
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,691
Quote:
This true with rifle calibers.

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.

With handgun calibers, only permanently crushed tissue (that which comes into direct contact with the bullet) matters.
I think this is a gross oversimplification. What then is the velocity floor in which this cavitation occurs based on bullet diameter. We know for example the phenomenon occurs at lower velocities in 30 caliber that 22 caliber.

I have attached a document where the studies were first done and discussed on cavitation of bullet wounds. The studies were began nearly 100 years ago and "low velocity" projectiles were in the 500 - 1000 fps. The other critical issue was a round that shed its energy quickly.

Interestingly, the +P+ 9mm, 357 magnum, 357 Sig, 44 Magnum all achieve 1300 - 1500 FPS. I believe that this affect will be seen at anything over 1000 to 1100 fps (the speed of sound) and especially when you reach above 1300 fps. These handgun rounds do not seem to perform well in gelatin, but perform well consistently on the street.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf thorseby-1.pdf (1.42 MB, 3 views)
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 04:35 PM   #33
zombietactics
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by 481
" ... Using the Schwartz terminal ballistic model ...
It should be noted that this method has not been verified by (or even submitted to, last I heard) a single peer-reviewed journal of physics or metrology. Schwartz' book is self-published, and therefore doesn't have the authoritative weight of something reviewed and edited by a publisher of scientific works.

It may be 100% accurate, or it may be just the latest in a long line of "fad physics" testing methods, which later turn out to be hokkum dressed up in numbers. I make no claim one way or the other, just to be clear. Schwartz' qualifications seem pretty consistent with at least having a clue, so it's a perspective worth consideration.

Even so, unproven methodologies should be viewed as "interesting perspectives" until such time as their claims have independent verification from qualified, disinterested parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 481
"... Rather than attempt an exhaustive comparison of all calibers and their respective bullet weights, I simply went with the 9mm and .45ACP FMJs that most of us typically find on the shelves in the big box stores.

If anyone wants a specific weight of a non-expanding design bullet put through the ringer (a penetration depth vs permanent crush mass chart), I'd be happy to do so ...
I'd find it interesting to see a comparison between typical ball rounds used by the military ... NATO spec 124gr. 9mm @ ~1300fps vs. milspec 230gr .45ACP @ ~850fps

Last edited by zombietactics; January 2, 2013 at 05:01 PM.
zombietactics is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 05:06 PM   #34
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
I think this is a gross oversimplification. What then is the velocity floor in which this cavitation occurs based on bullet diameter. We know for example the phenomenon occurs at lower velocities in 30 caliber that 22 caliber.
If you took it to be anything more than the general statement that it was intended to be, then you read far too much into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
I have attached a document where the studies were first done and discussed on cavitation of bullet wounds. The studies were began nearly 100 years ago and "low velocity" projectiles were in the 500 - 1000 fps. The other critical issue was a round that shed its energy quickly.

Interestingly, the +P+ 9mm, 357 magnum, 357 Sig, 44 Magnum all achieve 1300 - 1500 FPS. I believe that this affect will be seen at anything over 1000 to 1100 fps (the speed of sound) and especially when you reach above 1300 fps. These handgun rounds do not seem to perform well in gelatin, but perform well consistently on the street.
Nothing in that document disagrees with what I said- it has already been established that rifle projectiles at typical service rifle caliber velocities are capable of producing TC large enough to damage tissue.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; January 2, 2013 at 07:57 PM.
481 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 06:03 PM   #35
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombietactics:
It should be noted that this method has not been verified by (or even submitted to, last I heard) a single peer-reviewed journal of physics or metrology. Schwartz' book is self-published, and therefore doesn't have the authoritative weight of something reviewed and edited by a publisher of scientific works.

It may be 100% accurate, or it may be just the latest in a long line of "fad physics" testing methods, which later turn out to be hokkum dressed up in numbers. I make no claim one way or the other, just to be clear. Schwartz' qualifications seem pretty consistent with at least having a clue, so it's a perspective worth consideration.

Even so, unproven methodologies should be viewed as "interesting perspectives" until such time as their claims have independent verification from qualified, disinterested parties.
According to the website, it appears to have been vetted by a munitions engineer- that's a heckuva lot better than all of the anonymous crap and opinions that I've seen on the 'net over the years.

I know that there are those who will 'poo-poo' the munitions engineer's statement, but run against actual testing in gelatin that our department conducted about seven years ago when they were researching replacement issue ammo, I have been amazed at just how close this model comes to matching that data. The other model that I use occasionally, by MacPherson, is also a self-published work and fits quite well with the data that I have compared it against.

Much like the old platitude, "Money talks, B.S. walks", the proof of both models' accuracy/validity is how well they work in the real world against real gelatin data- not how they were printed.

By way of example, I've compared the Schwartz bullet penetration model's prediction against a couple of well-known examples that I am sure most folks here on TFL have seen before:


Example #1:

This .45ACP 230 gr FMJRN @ 869 fps has a total penetration depth of about 65cm or 25.6 inches:


The Schwartz bullet penetration model predicts a penetration depth of 25.7 inches.

Note: The MacPherson model predicts 30.4 inches of penetration.



Example #2

This 9mm 124 gr FMJRN @ 1189 fps has a total penetration depth of about 71-72cm or 28.3 inches if you "straighten out" the upward curve at the end of the bullet's path:


The Schwartz bullet penetration model predicts a penetration depth of 28.7 inches.

Note: The MacPherson model predicts 30.9 inches of penetration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zombietactics:
I'd find it interesting to see a comparison between typical ball rounds used by the military ... NATO spec 124gr. 9mm @ ~1300fps vs. milspec 230gr .45ACP @ ~850fps
I'll be happy to do one for you if you want- just say the word.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; January 2, 2013 at 07:00 PM.
481 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:11 PM   #36
zombietactics
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by 481
... I'll be happy to do one for you if you want- just say the word. ...
Please do.
zombietactics is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 12:11 AM   #37
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
zombietactics-

Here you go. I hope that you like them.


Here is the Schwartz bullet penetration model analysis for the 9mm 124 gr FMJRN @ 1300 fps (M882):

Predicted Terminal Performance:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.355 inch
Retained Mass: 124 grains
Impact Velocity: 1300 feet per second

Penetration Depth (S) = 76.89 cm (30.27 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 35.01 grams (1.24 ounces)





Note: Each x-axis graduation (100 elements) = 7.7mm of bullet travel



Here is the Schwartz bullet penetration model analysis for the .45 ACP 230 gr FMJRN @ 850 fps:

Predicted Terminal Performance:
Average Recovered Diameter: 0.452 inch
Retained Mass: 230 grains
Impact Velocity: 850 feet per second

Penetration Depth (S) = 64.47 cm (25.38 inches)
Permanent Wound Cavity Mass (MPC) = 47.67 grams (1.68 ounces)






Note: Each x-axis graduation (100 elements) = 6.4mm of bullet travel


__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; January 3, 2013 at 12:44 AM.
481 is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 12:19 AM   #38
warningshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 7, 2009
Posts: 995
Quote:
it has already been established that rifle projectiles at typical service rifle caliber velocities are capable of producing TC large enough to damage tissue.
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. But now after reading all this, 'eng-gin-ear-ing' stuff and being clobbered with this chart....darn it all...now I'm confused. Do I believe my own lying eyes or this lab report?
warningshot is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 01:00 AM   #39
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,349
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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  
Old January 3, 2013, 05:25 AM   #40
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,691
I guess one of the problems I have with water simulation is the fact that water is not a good test media for bullets. It is like shooting into sand and drawing an inference from that. What do ya think Chuck?
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 08:36 AM   #41
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,864
Sooooo.......all of this means that 9mm is better than .45???



Skans is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 11:56 AM   #42
zombietactics
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by 481
... Here you go. I hope that you like them ...
Thanks ... good grist for the mill.
zombietactics is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 07:43 PM   #43
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
I guess one of the problems I have with water simulation is the fact that water is not a good test media for bullets.
First of all, that is not a fact. You might think it is, but it is not.

Besides the model presently under discussion, water is recognized as being a valid test medium by several authorities in the field including the FBI FTU as described in, “Applied Wound Ballistics: What’s New and What’s True”, and by Dr. Martin L. Fackler and Beat P. Kneubuehl of IWBA fame and authors of that paper as well as in "Handgun Bullet Performance" Int Def Rev; 1988, 21: p. 555-557.

Another authority in the field, Duncan MacPherson, also states that water is indeed a valid ballistic test medium even going so far as to describe such test methodology using water as a test medium in his book, "Bullet Penetration", using his terminal ballistic penetration model.

You may 'poo-poo' these sources all that you want (you've made your disdain for Fackler et al. very clear on other occasions), but there it is. Your disdain for these people doesn't mean that they are wrong; it just means that you don't like them.

Perhaps you can provide some actual proof in support of your claim, "that water is not a good test media for bullets" instead of just spouting unsupported opinion.

Do you have documented proof (research papers, lab data, etc.) in support of your claim?
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; January 3, 2013 at 10:19 PM.
481 is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 08:38 PM   #44
zombietactics
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 336
I'll have to buy the book of course - eventually - but can you tell me if the water is temperature calibrated?
zombietactics is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 09:17 PM   #45
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombietactics:
I'll have to buy the book of course - eventually - but can you tell me if the water is temperature calibrated?
Not that I've seen.

The only mention that I have seen of water temperature was in the second chapter where the the density of water (at ~39F) is used along with its bulk modulus to calculate the speed of sound in water (about 4910 fps) using the Newton-Laplace equation in order to compare it to the speed of sound in ordnance gelatin (about 4900 fps).

My best guess is that since the density of water only fluctuates about 1.15% over any imaginable temperature at which water would be used- 35F (999.9kg/m^3) - 120F (988.5 kg/m^3)- as a test medium, that any difference in the calculated speed of sound in water attributable to temperature variances would be negligible (0.60% or ~30 fps according to the Newton-LaPlace equation) and that both mediums have an effectively equivalent (the speed of sound in water would be 100.60% that of gelatin at most) internal speed of sound.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; January 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM.
481 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:53 AM   #46
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,691
My point is that water is hard on bullets. Some bullets do not like water and completely fragment, which they would not normally do if shot into a person. If a bullet will not mushroom in water, it will not mushroom at all, I guess its good for that.

I suppose it could be used to rule out bullets as unsatisfactory.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:53 AM   #47
Redhawk5.5+P+
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2012
Location: NV
Posts: 743
Quote:
Curious as to why you compared the lightest 9mm (115gr) with the heaviest 45 (230gr)?
Yep, I'm right there with you! What's up?

TBS, I forget about them both with my 10mm G20.
Redhawk5.5+P+ is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 09:27 AM   #48
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhawk5.5+P+:

Quote:
Originally Posted by phred119:
Curious as to why you compared the lightest 9mm (115gr) with the heaviest 45 (230gr)?
Yep, I'm right there with you! What's up?
The question posed in post #25 was answered in post #27-

Quote:
Originally Posted by 481:
Rather than attempt an exhaustive comparison of all calibers and their respective bullet weights, I simply went with the 9mm and .45ACP FMJs that most of us typically find on the shelves in the big box stores.
I s'pose that I could've chosen other weights, but the choice I made was based entirely on looking at commonly found FMJ weights in those calibers and nothing more.


Were you looking for a different comparison?
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; January 4, 2013 at 04:10 PM.
481 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 04:16 PM   #49
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
My point is that water is hard on bullets. Some bullets do not like water and completely fragment, which they would not normally do if shot into a person. If a bullet will not mushroom in water, it will not mushroom at all, I guess its good for that.
Gelatin is also hard on bullets. It is, after all, 90% water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
I suppose it could be used to rule out bullets as unsatisfactory.
Which is exactly what gelatin is also used for.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13907 seconds with 10 queries