The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 19, 2014, 09:03 PM   #51
Oysterboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
From all my researches about wounding and lethality and they recommend 12" minimum but 18" is ideal. I hope y'all realize that 18" penetration in test media is not the same as 18" penetration in human body. The human body is tougher including the bone and muscle as well as tissue.

18" of penetration means it can go quite deep in the body, better chance of incapacitating. I guess it depends on the size of the perps but hardly any of them are pee wees, instead they are brutes.

I chose the middle ground on weight and velocity of the bullet. I know heavier is better but in the case of 40sw the 180 are weaker charged as protection against setbacks. For my 40 I use 165 FTX and for my 9mm 135 FTX, both Hornady CDs.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old July 19, 2014, 09:47 PM   #52
Derbel McDillet
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2013
Location: Kitsap County, Washington
Posts: 316
Quote:
If anything, JHPs will hit what solids just missed, since they have a larger diameter.
To quote you earlier:
Quote:
Anatomy is well enough known to make valid comparisons between two nearly identically placed shots.
I just showed you circumstances in which "two nearly identical wound paths" can produce different results.

Quote:
But that is beside the point - if the round goes into the same organ, the JHP will do more damage to that organ than the solid.
Not if the expanded JHP encounters that organ near the end of it's wound path (where it's velocity has slowed) compared to a solid wadcutter or keith-style semi-wadcutter, both of which will contact and crush more tissue in that organ at the same penetration depth (as the JHP bullet near the end of its wound path) because they have greater retained velocity. Bullet shape and velocity are important factors.
Derbel McDillet is offline  
Old July 19, 2014, 09:56 PM   #53
Derbel McDillet
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2013
Location: Kitsap County, Washington
Posts: 316
Quote:
From all my researches about wounding and lethality and they recommend 12" minimum but 18" is ideal.
IWBA recommends a mean penetration depth of 12.5 - 14" in bare gelatin and a mean penetation depth of 13 - 16" in gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth. See - http://www.firearmstactical.com/iwba.htm

Quote:
I hope y'all realize that 18" penetration in test media is not the same as 18" penetration in human body.
Several studies (FBI, CHP, San Diego PD, US Military, etc.) have shown that average bullet penetration depth in the human body mirrors the penetration depth observed in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin. See the section titled "Wound Ballistics Misconceptions" near the end of this web page - http://www.firearmstactical.com/iwba.htm

Quote:
I know heavier is better but in the case of 40sw the 180 are weaker charged as protection against setbacks.
The velocity of .40 S&W 180gr is approximately 950-980 fps from a full size pistol. It hasn't changed since the genesis of this load.
Derbel McDillet is offline  
Old July 19, 2014, 10:03 PM   #54
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
Quote:
From all my researches about wounding and lethality and they recommend 12" minimum but 18" is ideal.
The 12" to 18" specification comes from an FBI study authored by Patrick Urey entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness. Although it is somewhat dated (it was published a quarter of a century ago) it does contains some good information. Unfortunately it is commonly misquoted. It does not say that 18" of penetration is ideal. The exact quote is:
"While penetration up to 18" is preferable, a handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12" of soft body tissue at a minimum..."
Up to 18 inches does NOT mean that 18" is ideal, it means that 18 inches is the upper limit of what is preferable.
Quote:
I hope y'all realize that 18" penetration in test media is not the same as 18" penetration in human body. The human body is tougher including the bone and muscle as well as tissue.
First of all, muscle is considered to be soft tissue for the purposes of penetration figures.

Second, no, human tissue is not tougher than test medium, at least in terms of soft tissue. In fact the ballistics gelatin is specifically designed to replicate the toughness (for the purpose of penetration measurements) of human soft tissue--INCLUDING muscle.

Third, going back to the quote from the FBI study, it's important to note that the minimum penetration figure of 12" is specifically stated to be penetration in "soft body tissue", which would certainly include muscle but probably not bone.

The FBI penetration specs are, in reality, very stringent when they are taken in context. I don't know of anyone with any credentials or credibility that suggests that the FBI penetration specs are conservative and that we should be trying for more penetration than the FBI recommends. In fact, to the contrary, most experts suggest that the FBI specs are overly aggressive in terms of what is required/recommended for civilian self-defense.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old July 20, 2014, 03:40 AM   #55
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
I just showed you circumstances in which "two nearly identical wound paths" can produce different results.

Not if the expanded JHP encounters that organ near the end of it's wound path (where it's velocity has slowed) compared to a solid wadcutter or keith-style semi-wadcutter, both of which will contact and crush more tissue in that organ at the same penetration depth (as the JHP bullet near the end of its wound path) because they have greater retained velocity. Bullet shape and velocity are important factors.
What you did not show is why, on average, a well designed JHP, having the desired 12-18" penetration, is going to miss a vital that a solid will hit.

And, what is the likelihood of a good JHP hitting a vital with its wide 12-18" wound path vs. the narrow and unnecessarily extended wound path of a solid?

The anwer is: The JHP is more likely to damage something vital. Again, this isn't theory. Cops don't use JHPs because of some PC policy thing. They just kill better.


Like so many discussions around here, people seize on the less likely scenarios to bolster arguments that don't match up with observable fact. Not to overuse it, but it is just like the people that say they are against seat belts because they won't be able to get out of a fire, ignoring how much more likely a deadly collision is than a deadly post collision fire.

Modern JHPs built to FBI and similar guidelines do, on average, the most amount of tissue damage in the penetration depth range that human bodies are likely to present. What is there to argue about in that?

What's especially funny is that this thread is based on excerpting ideas lifted directly from JHP test protocols and applying them retroactively to other bullet types. It really is absurd.
RX-79G is offline  
Old July 20, 2014, 06:25 AM   #56
ATPBULLETS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2012
Location: Land between the Lakes
Posts: 267
To the OP...

Look for the term "bonded"..in the hollow point type, where the jacket and core are kinda locked together.... these type hollowpoint bullets usually achieve what you are looking for.
ATPBULLETS is offline  
Old July 20, 2014, 06:34 AM   #57
mikthestick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2012
Location: Devon England
Posts: 177
For mes228

I have read some real rubbish/garbage written about guns. It is nice to read an underlying fact backed up by experience.
mikthestick is offline  
Old July 20, 2014, 12:19 PM   #58
JD0x0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2013
Posts: 1,037
Notice that even with the 12-18'' of penetration in gel, that LEO pistol ammunition rarely exits humans.

IMO exit wounds are more effective than holes that don't go all the way through. Before someone starts crying 'wasted energy' there's not much energy 'wasted' if you can get a HP to expand and also exit it will likely give you this most lethal, discouraging wounds.
A bullet that stops short in the target and 'dumps' 8% more energy isn't guaranteed to do more damage, in a pistol cartridge. I'd rather have my holes go all the way through.

And before someone comments about some 'over penetration' nonsense, it should be noted that during the Boston Marathon Bombing 200 shots were fired by LEO's. Of those 200 shots, 5 shots hit.

With that type of accuracy, 'over penetration' is the least of your concerns and IMO sounds ridiculous to worry about. Know what's behind your target at all times. Anyone with any useable brain matter knows that a complete miss is far more dangerous to bystanders than a bullet that MAY 'over penetrate.'
JD0x0 is offline  
Old July 20, 2014, 12:57 PM   #59
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
Quote:
And before someone comments about some 'over penetration' nonsense, it should be noted that during the Boston Marathon Bombing 200 shots were fired by LEO's. Of those 200 shots, 5 shots hit.

With that type of accuracy, 'over penetration' is the least of your concerns and IMO sounds ridiculous to worry about.
Even with misses, overpenetration is a concern and here's why.

A premium expanding handgun round that misses, can certainly kill one innocent bystander, but it's quite unlikely to cause a second fatality although it may cause a second injury. In a worst case scenario, a single non-expanding handgun round that misses its initial target has enough penetration to cause 2-3 bystander fatalities and perhaps even a fourth injury.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 02:57 PM   #60
Derbel McDillet
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2013
Location: Kitsap County, Washington
Posts: 316
Quote:
Like so many discussions around here, people seize on the less likely scenarios to bolster arguments that don't match up with observable fact.
There are many variables in wound ballistics that come into play that make generalizations difficult to apply - for example, claiming an expanded JHP bullet always damages more tissue than a solid non-expanding bullet. The amount of damage produced and severity of the wound depends entirely on the particular circumstances involved from the time the bullet exits the muzzle until it comes to rest or exits the body. A JHP bullet that enters the body from the front, passes thorough bowel tissue and comes to rest in the kidney will damage the kidney less than a Keith-style semi-wadcutter following the same exact wound path but passes completely through the kidney and exits the body (not an unlikely scenario) (or a bullet that first passes through an arm, enters the torso and penetrates vital structures). Look at any JHP handgun bullet wound profile depicted in ordnance gelatin and the last third of the wound track is very small in diameter. This is because the bullet has slowed to the point where soft tissues are able to stretch around the bullet as it passes by rather than being crushed outright.

This narrowing of the wound track doesn't happen with wadcutter and Keith-style semi-wadcutters because the bullets have a sharp shoulder and better retained velocity.

Last edited by Derbel McDillet; July 21, 2014 at 03:32 PM.
Derbel McDillet is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 04:48 PM   #61
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
Derbel,

You're making my point. The majority of shootings with JHPs behave pretty much as designed. Coming up with counterexamples is fine, but those counterexamples are at the ends of the bell curve.

Wadcutters may be more consistent in some ways. But they will consistently wound less than HPs, on average. That's why everyone uses HPs.
RX-79G is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 05:31 PM   #62
Oysterboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
I remember back in the 80s when I asked a friend who has a gun shop what's a good SD round for a 38 special. He grabbed a box of wadcutters and said that these will stay in the body.

I assumed that they are wadcutters. It's a round that has no head on it, completely flat.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 06:09 PM   #63
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
Wadcutters are flat, semi-wads look like a lemon juicer.

.38s are often so anemic that even a solid won't go through. Most .38 defense ammo is +P JHP.
RX-79G is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 06:34 PM   #64
Oysterboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
True that but I think back then we weren't allowed HPs.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 06:38 PM   #65
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
Who wasn't allowed HPs?
RX-79G is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 07:02 PM   #66
Oysterboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
HPs wasn't available to us then, strictly for the police.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 07:51 PM   #67
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
How long ago was that?
RX-79G is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 07:53 PM   #68
Oysterboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
I thought it was back in the 80s but maybe it was earlier.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 07:57 PM   #69
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
Super Vel was selling them in the '60s.
RX-79G is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 08:01 PM   #70
Oysterboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
That's interesting but I did remember that we couldn't get HPs because they were dangerous to cops thus only the cops have 'em. They were called cop killers in the hands of a civilian.

I guess it depended on where you live and what law applied then.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 08:09 PM   #71
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
In the 1980s there were bans (or banning discussions) of "cop killer bullets". They weren't HPs, but pointed penetrators designed to go through bullet proof vests.
RX-79G is offline  
Old July 21, 2014, 08:21 PM   #72
Oysterboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
That must be it. My mistake.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old July 22, 2014, 01:41 AM   #73
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
The "cop killer" bullet frenzy did result in laws banning "armor piercing" handgun ammo.

The rounds that began the frenzy were developed and sold during the 70s by a company called KTW. They were tungsten, with a needle point and a Teflon coating. They were designed to penetrate cars, vests and light armor plate. They were ONLY sold to law enforcement agencies.

When the anti gun press "discovered" them (around a decade or so after they appeared in the Law Enforcement market) they fixated on the fact that they were Teflon coated (slippery, to penetrate cop's vests) and dubbed them "cop killers".

Despite the fact that no cop had ever been killed with one, despite the fact that they were never sold to private citizens, or the fact that the Teflon coating was NOT for penetration, but to protect the gun barrel steel from the tungsten, "cop killer bullets" became part of the American gun control rhetoric.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 22, 2014, 01:41 AM   #74
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
JohnKSa

Quote:
In a worst case scenario, a single non-expanding handgun round that misses its initial target has enough penetration to cause 2-3 bystander fatalities and perhaps even a fourth injury.
Jeez Man, "worst case", I think that you forgot the moving tank and lining them all up in a row... wasn't Indie's hat was held on by double sided tape; most of the time!

When in the real world has a single handgun round missing its intended target gone through three to four people, dropping three dead in their tracks, and sending the fourth to the hospital? (I am glad that I don't live where live bodies are stacked quite that close in a row.)

This is just not something that I am going to stay awake tossing and turning over at night.

I would imagine that there are far more misses in the world compared to over penetrations that this is really a mute point; it being an anomaly in the real world (definitely in my world.)

Where I live penetration is the name of the game, Brown, Grizzly, and Black being some of the reason. Moose being another. Yes, in handguns rounds too.

So, I guess depending on where you live... you pays your money and take your chances.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old July 22, 2014, 08:43 AM   #75
Sheikyourbootie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2010
Posts: 379
I'm forced to use lead free bullets for hunting when I'm in certain parts of Cali. In these parts of the state the 140 grain Buffalo Bore Barnes bullet (1550 ft/sec out of my gun) is what I have my 357 stoked with. My sights are adjusted to this round, so it's what I keep in it for self defense too.

On my friends farm, I punched it through a fresh killed hog he was about to butcher and the round blew through the shoulder and exited the off side ribs and into the berm. If you want expansion and penetration this is a round worth considering, as it's very accurate and had a 10 shot extreme spread of only 12 ft/sec variation in velocity.
Sheikyourbootie is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 07:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11128 seconds with 8 queries