|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 1, 2013, 10:06 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2007
Location: LANCASTER,OHIO
Posts: 3,944
|
Most common loads for each caliber I would guess.
__________________
REAL EYES REALIZE REAL LIES |
January 1, 2013, 11:06 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; January 1, 2013 at 04:45 PM. |
|
January 2, 2013, 12:14 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Therefore, for that particular graph (in post #27), each horizontal division is equal to ~2.8mm or about 0.11". Does that help?
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION |
|
January 2, 2013, 12:29 AM | #29 |
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. |
January 2, 2013, 12:32 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 16, 2010
Location: The worst Lancaster in the U.S.
Posts: 119
|
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." |
January 2, 2013, 12:36 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
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. With handgun calibers, only permanently crushed tissue (that which comes into direct contact with the bullet) matters.
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION |
|
January 2, 2013, 02:44 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
|
January 2, 2013, 04:35 PM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
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:
Last edited by zombietactics; January 2, 2013 at 05:01 PM. |
||
January 2, 2013, 05:06 PM | #34 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; January 2, 2013 at 07:57 PM. |
||
January 2, 2013, 06:03 PM | #35 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
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:
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; January 2, 2013 at 07:00 PM. |
||
January 2, 2013, 09:11 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
|
|
January 3, 2013, 12:11 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
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
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; January 3, 2013 at 12:44 AM. |
January 3, 2013, 12:19 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 7, 2009
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
|
|
January 3, 2013, 01:00 AM | #39 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,930
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
January 3, 2013, 05:25 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
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?
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
January 3, 2013, 08:36 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Sooooo.......all of this means that 9mm is better than .45???
|
January 3, 2013, 11:56 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
|
|
January 3, 2013, 07:43 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; January 3, 2013 at 10:19 PM. |
|
January 3, 2013, 08:38 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
I'll have to buy the book of course - eventually - but can you tell me if the water is temperature calibrated?
|
January 3, 2013, 09:17 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; January 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM. |
|
January 4, 2013, 12:53 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
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.
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
January 4, 2013, 01:53 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2012
Location: NV
Posts: 743
|
Quote:
TBS, I forget about them both with my 10mm G20. |
|
January 4, 2013, 09:27 AM | #48 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
Were you looking for a different comparison?
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION Last edited by 481; January 4, 2013 at 04:10 PM. |
|||
January 4, 2013, 04:16 PM | #49 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|