FBI to 9mm

[5thShock]

The OP contained a quote from an FBI technical analysis from "FBI Training Division: FBI Academy, Quantico, VA."
Therefore a comment on the reliability of FBI technical expertise is relevant. So...

DOJ IG report...
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2014/e1404.pdf

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

[In reference to distinguishing wound channels made by different service handguns] Cherry picking information to support your position is extremely disingenuous, Rob is often guilty of this too so probably not the best source.

I have no idea what you man by "cherry picking".

I did include this from Pincus:

It is important to note that I am not arguing that a single .40S&W bullet doesn’t hold more potential to stop in any event, rather I believe that the small increase in potential is not worth the absolute known detriments in recoil and capacity.

The forensic pathologists cannot determine caliber from wounds even between the smaller 32s and 380s so if you're going to use that for a reference OWN IT.

I'm not aware of whether that is true, but it is irrelevant. The discussion was about larger calibers. You had said "40 S&W and 45 ACP leave a measurably larger permanent wound channel". I responded with "that would seem self evident, though again, it is reported that forensic pathologists often cannot distinguish among them after real shooting incidents".

Arguing that bullet and projectile aren't the same thin isn't semantics it's <edit>

Who has attempted to do so? I cannot tell whether you are being argumentative on purpose or simply cannot comprehend what is written. The distinction lies in what the wound path made by the projectile means as compared that the path of the projectile means.

That could be important in some context or other, but here it is just semantic.

Or it you prefer, semantical.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 5thShock

The OP contained a quote from an FBI technical analysis from "FBI Training Division: FBI Academy, Quantico, VA."
Therefore a comment on the reliability of FBI technical expertise is relevant. So...

DOJ IG report...
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2014/e1404.pdf

Utter nonsense. You must demonstrate that an analysis, published in 1996, of some apparent deficiencies at the FBI Laboratory is somehow relevant to a study (referenced here) done by the FBI Training Division published in 2014.

[5thShock]

The citation is but one of the items of information that are meant to inform the inquiry of the thread, it is not meant to prove a case. Stand facing the wind, it will lay your feathers back down.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 5thShock

The citation is but one of the items of information that are meant to inform the inquiry of the thread,...

Which is does not do. Your citation is irrelevant, and your position is preposterous.

[mavracer]

I'm not aware of whether that is true, but it is irrelevant. The discussion was about larger calibers. You had said "40 S&W and 45 ACP leave a measurably larger permanent wound channel". I responded with "that would seem self evident, though again, it is reported that forensic pathologists often cannot distinguish among them after real shooting incidents".

Here we go again it doesn't support Old Marksman's position it's irrelevant.
Larger holes aren't better because the ME can't tell, but smaller holes aren't as good even though ME's can't tell.
LOL

Who has attempted to do so?

Well exactly what distinction are you trying to make.
I originally said "when you define the permanent cavity as what is directly in the path of the bullet"

and Fackler says.

The main aim of a bullet is to crush, i.e., destroy the tissue actually hit by the bullet, ... The wound path of the projectile is known as permanent cavity ...

IF the bullet/projectile hit's it it's in the path of the bullet/projectile.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Mavracer:

Here we go again it doesn't support Old Marksman's position it's irrelevant.
Larger holes aren't better because the ME can't tell, but smaller holes aren't as good even though ME's can't tell.

Well, no one has said, so far, that larger holes aren't "better". The entire discussion has been about how much better, and about whether the advantage offsets the disadvantages.

The FBI Training Division, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. has officially concluded that it does not, and Rob Pincus came to the same conclusion some time ago

Yes, that is also my position.

Not that it applies only when certain modern, premium, bonded bullets that have passed certain tests are used.

The discussion has been limited to service calibers. The FBI document did not address smaller diameter rounds.

No one but you has asserted that medical examiners cannot distinguish between wounds created by small diameter handgun bullets and bullets from service rounds. Frank asked for a basis for that opinion.

But most informed opinion seems to hold that the effectiveness of smaller diameter hand gun bullets is such that they would be less than ideal for serious use. Certainly no police departments issue .32s for primary carry these days, though many did in 1900, and the 7.65 police and service pistols used in Europe more than half a centurago seem to have been retired.

Well exactly what distinction are you trying to make.

Well, it sure isn't that a bullet is not a projectile.

I originally said "when you define the permanent cavity as what is directly in the path of the bullet"

Yes, you did.

and Fackler says The main aim of a bullet is to crush, i.e., destroy the tissue actually hit by the bullet, ... The wound path of the projectile is known as permanent cavity ...

Yes, he did.

IF the bullet/projectile hit's it it's in the path of the bullet/projectile.

So the question, if you really want to keep bringing this up, would be whether the bullet destroys--wounds--creates a permanent cavity--in proportion to its diameter in whatever it hits.

Does it?

I alluded to this before, in the comparison between the .38 LRN, wadcutter, and semi-wadcutter. I am under the impression that a long tapered bullet may not create as large a permanent wound channel in elastic human flesh than would a bullet of the same diameter with a different ogive.

That seems reasonable to me.

Is it?

[johnelmore]

People love the United States, they love the flag, but when it comes to the actual government they tend to view it with suspicion and the 9mm debate is a very good example as to why. The government is a huge instrument and the gears turn in many ways we simply dont understand all the time. They say a lot of things and sometimes come full circle. You can see why now you have the 2nd Amendment and the other Amendments and thats because of the nature of government.

I will sit back and watch. There will be another chance encounter where the 9mm is blamed and they will come up again with yet another caliber and, yes, there will be winding threads and discussions on the matter. In 30 years we will come full circle again. My arms are folded, Im smiling and waiting for another full circle...another orbit...and only can hope the next caliber will be named after one of you fine gentleman.

[mavracer]

Let's see your evidence.

No one but you has asserted that medical examiners cannot distinguish between wounds created by small diameter handgun bullets and bullets from service rounds. Frank asked for a basis for that opinion.

Her's a quote from Ralph J. Riviello, MD, MS, FACEP

Can you tell the caliber of the bullet based on wound size or radiographs?
The simple answer is no. The size of any gunshot wound, entrance or exit, is primarily determined by five variables: the size, shape, configuration, and velocity of the bullet at the instant of its impact with the tissue, plus the physical characteristics of the impacted tissue itself. Importantly, because of the elasticity of skin, the size of the entrance wound will not coincide with the caliber of the bullet. The wound may be smaller, larger, or the same size as the bullet. When a bullet hits the skin surface, it causes indentation before perforation. Following perforation, elasticity causes the skin to recoil, and the resulting round, circular defect is not the same size as the diameter of the bullet.

and another from US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

Variation in wound size resulting from such factors as bullet shape, surface treatment, strength characteristics, loss of gyroscopic stability, intermediate targets, tangential impacts, and existing fractures are discussed. Also, the large variety of calibers available are noted as complicating the prediction of caliber from wound size. In view of these factors caution is recommended in any attempt to determine precise bullet caliber from the minimum dimensions of the cranial gunshot entrance wound.

now let's see Rob's.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by mavracer

...now let's see Rob's.

Well Rob Pincus isn't here. But when OldMarksman quoted Pincus, OldMarksman linked in post 23 to his source for the quote.

When quoting a source, it is customary and proper to tell us exactly where the quote came from. So if quoting from an on-line publication, one needs to link to the source. When quoting from a source other than an on-line source, one needs to identify the source by title, author, publisher, publication date, and the page on which the quote can be found.

Here's an example of appropriate citation of an on-line source:

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

...Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

...

Here's an example of appropriate citation to an off-line source:

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

...Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

...

So with regard to the sources you cited:

• Exactly where did Dr. Riviello say what you attributed to him?
  
  
• Exactly where did the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health publish what you attributed to it?

Proper citation is appropriate to allow a reader to both verify the quote and see its complete context.

[manta49]

9MM has being doing the job for over one hundred years and will continue to do so. The FBI and others are just releasing that bigger isn't always better when everything is taken into account.

[mavracer]

Exactly where did Dr. Riviello say what you attributed to him?

here

Exactly where did the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health publish what you attributed to it?

and here

But when OldMarksman quoted Pincus, OldMarksman linked in post 23 to his source for the quote.

There's no link in said link to any basis so as such it's just Pincus' jaded opinion.

[OldMarksman]

The quotations are interesting, but if they are true they really do not tell us very much.

They are consistent with Rob Pincus' statement "having talked to many EMTs and trauma doctors, and examined a significant amount of pictures/medical reports, there is a negligible difference between the wounding capacity of the 9mm and the .40 S&W" and might even expand upon the scope of the comparison.

They are also consistent with the statement in the FBI report "due to the elastic nature of most human tissue and the low velocity of handgun projectiles relative to rifle projectiles, it has long been established by medical professionals, experienced in evaluating gunshot wounds, that the damage along a wound path visible at autopsy or during surgery cannot be distinguished between the common handgun calibers used in law enforcement. That is to say an operating room surgeon or Medical Examiner cannot distinguish the difference between wounds caused by .35 to .45 caliber projectiles" and might even expand upon the scope of the comparison."

They further help us understand what is meant by "wound path".

The do not address wounding effectiveness per se. In particular, they do not assert that all bullets are equally effective.

This is from the FBI Report:

In each of the three most common law enforcement handgun calibers (9mm Luger, .40 Smith & Wesson and .45 AUTO) there are projectiles which have a high likelihood of failing law enforcement officers and in each of these three calibers there are projectiles which have a high likelihood of succeeding for law enforcement officers during a shooting incident. The choice of a service projectile must undergo intense scrutiny and scientific evaluation in order to select the best available option.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

... it's just Pincus' jaded opinion

Well, it wasn't his opinion. And to call it "jaded" is uncalled for.

Of just what is it that you are trying to convince us?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by mavracer

here

Phooey. Your link (http://thefiringline.com/forums/newr...te=1&p=6169791) takes us to a TFL reply page.

Originally Posted by mavracer

and here

More phooey.

That link take us to the abstract (summary) of an article entitled "Diameter of cranial gunshot wounds as a function of bullet caliber." So --

1. It's not the entire article and doesn't link to the entire article. So obviously you didn't read the entire article.
   
   
2. The article deals with a very narrow issue, identifying caliber from entrance wounds in the skull.
   
   
3. And the abstract also states (emphasis added):

   ...The minimum diameter of 35 cranial wounds produced by .22, .25, and .38-caliber bullet was measured. The relationship of minimum wound diameter to bullet caliber was examined using a one way analysis of variance. Fisher's least significant difference test revealed no significant difference between .22-caliber and .25-caliber wounds, while the .38-caliber wounds were significantly different (P < .001) from .22-caliber and .25-caliber wounds....

4. Thus nothing in the abstract of this article supports your contention, as you stated in post 49, that:

   Originally Posted by mavracer

   ...The forensic pathologists cannot determine caliber from wounds even between the smaller 32s and 380s...

5. The page you linked to includes a link to the abstract of another article entitled "Comparison of gunshot entrance morphologies caused by .40-caliber Smith & Wesson, .380-caliber, and 9-mm Luger bullets: a finite element analysis study."
   
   
   1. From the abstract of that article states (emphasis added):

      ...This study aims to compare the morphologies of gunshot entrance holes caused by.40-caliber Smith & Wesson (S&W), .380-caliber, and 9×19-mm Luger bullets. A fully metal-jacketed.40 S&W projectile, a fully metal-jacketed.380 projectile, and a fully metal-jacketed 9×19-mm Luger projectile were computationally fired at the glabellar region of the finite element model from a distance of 10 cm, at perpendicular incidence. The results show different morphologies in the entrance holes produced by the three bullets, using the same skull at the same shot distance....

   2. In other words, that study apparently found bases upon which to identify whether the wound was made by a .380, a .40 S&W or a 9mm Luger bullet from characteristics of the entrance wounds.

It's apparent that you're out of your depth here.

[mavracer]

It's apparent that you're out of your depth here.

So let me get some things straight here.
The fact that you might maybe be able to get an idea of caliber from a frontal cranial bullet wound is enough proof that you can distinguish caliber from all tissue?
Even though the other abstract says " In view of these factors caution is recommended in any attempt to determine precise bullet caliber"

and my other now fixed link says in no undying terms "no".

Well, it wasn't his opinion.

It most certainly is.
"there is a negligible difference between the wounding capacity of the 9mm and the .40 S&W"
is a statement of his opinion and
"having talked to many EMTs and trauma doctors, and examined a significant amount of pictures/medical reports"
Is the basis of said opinion.

[mavracer]

So the question, if you really want to keep bringing this up, would be whether the bullet destroys--wounds--creates a permanent cavity--in proportion to its diameter in whatever it hits.

Does it?

I alluded to this before, in the comparison between the .38 LRN, wadcutter, and semi-wadcutter. I am under the impression that a long tapered bullet may not create as large a permanent wound channel in elastic human flesh than would a bullet of the same diameter with a different ogive.

That seems reasonable to me.

Is it?

As I said earlier,

Of course meplat matters and better penetration models will take that into account, of course also if they are the same weight and velocity a larger meplat will penetrate less.

And let me expand on this the better (more accurate) penetration models will have an adjustment for bullet shape and even take into account bullet deformation(expansion) and leave you with and effective diameter, of course this is of little consequence when talking about your premium SD rounds as they will be similarly factored so a 20% larger expanded bullet will still leave a 20% larger hole and with a similar increase in momentum will penetrate to the same depth.

And before we get back into your energy fallacy I'll point out that's the term used by Fackler himself here.

MacPherson has included an outline of the contents of his book's chapters in the introduction, as well as providing an excellent summary at the end of each chapter. He exposes and corrects common fallacies -- such as the presumption that kinetic energy determines bullet effect. In that section we find:
• Newton's laws of motion describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships
• Damage is done by stress (force), not energy

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by mavracer

So let me get some things straight here.
The fact that you might maybe be able to get an idea of caliber from a frontal cranial bullet wound is enough proof that you can distinguish caliber from all tissue?....

No. It simply demonstrated that the citation you offered as evidence supporting your claim was not, in fact, evidence supporting your claim.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

Of course meplat matters and better penetration models will take that into account, of course also if they are the same weight and velocity a larger meplat will penetrate less.

My supposition (regarding the effects of LRN bullets vs wadcutters) was about the diameter of the permanent wound channel, and not about penetration.

...the better (more accurate) penetration models will have an adjustment for bullet shape and even take into account bullet deformation(expansion) and leave you with and effective diameter, of course this is of little consequence when talking about your premium SD rounds as they will be similarly factored so a 20% larger expanded bullet will still leave a 20% larger hole and with a similar increase in momentum will penetrate to the same depth.

There you go with that again.

Newton's laws of motion describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships

True fact.

Damage is done by stress (force), not energy

Well, not exactly. Stress is force per unit area.

And force is not at all unrelated to energy. Kinetic energy equals force times distance, aka work.

We have seen the phenomenon involved in the making of a permanent wound channel described as "crushing". I think it's more compacted than that, but that will do, and it is best described via energy relationships, even though one will find a medical doctor or professor of some ilk here and there who might try to contend otherwise.

The idea that crushing, compression, deformation, breakage, and/or cutting of materials is better described via momentum relationships (mass and velocity vectors) rather than energy relationships (mass and the square of velocity) is ludicrous, and it always has been.

See this:

In Newton there was no distinction (as shown above) between speed, motion, momentum and energy but quantitas motus (momentum) was the prevailing concept and it was proven to be conserved in all situations, therefore Leibniz' vis viva was considered a threat to the whole system. Only later it was acknowledged that both energy and momentum, being different entities, could be conserved (by Bošković and later (1748) by d'Alembert).

We can thank Émilie du Châtelet for the modern..understanding of kinetic energy – user121330

There is no energy formula ..in the discovery of conservation of energy are Joule and... – Ben Crowell
That's overlooking historical facts (Joule was not concerned with KE): soon after Leibniz' death, the quadratic relation was confirmed by experiments independently by the Italian Poleni in 1719 and the Dutch Gravesande in 1722, who dropped balls from varying heights onto soft clay and found that balls with twice speed produced an indentation four times deeper. The latter informed M.me du Châtelet of his results and she publicized them. Two centuries later, after Joule had shown that mechanical work can be transformed in heat, Helmholz suggested that the lost energy, in inelastic collisions, might have been transformed in heat.

(Emphasis added)

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu.../132770#132770

Note that while human flesh is "elastic" in nature, the striking of a human body by a projectile involves an inelastic collision. Different meaning of the word.

As I previously pointed out, penetration of the body may well involve more than crushing etc. From Post #30:

But when it comes to analyzing penetration in human bodies, it ain't quite that simple. That's because not all of the body is solid. To the extent that some of the body behaves more like an incompressible fluid, some of the forces on the bullet are in fact a function of momentum--just as in the case of a canoe paddle in water, or a helicopter rotor blade in air. In those situations, things relate to the changes in the velocity vectors and to the masses of the particles of the fluid.

That was intended to refer to the velocity vector per se, rather than to the square of the velocity.

One more time: just what point is it that you are trying to make here?

[mavracer]

Well, not exactly. Stress is force per unit area

Just for the record you are disagreeing with the guys the guys who wrote the book on this subject.
I might add Duncan MacPherson is literally a "rocket scientist"

[Deaf Smith]

The FBI's move to the 9mm is purely economics.

Their justification is a smokescreen since they tell you there is no such thing as 'stopping power' but then give you a list of criteria which amounts to a yardstick to measure stopping power!

Ironically near the top of the list is the diameter of the bullet.

So I give no weight to the new FBI pronouncements.

Deaf

[manta49]

The FBI's move to the 9mm is purely economics.

I doubt the FBI are considering a change of caliber to save a few dollars. If that was the case they would not have changed from 9mm in the first place. They are looking the best all round caliber that meets their needs best, that is 9mm.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Deaf Smith:

The FBI's move to the 9mm is purely economics.

I don't see any reason to suspect that. Their recommendations are intended for numerous agencies over which they have no budget authority at all.

Their justification is a smokescreen since they tell you there is no such thing as 'stopping power'

Yes, and they go on to expand on that by pointing out the fallacy of the one shot stop.

...but then give you a list of criteria which amounts to a yardstick to measure stopping power!

"Amounts to"? They list, among "wounding factors", shot placement, penetration, and permanent cavity, in that order of importance.

Ironically near the top of the list is the diameter of the bullet.

Where do you see that?

So I give no weight to the new FBI pronouncements.

That's up to you. I do.

The substance of the recommendation is that, since the latest and best bullets, when used in any of the common service calibers, now perform adequately in terms of penetration and permanent wound cavity, maximizing shot placement effectiveness by reducing recoil becomes important:

The 9mm provides struggling shooters the best chance of success while improving the speed and accuracy of the most skilled shooters.

Rob Pincus wrote much the same thing some time ago.

Here's the long version:

''--Contemporary projectiles (since 2007) have dramatically increased the terminal effectiveness of many premium line law enforcement projectiles (emphasis on the 9mm Luger offerings)

--9mm Luger now offers select projectiles which are, under identical testing conditions, outperforming most of the premium line .40 S&W and .45 Auto projectiles tested by the FBI

--9mm Luger offers higher magazine capacities, less recoil, lower cost (both in ammunition and wear on the weapons) and higher functional reliability rates (in FBI weapons)

--The majority of FBI shooters are both FASTER in shot strings fired and more ACCURATE with shooting a 9mm Luger vs shooting a .40 S&W (similar sized weapons)

--There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto

--Given contemporary bullet construction, LEO’s can field (with proper bullet selection) 9mm Lugers with all of the terminal performance potential of any other law enforcement pistol caliber with none of the disadvantages present with the “larger” calibers"

They report their experience as it relates to the speed and accuracy of FBI shooters. One can reasonably conclude that that would apply to other LEO shooters.

[Deaf Smith]

"Amounts to"? They list, among "wounding factors", shot placement, penetration, and permanent cavity, in that order of importance.

How can there be any 'importance' if the is no such a thing as 'stopping power'?

Well?

Where do you see that?

B. Permanent Cavity:

The extent to which a projectile expands determines the diameter of the permanent cavity which, simply put, is that tissue which is in direct contact with the projectile and is therefore destroyed. Coupled with the distance of the path of the projectile (penetration), the total permanent cavity is realized. Due to the elastic nature of most human tissue and the low velocity of handgun projectiles relative to rifle projectiles, it has long been established by medical professionals, experienced in evaluating gunshot wounds, that the damage along a wound path visible at autopsy or during surgery cannot be distinguished between the common handgun calibers used in law enforcement. That is to say an operating room surgeon or Medical Examiner cannot distinguish the difference between wounds caused by .35 to .45 caliber projectiles.

But sorry, my wife, who has been a ER trauma 1 nurse, CV-OR nurse, head of CV nursing, and has seen many gun shot wounds says the holes close up due to the elasticity of the tissue BUT the damage is there. Larger things damage more. If that was not true then a .32 ACP would do fine as there is no difference in damage, right? No reason the FBI should not recommend a .32 ACP FMJ.

Now with all due respect to Rob Pincus, he ain't the only trainer in the world. Massad Ayoob, Tom Givens, Farnam, etc.. might not agree with him on the 9mm being the best thing since sliced bread.

You might be shocked to find a lot of trainers say to pick the most powerful weapon you can control (and conceal if need be.)

Deaf

[TimSr]

But sorry, my wife, who has been a ER trauma 1 nurse, CV-OR nurse, head of CV nursing, and has seen many gun shot wounds says the holes close up due to the elasticity of the tissue BUT the damage is there. Larger things damage more. If that was not true then a .32 ACP would do fine as there is no difference in damage, right? No reason the FBI should not recommend a .32 ACP FMJ.

Now with all due respect to Rob Pincus, he ain't the only trainer in the world. Massad Ayoob, Tom Givens, Farnam, etc.. might not agree with him on the 9mm being the best thing since sliced bread.

You might be shocked to find a lot of trainers say to pick the most powerful weapon you can control (and conceal if need be.)

Deaf

While I have a great deal of respect for free thinking people who can draw their own conclusions based on their own life's experiences and areas of expertise, you will often find that such logic makes no headway when dealing with those who consider quotes by some revered gun writer to be the only valid source of information or conclusions based on it.