Let's talk about handgun FMJ effectiveness

[Welder]

So as a fairly uninformed guy I pretty much thought that no one in their right mind these days carried FMJ's on purpose, if they had other options. That is until I logged onto the Beretta Forum's Ammunition & Reloading subforum and started running across several participants who don't appear to be brain-dead (one is an EMT and claims several experiences with gunshot victims) and who are purposefully carrying FMJ's in service calibers 9mm and above.

I asked them their reasons and was immediately overwhelmed by too much info for this welder / mechanic to digest. Here is a link to the thread.

http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=120516

Can somebody clear this up for me? I had thought the arguments for service caliber FMJ use died out 20 years ago or more. To the best of my understanding these guys are saying that JHP's fail to penetrate enough, that the standard of 12" penetration is too shallow and 18" should be used instead, and that a person who's been shot needs to be shot through-and-through, a job that FMJ's will get done if any design can.

Here's a cut-and-paste of a section of the discussion:


I could care less about plugged hollowpoints, as far as I am concerned anything that keeps a hollowpoint from expanding is a good thing.

But raises arms can really not be dismissed as if you study autopsy results from police shooting you will see that a very large number of rounds, usually the majority of them, strike the victim in the arms, which is not surprising given that the natural fighting stance of most people places there arms over the center of mass.

It should also be noted that in many cases 9mm and .40 caliber hollowpoints fail to exit the arm.

To dismiss raised arms is to dismiss the fact that a person can usually completely prevent a hollowpoint pistol bullet from reaching their vital organs by simply blocking them with a bare arm.

So, now that some facts and actual research have been laid down, lets tackle your questions one by one.

Quote:
Do you think it's a conspiracy theory?
No,just marketing propaganda by companies who want to make money and goverment agencies that like to spend it.

Quote:
Do you think that the people who've made it their life's work to test ammo for effectiveness are a bunch of morons?
No, I actually think that all of them who have actually studied the issue scientifically would agree with me, or rather I with them as its there work that has lead me to share there conclusions. Without them I would probably be carrying HP's to this day. This really is a question I should be asking you.

Quote:
Do you think they're all being paid off by the ammo companies to produce false results?
No, because their results support my theory. I have yet to see any scientific studies that do not.

Quote:
Why do you discount permanent cavity size, which is a function of expanded bullet diameter and weight?
I don't discount it, but I do not feel that it is worth sacrificing penetration in exchange for expansion, and I do not generally feel its worth sacrificing capacity for a initial larger caliber, although this is more debatable.

I actually do carry HP's in one of my guns, my .44 magnum is loaded with 270 grain hollowpoints, a caliber that is capable of both fully expanding, transferring enough energy to create permanent wounding outside of caliber diameter and fully penetrating and exiting the target. A few other handgun calibers are capable of this as well and could also benefit from the expansion of hollowpoints, .357 mag for example. But the common defensive calibers, 9mm, 40 and .45 are not capable of this. They simply do not have the energy needed.

Here's another cut-and-paste, with some details a doctor might understand but unfortunately this peon welder does not:


Part II


So far all of this is well established physics and really all I have done is repost the work of others.

But now, if I may, I would like to go a step further than most and discuss the biological importance of exit wounds when it comes to killing people.

First its important to establish that I do not believe in over-pentration. Its synonymous with over-effectivness as far as I am concerned. The FBI isn't too keen on it either:

Quote:
An issue that must be addressed is the fear of over penetration widely expressed on the part of law enforcement. The concern that a bullet would pass through the body of a subject and injure an innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of law enforcement shootings will reveal that the great majority of shots fired by officers do not hit any subjects at all. It should be obvious that the relatively few shots that do hit a subject are not somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss the subject entirely.
Okay, so to understand where I am coming from on the next part you have to know that I am an EMT and have responded to many trauma cases over the past nine years, fatal and otherwise A handful have even been gunshots so although I am not a battlefield surgeon I do have first hand medical training and experience with trauma victims.

If we assume that bleeding to the point where blood pressure falls and victim loses consciousness is the most realistic and reliable method of stopping a human target (head and spine shots of course are always instantly stopping but we can't assume we will always hit them) then it all comes down to blood loss.

When you speak of blood pressure medically you are speaking of the three vascular 'containers' Inter vascular, fluid inside the veins and arteries, intercellular, fluid inside the cells themselves, and interstitial fluid, fluid in-between the cells.

Except for the inside of the lungs and digestive tract ("hollow" organs), there is no empty space inside a human body. What isn't cellular tissue, bones, arteries etc. is filled with interstitial fluid, usually just a thin film that lubricates the outside of all the tissues and organs so they can move around without damage. This fluid is under mild pressure at all times.

When you rupture a blood vessel internally the blood immediately starts flowing out into the interstitial space. We call this "third spacing" Because the vascular pressure is higher than the intercellular pressure the blood flows out rather than the interstitial fluid flowing in.

But, the human body is prepared for this. Since there is no empty space for the blood to flow to as you bleed internally the interstitial pressure rises as your blood pressure decreases. Various membrane 'firewalls' divid the interstitial area into compartments of different sizes like water tight doors on a ship so that internal bleeding does not have to raise the pressure in the entire body, just the section that is breeched.

Now, what this all means is that as you bleed internally that blood doesn't just go nowhere and and start filling up your feet, its trapped by hydraulic back pressure and compartment membranes, and when blood stops flowing it starts to clot almost immediately. Most people never get to see how blood clots on a large scale but its pretty amazing, an internal blood clot in a healthy person quickly becomes as hard as rubber and can be very large, the size of a softball or greater.

This blood clot provides a semi-regid structure around the hemorrhage and applies back pressure to the ruptured artery. If allowed to form (not washed away by rapidly flowing blood) this clot will seal the wound both internally and external and stop this third spacing of blood and stabilize blood pressure.

This is why applying pressure to even a deep wound usually works, its stops or slows down external flow of blood and forces it to back up in the tissue around the wound and clot. The effect is called 'tamponade'

Now, wether this works or not depends on the rate of blood flow and the area where the bleeding is occurring, some places, like your abdomen can accommodate a great deal of blood before tamponade, while arteries embedded in muscle tissue, such as your thigh, are very effectively controlled by tamponade.

The important thing ballistically though is that in order to defeat tamponade you have to give the blood somewhere to go, that is, out of the body. Internal bleeding is important but its also important that it has somewhere to go so it can keep moving and keep washing out the clots.

This is all just a very detailed way of saying that in order to make someone bleed to death you need to put holes in them for the blood to flow out of and probably why the number of handgun wounds sustained is the single greatest predictor of mortality rather than placement or caliber.

This means the more holes, the better. Exit wounds are like shooting them again without having to expend another bullet, not to mention the fact that due to the differences between the compressive puncture wound in skin and the tearing exit wound even FMJ bullets make larger exit wounds than entrance wounds.

Now given bones, skin, tendon etc, even an FMJ bullet may fail to fully penetrate a target but it has a better chance than a bullet with less penetration. I believe that its only bullets which can be expected to reliably create exit wounds which should be tailored for controlled expansion to give the very slight edge provided by larger bullets but only if it does not prevent full penetration.

For 9-40-45 calibers there isn't enough energy to do this and going with SWC's is about the best you can hope for when it comes to increasing permanent cavity without preventing full penetration.

Could somebody explain to me if this fellow and his fellow believers are nuts, or do they have a point? I have their permission to quote them in this post, and I'm going to link to this thread so they'll see the discussion here. Would love to see this debated by people with experience on the subject. TIA.

[Kyle Reese]

Carry a proven & vetted JHP offering from DocGKR's List (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo) and you'll likely get sufficient penetration & expansion. I've carried FMJ handgun loads deployed, and while 9x19 FMJ has killed oodles of people from WWI-Present, I still want a modern JHP load for my defensive handguns.

[Chuck Haggard]

Right off the bat, the part about 9mms and .40s stopping in arms during police shootings is complete and utter bullshit.

I think FMJs are more effective that people give them credit for, however, comma, IMHO only an asshole would carry a round for defensive use that is capable of penetrating three grown men in a row before coming to rest. FMJs also tend to ricochet off of bone far more often than JHPs, which tend to stick when they hit.

The part about dude's theory on how to kill people better speaks for itself I think.

[Drang]

Yet another facet of the Gun Culture in which too many are stuck in the past.
I'm surprised no one said "Hollow Points'll git ya kill't in the streetz!"

[breakingtime91]

Do not listen to that shit.

[okie john]

Check out this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo

A LOT of time and expense have been invested in improving handgun ammo over the last hundred-odd years. If FMJ was as good as those folks say it is, then every LEO and soldier in the country would carry it.

But they don't.

Make of that what you will.


Okie John

[Welder]

Do not listen to that shit.

I've got a case of JHP's that are 'on the list' and those are my carry ammo. So I've got that covered and don't have plans to switch. But for the purposes of the discussion, what I don't have is numbers - just how bad *were* FMJ's back in the day, and is that info recent enough that there's an online study of modern JHP designs compared with FMJ bullets that I can link to?

Setting aside overpenetration concerns as that isn't really what the discussion is about, and focusing on wound statistics of some type.... These guys have anecdotal evidence for their side (failure of JHP's to penetrate deeply enough), I've read plenty of anecdotal evidence for the JHP side, but where are the numbers? They have basically said, "Show me the numbers to prove we're wrong." As far as I knew the service-caliber handgun FMJ argument was dead 20 years ago...where are the numbers to back up what we all 'know'? Wound ballistics of some type (vs gel) would be preferable although I don't know enough to know what's available.

It's not enough to know that someone is wrong, I want to know "why" they're wrong drawing from hard facts. Otherwise I'm just another parrot.

[Welder]

Check out this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo

A LOT of time and expense have been invested in improving handgun ammo over the last hundred-odd years. If FMJ was as good as those folks say it is, then every LEO and soldier in the country would carry it.

But they don't.

Make of that what you will.


Okie John

Thanks, Okie John. I linked to that thread in the discussion on BF, which turned to JHP's vs FMJ's when I started questioning the pro-FMJ thinking in Post #12. DocGKR's list is what I went by when I chose the 147 GD's I carry.

I feel sure the pro-FMJ guys would answer your LEO / military facts by saying that reasons outside of wound ballistics (i.e. overpenetration concerns) could be the reason for the switch to JHP's. Thus my focus on the search for wound stats. I know they're out there, but where?

[breakingtime91]

I've got a case of JHP's that are 'on the list' and those are my carry ammo. So I've got that covered and don't have plans to switch. But for the purposes of the discussion, what I don't have is numbers - just how bad *were* FMJ's back in the day, and is that info recent enough that there's an online study of modern JHP designs compared with FMJ bullets that I can link to?

Setting aside overpenetration concerns as that isn't really what the discussion is about, and focusing on wound statistics of some type.... These guys have anecdotal evidence for their side (failure of JHP's to penetrate deeply enough), I've read plenty of anecdotal evidence for the JHP side, but where are the numbers? They have basically said, "Show me the numbers to prove we're wrong." As far as I knew the service-caliber handgun FMJ argument was dead 20 years ago...where are the numbers to back up what we all 'know'? Wound ballistics of some type (vs gel) would be preferable although I don't know enough to know what's available.

It's not enough to know that someone is wrong, I want to know "why" they're wrong drawing from hard facts. Otherwise I'm just another parrot.

Where are they sourcing state side shootings that involve FMJs? I don't know of any law enforcement agencies that carry fmj in their guns (that is a clue!). I know a lot of street crimes involve FMJs but often the performance is lack luster. But we do have plenty of data surrounding police shootings that involve good hollow points that penetrate and expand. FMJs suck. They penetrate, often over penetrate resulting in down range issues and they dont expand. Not a huge issue unless you think about what the tearing and expansion that a round does when it hits the target. You want your rounds to reach vital organs and create damage when they get there, so expansion and sharp pedals=mo betta.

Quoted from Docs article when discussing plain vanilla 7.62x39 ammo that over penetrates/doesnt yaw or expand:
We also have extensive law enforcement data, as this cartridge has been used extensively in illicit activity. For example, in the 17 January 1988 Stockton school shooting, 30 of 35 kids who were shot lived. Of the five that died, all were shot in critical structure--head, heart, spine, aorta and none had damage to any organ not directly hit by a bullet.

You might be saying "how does that apply to pistols". It is widely known/accepted that rifles offer better ballistics/terminal effect and if a shitty non expanding/over penetrating rifle round struggles to do significant damage, why do they think a pistol round that is going slower/smaller will?

good read:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4328-Basic-Wound-Ballistic-Terminal-Performance-Facts

[Gray222]

We had a thread about this before right?

My take on it...when you know 100% that you'll be shooting people then yes jhp is probably good to go.

However we are rarely faced with a non barriered threat, there is usually the potential for shooting through doors, vehicles, etc and jhp dont do that great on any of that, but fmj do.

[Trooper224]

Yet another example of the derp that's rampant on fanboy forums. I participated in that forum for a while, until the derp reached max toxicity levels. This is the only gun forum I still participate in. I suggest you do the same.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

FMJ is very effective at making sure I'm practicing correctly so I can place the better bullets in the right spot.

Can we talk about sights, decisions under stress or something like that now?

[Hambo]

Do not listen to that shit.

This ^^^

EMTdood has maybe 150 hours of training and nine years of experience hauling grandma to the hospital, but he knows more than all the people who have researched wound ballistics to this point.

[LSP972]

I know a lot of street crimes involve FMJs but often the performance is lack luster.


Not as often as you might think. Almost weekly, I see FMJ bullets come through here that were extracted from a corpse.

Having been pretty deeply involved in the whole wound ballistics gig back in the day, that got my attention. So I began looking further into these cases, and one thing jumped out at me... the great majority of times, the folks who were killed with these FMJ bullets (mainly 9mm) WERE NOT EXPECTING TO GET SHOT.

IOW, they were not amped-up either naturally or pharmaceutically. Which, of course, radically changes the way a human body responds to trauma.

Put another way, TBone, what you are being told here is right; there are several reasons why one should choose a proper expanding bullet for his defensive handgun... regardless of caliber. Yet, there is an exception to THAT, as well. When you get into the pipsqueak calibers (anything less than 9mm/.38 Special), you're probably better off with FMJ for the added penetration possibility. And that specifically includes .380, in my book.

Want more mud in the water? Several makers offer EFMJ (expanding full metal jacket) ammunition. I know, sounds like a contradiction in terms, but I have seen two examples of the Federal 9mm Guard Dog ammunition, pulled from two dead bodies, that did indeed expand and provide one-shot terminal effect. The first one had us stumped for over half a day, trying to figure out just what the hell it was. But it certainly worked. I remember wondering, at the time, what the communist bureaucrats in New Jerseystan would make of that stuff...:rolleyes:

[GJM]

I purposely carry FMJ ammo all summer around bears, but I don't think that is what the derp-er was contemplating.

[wrinkles]

One thing that stands out is the article and the thread are equating "wounding" to temporary cavity in pistol rounds. From what I've read TC does not create significant wounding in service pistol calibers. Second the primary wounding effect of a service pistol caliber is the crush cavity and that is created by the bullets leading edge cutting and crushing tissue. A fmj does not expand so the tissue crusted by it is always less than that of and expanded hollow point.

Duncan MacPherson determined the size of the permanent crush cavity left by bullets at hundgun velocities to be direct functions of the shape, and diameter of the bullet.

MacPherson's bullet shape factor for the following bullet shape configurations (p. 205):

.43 Sphere
.69 Round Nose
1.00 Cylinder
.66 Truncated Cone
.66 Semi-wadcutter
.63 45-degree half angle cone
.82 JHP

Permanent cavity diameter = (Shape factor) X (bullet diameter).

[41magfan]

I so wished that I had taken some pictures of the bullets recovered from various victims and crime scenes over the years. It would clearly show that a fair percentage of them do not predictably perform like far too many people think. I'm 100% confident that I could display some of those recovered bullets and not a single person on this planet could accurately describe the circumstances in which those projectiles were fired. I've seen expandable bullets penetrate like hardball and I've seen hardball fail to penetrate more than a few inches.

Here's a sample of one to make my point. This recovered bullet came from a deer I shot at about 15 yards, so impact velocity was still very predictable. The round was a 1st Generation Winchester Black Talon which routinely and predictably perform in ballistic gel. Point of entry was center of the chest and the bullet was found in the intestines after having penetrating well over 2 feet.

I would be the last person to argue that bullet makers haven't done a great job of balancing the competing interest of expansion and penetration, but it ain't magic yet folks ..... it can be a total crap shoot. This single example isn't as much of an anomaly as some would lead you to believe.


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/911/mrafe6.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pbmrafe6j)

[5pins]

IIRC the NYPD started with FMJ’s when they went from the .38 revolver to the 9mm pistol. Someone here probably knows better than I but if memory serves they dumped ball ammo because of poor performance and over penetration.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Dam auto correct. My above post was supposed to say "FMJ" but whatever.

I think we all agree ball sucks in service pistol calibers especially if there is a better option.

If forced to use it, I'd just practice more so I'd be faster and more accurate.

[5pins]

Found some info.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/18/is-hollowpoint-the-best-defensive-ammo-for-concealed-carry/


From the early ’90s adoption of 16-shot 9mm pistols (Glock 19, SIG Sauer P226 DAO and Smith & Wesson Model 5946) through 1999, NYPD issued a full metal jacket “hardball” round, comprising a round-nose 115-grain bullet in the mid-1,100 fps velocity range. The New York Times exposed the following facts in its startling report on the matter:
“According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full metal jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects,” stated the Times.
In other words, in rough numbers, 53 percent of these tragic occurrences were apparently missed shots, while 33 percent were “shoot-throughs” of violent felony suspects. Counting bullets that went through objects to hit presumably unseen innocent victims (13 percent), that tells us that roughly 46 percent of these innocent bystanders were shot by over-penetrating bullets that “pierced their backstops.” Let’s call those victims Cases One Through Seven.



The Times continued, “In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed through other people.”
In round numbers, 52 percent of those “friendly fire” casualties were hit by bullets that apparently missed their intended targets. 42 percent passed through the bodies of the intended targets after the bullets struck the people they were aimed at. Let’s tally those victims of over-penetration as Cases Eight through Twenty-Fo

[Welder]

I don't know why the word "derp" used in a sentence is so funny to me, but a couple of you have had me laughing pretty good. And I usually don't even crack a smile at what others "lol" at. Thanks also for the numbers that are starting to come in.

[Jeep]

My simple advice: Listen to the experts. That includes, first and foremost, Doc, but also a number of the people who have already commented here.

All of them come out the same place. If you are using a pistol (because a long gun won't work for whatever reason), first, hit your target in good locations. Second use quality hollowpoints, in part to improve your chances in part to not hit the little girl down the street. Third, once you have those quality hollowpoints, stop worrying about it and go back to the first point. Good hits work. Bad hits not so much.

[Lomshek]

We had a thread about this before right?

My take on it...when you know 100% that you'll be shooting people then yes jhp is probably good to go.

However we are rarely faced with a non barriered threat, there is usually the potential for shooting through doors, vehicles, etc and jhp dont do that great on any of that, but fmj do.

So my HST 147's won't penetrate a given barricade but an FMJ of similar weight/velocity will?

[SLG]

Found some info.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/18/is-hollowpoint-the-best-defensive-ammo-for-concealed-carry/

That all is likely true, I really have no idea (though it is the Times), but in that same period, ball put down a lot of people very effectively. Not arguing for ball, just saying.

[Chuck Haggard]

However we are rarely faced with a non barriered threat, there is usually the potential for shooting through doors, vehicles, etc and jhp dont do that great on any of that, but fmj do.

That is completely untrue.

Bo
nded JHPs, or solid copper bullets like the DPX, do far better in such barriers overall. FMJs bullets tend to be built to be cheap, they are non bonded jacketed cup-and-core bullets or cheaply plated. My experience in shooting up a lot of cars and other barriers, and in observation of real world shootings, is that something like the 124gr Gold Dot does consistently better than bullets like the 124gr NATO ball (to keep as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as possible...)


Another factor often not considered is that FMJ is built to be cheap and for practice, the QC put into duty grade JHPs is NOT being used on the FMJs. Possible exception is the NATO ball being built and sold in the 9mm.

[BehindBlueI's]

The "perhaps the majority are shot in the arms" is bullshit. TOTAL bullshit. Not exiting the arm is also total bullshit, unless you're using one of those stupid-ass fragmenting ultralight rounds because you were impressed by the Muzzle Energy numbers and some yahoo's Youtube channel.

Shot placement matters more than anything. Luck is a solid second. As has been noted, sometimes bullets just do weird shit in the human body.

I've worked a lot of people shot over the years, easily in the triple digits. I surely don't care about marketing or the "latest thing". I still carry a DA/SA pistol or a revolver, still think .45 is pretty cool, and wear a fedora. I base my decisions on what I see working and not working in real shootings as other folks beta test the latest and greatest. I carry bonded HP in all my carry guns, primary or backup.

[LSP972]

IIRC the NYPD started with FMJ’s when they went from the .38 revolver to the 9mm pistol. Someone here probably knows better than I but if memory serves they dumped ball ammo because of poor performance and over penetration.

In one of the Caliber Press Street Survival books, there is a photograph of a miscreant citizen that Riverside, Kaliforniastan PD shot thirty-three: that's 33: times with their then-new S&W M-59s, using Remington ball. Ron Adams was there; he told me they shot the living shit out of that dude, all at close range, but it took a detective with a shorty Python to put him down.

In the same book, there's a photo of the polar bear that the NYC transit cop put down with ONE round of .38 158gr RNL.

Moral of the story; it ain't over until its over.

.

[Al T.]

Having shot critters with 230 grain FMJ (while I don't feel unarmed with it) left me pretty disappointed. Killing pigs with 124 grain Gold Dots worked pretty well........

When shot in the right places.

(might be a clue)

[SLG]

In one of the Caliber Press Street Survival books, there is a photograph of a miscreant citizen that Riverside, Kaliforniastan PD shot thirty-three: that's 33: times with their then-new S&W M-59s, using Remington ball. Ron Adams was there; he told me they shot the living shit out of that dude, all at close range, but it took a detective with a shorty Python to put him down.

In the same book, there's a photo of the polar bear that the NYC transit cop put down with ONE round of .38 158gr RNL.

Moral of the story; it ain't over until its over.

.

The actual moral is that NY cops are much better shooters than the commie side of the country:-)

[TGS]

This ^^^

EMTdood has maybe 150 hours of training and nine years of experience hauling grandma to the hospital, but he knows more than all the people who have researched wound ballistics to this point.

I had a bit more than 150 hours of training, and am proud of my time in EMS and the things I learned while working.....

...but I'm fairly certain that dissecting terminal wound ballistics wasn't something that the field teaches you anything about.

Check that.....

It taught me that handguns suck, and shotguns are tremendously awesome at destroying the human body. Anything more than that, and people are probably just making shit up.

[Welder]

So I want to thank all of y'all for your time and energy in helping me understand this better. I did my due diligence and followed various links on BF that were there to prove this or that fact about the superiority of FMJ's or the inadequacy of JHP's, and the conclusions I reached weren't the same ones the FMJ guys came to. So I wrote a nice Dear John letter on the subject, quoting a few of you all and then closing with the following:



Respectfully, even when the danger of overpenetration is completely set aside, your position is undefendable as an absolute best choice, and that's what I was wanting to find out. I can see how someone would choose FMJ's as their ammo of choice if they were paranoid about underpenetration, but that doesn't describe me. My penetration concerns exist to the point that I've chosen 147 GD's as opposed to 124's...both of which are on Gary Roberts' list, BTW. Especially after the first linked data points provided by P-F about the two total shoot-throughs with GD JHP's - one of which first went through a guy's wristbones, then multiple layers of winter clothing, then his body, then multiple layers of winter clothing.

Yes, I know you have your example of the .40 stuck just past the guy's sternum. But...I watched the video. The video's purpose was to educate medical personnel about dealing with gunshot wounds, not to deal with how to choose ammo. Because of this, we're lacking all of the pertinent info about how that .40 came to be where it was. Was the shot point-blank or was it made from 50 yards away? Was there a barrier involved? Just what HP was it, anyway? Etc. There is not enough data there to draw any conclusions from, especially considering how many times it's been mentioned in this thread. At least one guy fell out of an airplane in WWII without a parachute and survived, too. Not much value to that data either.

I know .Aerindel. has a Hydrashok HP stuck in his leg which fragmented after breaking his femur. But the Hydrashok is a generation or two behind the current crop of JHP's (which were specifically engineered to hold together better and have more reliable expansion), and the only relevant data we can draw from that particular example is that if you shoot an outdated Hydrashok into your femur, chances are you won't be walking around immediately afterward. By his own admission, .Aerindel. was 'stopped,' and by a JHP that is not on Gary Roberts' recommended carry list because of its poor performance compared to the current crop.

I don't make decisions based on one data point, or even ten data points. The overwhelming, vast, humongous majority of answers I'm hearing from guys with real credentials respected by others with real credentials in the gun and law enforcement world is saying that you guys are nuts. I mean that in the nicest way possible, and with no animosity towards you at all.

If there were big, serious failures of our modern JHP's it would be all over the police forums AND pistol-forum. Instead, the silence is deafening. And these guys are actually using this stuff and seeing it used. My final decision is that I'll happily continue to carry my Speer 147 GD's and spend my future time on training rather than worrying about the ammo in my magazine. It is the right stuff.

PS - As I mentioned when I first questioned you, I'm not going to hound you about this or bring it up in the future. I wanted an honest conversation and you gave it to me. A nice side effect of that was that I got to broaden my knowledge and hear from a lot of experts on the same subject matter. So it was a total win, and I thank you for your time. If anyone else wishes to continue with this thread, that's totally fine, but I've learned what I needed to know and am moving on to greener pastures. Thanks again.

Thanks again to y'all as 'expert witnesses' for taking the time to put this subject to rest (in my mind, at least).

[DocGKR]

Sorry--I am on vacation, am just seeing this, and really don't have time for a significant rebuttal.

Lot's of good info provided in posts above.

Sadly, as has been noted by many observers of life, including individuals as disparate as Confucius, Shakespeare, Bacon, Pope, Darwin, Bertrand Russell, as well as Dunning-Kruger, a little knowledge and/or learning can be dangerous, as proven once again by the comments in the linked thread. One of the comments was, "The military uses only FMJs, Police use only HPs, it's hard to find anyone who has used both enough in the real world to have much data." Both NYPD and Detroit PD carried FMJ's before switching to JHP's--if one searches hard enough, it is possible to discover a fair amount of data discussing the OIS incident performance differences between the two kinds of projectiles, as noted in at least one post above. In addition, the quote above ignores the lawful use of a variety of non-FMJ issued projectiles by U.S. military personnel over the past two decades. Guess how many organizations who have used both FMJ and non-FMJ service handgun loads prefer the FMJ? Might be the reason why every organization who has the option chooses to NOT carry FMJ for many good reasons elucidated in comments above...

In over 30 years as a U.S. military officer, in various law enforcement assignments, and in treating GSW's at a major trauma center, I have had more than ample opportunities to acquaint myself with the effects of small arms fire. In addition to our local LE agency, the JSWB-IPT, FBI, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data--as a result, I have gotten to review significant numbers of both OIS incident reports and autopsies, as well as extensive amounts of military combat reports. The whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. What precisely do folks think all these researchers are doing? The comment that JHP's are "...just marketing propaganda by companies who want to make money and goverment (sic) agencies that like to spend it", is patently ludicrous. I also found it quite amusing that: "In the case of Gary Roberts he is clearly trying to show that 9mm is a better alternative to .40 and .45 by showing that with HP 9mm rounds cause very similar wounds to hp .40 and .45 rounds."

How many of the folks in the linked article who are supposedly quoting FBI data/methods have actually spoken with SSA Patterson or SSA Boone? How many of them actually have been to the FBI-BRF or work with them on a regular basis? Heck, one can simply review which service caliber handgun loads have been adopted by the FBI and determine if some of the comments about desired penetration depths and FMJ vs JHP are accurate. Just for the record, in the past two decades, almost all the issued FBI service caliber handgun ammo has tended to penetrate about 14-16" in bare gel, just about right in the middle of the 12-18" range that almost everyone who evaluates such things recommends. How many of those loads have been JHP and how many were FMJ? Oh yeah....

There are also a number of other red flags in the comments in the linked post. Brass Fetcher used to work for a USG entity that was enamored by 20% gel, high speed video, and mathematical calculations of energy deposit--this Big Army statistical methodology is not well liked by researchers at the JSWB-IPT, USSOCOM, USMC, Crane, as well as the FBI-BRF and most other LE agencies, as they all prefer physiological damage based metrics. Dr. Andreas Grabinsky's is an anesthesiologist whose very short 2011 lecture to EMT's at Harborview Medical Center is available online; it is OK (you can see where he uses some of our data in the presentation), but it also contains a number of errors. Mr. Ayoob may be a lot of things, but a valid wound ballistic researcher/SME is not one of them. Likewise, anytime Courtney's work is cited, I generally cringe, as it is NOT well respected, not accepted by the major wound ballistic researchers, and does not appear to be clinically relevant or accurate.

Keep in mind that over the past 15 years, especially since the closure of the non-profit IWBA, 95% of the cutting edge LE and military wound ballistic research is NOT available to the public or via the internet.

Finally, as has been stated numerous times, shot placement and a bit of luck are key. Any of the service calibers can work. In general, when needing to defend yourself against a violent assault, having a firearm available is better than not having one. Having more bullets on tap for a defensive encounter is preferred to having less. Reliable FMJ's are superior to unreliable JHP's. Well engineered, robust expanding JHP's offer advantages over FMJ's. Ultimately training and mindset are FAR more important than bullet type...

[LSP972]

The actual moral is that NY cops are much better shooters than the commie side of the country:-)


Ain't TOUCHING that one...;)

.

[Robinson]

Something that stands out to me about the linked comments from that other forum is that there is a focus on wounds that will prove fatal. Ignoring whether or not their logic is even sound, it seems to me that whether a shooting will cause death from bleeding isn't really the point when it comes to self defense. Is it not more important to focus on what will stop an aggressor the most quickly and decisively -- whether death results or not?

[pblanc]

"They all fall to hardball." There, case closed.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I have never shot either an animal or a person with a handgun, but I do have some direct experience treating gunshot wounds having been a medical student and surgical resident in major metropolitan areas, having practiced as a full-time emergency department physician for a few years, and having practiced as a trauma and vascular surgeon for many years, including time at a sizable Level II trauma center. I have a considerable bit of experience with hypovolemic shock (blood volume loss hypotension) due to mechanisms other than gunshot wounds as well. Not all of the gunshot wounds I saw required surgery but a good number did and I was involved in most of those operations either as staff surgeon or an assistant. The gunshot wounds I saw in surgery or the ED involved calibers from 22 LR up to .45 ACP and probably more were FMJ wounds than JHP wounds. I also saw a lesser number of shotgun and high velocity rifle wounds in the operating room.

My direct experience with handgun wounds is more limited than many but I suspect it is greater than the majority of members of this forum.

With regard to handgun wounds I am hoping we can all dispense with the "kinetic energy transfer" and "hydrostatic shock" nonsense. I would also suggest that everyone ignore those "cavitation injuries" and temporary wound channels seen in ballistic gel. Ballistic gelatin may be useful for testing penetration but it behaves nothing like human tissue. Gel has virtually no structural integrity to speak of. Human soft tissue contains collagen and elastin fibers that hold it together. What is more, the elastic fibers allow the tissue to be displaced by the temporary wound channel and then rebound with virtually no permanent injury of significance. I have never seen any evidence of wound channel trauma with handgun wounds apart from the direct channel or "permanent crush" created by the passage of the projectile itself. High velocity rifle wounds with muzzle velocities greater than 2000 fps are sometimes different. I have seen evidence of "remote injury" in the form of ruptured loops of bowel or liver and/or splenic injuries in abdominal gunshot wounds. Shotgun wounds trump both rifle and handgun wounds by a wide margin when it comes to tissue destruction.

As to the physiology of hypovolemic shock I don't think I buy the notion that through and through injuries are better because the exit wound results in external bleeding that releases internal tamponade. I have seen a fair number of exit wounds in the ED and none were bleeding a great deal, certainly not enough to result in any immediate incapacitation. There are other physiological mechanisms of shock and incapacitation that have not been mentioned. A penetrating chest wound that traverses lung tissue can result in a tension pneumothorax and shock, although probably not quickly enough to result in immediate incapacitation. I have also seen individuals immediately incapacitated by a gunshot wound to the head that resulted in unconsciousness even though the projectile did not penetrate the cranial cavity and was not lethal. Pericardial tamponade resulting from a penetrating heart wound can result in shock even if the blood volume loss itself is not terribly great. There are also physiological mechanisms apart from tamponade that limit blood volume loss from penetrating vascular injuries. The most important one is arterial vasospasm. Even fairly sizable arteries can close themselves off because they have smooth muscle cells that contract. Ironically, this is often more likely to occur with arteries that have been completely transected than with arteries that have been laterally penetrated. This is the mechanism by which victims can sometimes survive complete traumatic amputation of extremities. Vasospasm is much less likely to close off veins that have been penetrated as they have much less smooth muscle in their walls.

Ultimately, I think the only wounds that are likely to result in immediate incapacitation of a determined attacker are head wounds, penetrating wounds of the upper central nervous system, penetrating wounds of the heart or great vessels, or extremity wounds that stop the attack by incapacitating the use of the attackers dominant arm or arms. Even in the case of great vessel and heart penetrating injuries the incapacitation may not be immediate and may require multiple hits to stop the attack within a short time frame.

Bigger projectiles that penetrate to equal depths will produce more tissue destruction than smaller ones, but unless a critical structure is penetrated I doubt that the difference will be significant enough to stop a lethal threat quickly. A 9mm JHP that expands to 150% of original diameter will result in a permanent wound channel of .89 square inches cross-sectional area. A .45 ACP JHP that expands to 150% will produce a wound channel of 1.43 square inches cross-sectional area. Assuming equal 14" penetration of both these rounds the 9mm will produce a crush injury of 12.5 cubic inch (205 cc) and the .45 ACP a permanent wound channel of 20 cubic inch (327 cc). No doubt the 122 cc greater tissue destruction of the .45 is going to result in more and quicker blood loss than the 9mm, but I very much doubt that the additional 122 cc injury of the bigger projectile is going to result in enough additional blood loss to stop the attack before the attacker has a good chance of killing you UNLESS the wound channel traverses a critical structure.

A bigger projectile is more likely to penetrate a critical structure (again assuming equal penetration) but between 9mm and .45 ACP the difference is not very great. The 9mm fully expanded JHP has a diameter of .531" and that of the .45 ACP a diameter of .675". But when it comes to the likelihood of the projectile penetrating a vital vascular structure it is the projectile radius that matters and the difference in radius of these two expanded JHPs is only .073", less than 1/10" or less than 2mm. So if you missed the vital vascular structure by less than 2mm with the 9mm the .45 might have made a difference. In the case of wounds that penetrate the upper CNS I don't think that caliber is going to make any difference whatsoever.

Based on my observations I have concluded the following:

Adequate penetration trumps caliber by a very wide margin as it increases the likelihood of reaching a vital structure and it increases the volume of the permanent wound cavity much more than a small increase in projectile diameter does.

Assuming adequate penetration (whatever we agree that to be) JHP that expand reliably are better than FMJ because they increase permanent wound channel and the likelihood of opening a critical vessel but apart from CNS hits, or penetrating wounds of the heart or intra-thoracic aorta or vena cava the difference in diameter between FMJ and JHP or between the common handgun calibers is very unlikely to be great enough to make a difference in stopping a lethal threat quickly.

The ability to score multiple, accurate hits with adequate penetration quickly greatly trumps either caliber or FMJ versus JHP considerations. Multiple quick hits (given adequate penetration) greatly increase the likelihood of penetrating a critical structure. For what it is worth, I use .45 caliber ACP JHP as my choice for a full-sized home defense weapon since I seem to shoot .45 about as accurately and quickly as I do 9mm. For CCW with less magazine capacity I choose 9mm P or +P JHP ammo. I have pretty much given up on .40 S&W except for shooting at the range as I don't seem to do as well with it as I do with 9mm Para or .45 ACP.

[SLG]

I think that pblanc just summed up what many of us have been taught for years, and seen the effective results of. Not sure where the discussion is anymore. Science lacks for info in many (most?) areas, but in this area, things are reasonably well understood. Not everything, but pretty good.

[LSP972]

". I would also suggest that everyone ignore those "cavitation injuries" and temporary wound channels seen in ballistic gel. Ballistic gelatin may be useful for testing penetration but it behaves nothing like human tissue.

And it was never intended to do so. It was selected as the accepted test medium because it was closer than anything else to actual human tissue, at the time. But it was originally intended ONLY for use as a repeatable comparator; to give a level playing field, if you will.

Well-written, pblanc.

.

[Hauptmann]

Sorry--I am on vacation, am just seeing this, and really don't have time for a significant rebuttal.

Lot's of good info provided in posts above.

Sadly, as has been noted by many observers of life, including individuals as disparate as Confucius, Shakespeare, Bacon, Pope, Darwin, Bertrand Russell, as well as Dunning-Kruger, a little knowledge and/or learning can be dangerous, as proven once again by the comments in the linked thread. One of the comments was, "The military uses only FMJs, Police use only HPs, it's hard to find anyone who has used both enough in the real world to have much data." Both NYPD and Detroit PD carried FMJ's before switching to JHP's--if one searches hard enough, it is possible to discover a fair amount of data discussing the OIS incident performance differences between the two kinds of projectiles, as noted in at least one post above. In addition, the quote above ignores the lawful use of a variety of non-FMJ issued projectiles by U.S. military personnel over the past two decades. Guess how many organizations who have used both FMJ and non-FMJ service handgun loads prefer the FMJ? Might be the reason why every organization who has the option chooses to NOT carry FMJ for many good reasons elucidated in comments above...

In over 30 years as a U.S. military officer, in various law enforcement assignments, and in treating GSW's at a major trauma center, I have had more than ample opportunities to acquaint myself with the effects of small arms fire. In addition to our local LE agency, the JSWB-IPT, FBI, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data--as a result, I have gotten to review significant numbers of both OIS incident reports and autopsies, as well as extensive amounts of military combat reports. The whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. What precisely do folks think all these researchers are doing? The comment that JHP's are "...just marketing propaganda by companies who want to make money and goverment (sic) agencies that like to spend it", is patently ludicrous. I also found it quite amusing that: "In the case of Gary Roberts he is clearly trying to show that 9mm is a better alternative to .40 and .45 by showing that with HP 9mm rounds cause very similar wounds to hp .40 and .45 rounds."

How many of the folks in the linked article who are supposedly quoting FBI data/methods have actually spoken with SSA Patterson or SSA Boone? How many of them actually have been to the FBI-BRF or work with them on a regular basis? Heck, one can simply review which service caliber handgun loads have been adopted by the FBI and determine if some of the comments about desired penetration depths and FMJ vs JHP are accurate. Just for the record, in the past two decades, almost all the issued FBI service caliber handgun ammo has tended to penetrate about 14-16" in bare gel, just about right in the middle of the 12-18" range that almost everyone who evaluates such things recommends. How many of those loads have been JHP and how many were FMJ? Oh yeah....

There are also a number of other red flags in the comments in the linked post. Brass Fetcher used to work for a USG entity that was enamored by 20% gel, high speed video, and mathematical calculations of energy deposit--this Big Army statistical methodology is not well liked by researchers at the JSWB-IPT, USSOCOM, USMC, Crane, as well as the FBI-BRF and most other LE agencies, as they all prefer physiological damage based metrics. Dr. Andreas Grabinsky's is an anesthesiologist whose very short 2011 lecture to EMT's at Harborview Medical Center is available online; it is OK (you can see where he uses some of our data in the presentation), but it also contains a number of errors. Mr. Ayoob may be a lot of things, but a valid wound ballistic researcher/SME is not one of them. Likewise, anytime Courtney's work is cited, I generally cringe, as it is NOT well respected, not accepted by the major wound ballistic researchers, and does not appear to be clinically relevant or accurate.

Keep in mind that over the past 15 years, especially since the closure of the non-profit IWBA, 95% of the cutting edge LE and military wound ballistic research is NOT available to the public or via the internet.

Finally, as has been stated numerous times, shot placement and a bit of luck are key. Any of the service calibers can work. In general, when needing to defend yourself against a violent assault, having a firearm available is better than not having one. Having more bullets on tap for a defensive encounter is preferred to having less. Reliable FMJ's are superior to unreliable JHP's. Well engineered, robust expanding JHP's offer advantages over FMJ's. Ultimately training and mindset are FAR more important than bullet type...

Like most of your posts, Doc, this should be a sticky.

[Tamara]

...unless you're using one of those stupid-ass fragmenting ultralight rounds because you were impressed by the Muzzle Energy numbers and some yahoo's Youtube channel.

You're my new muse.

[Wondering Beard]

And it was never intended to do so. It was selected as the accepted test medium because it was closer than anything else to actual human tissue, at the time.

.

I thought it was specifically muscle tissue, not any other human tissue

[LSP972]

I thought it was specifically muscle tissue, not any other human tissue

Could be, although as I recall it was supposed to be a kinda-sorta general rendition of the human body, minus any bones.

The original stuff was produced by Kind & Knox, and they made it in two strengths- 10% and 20%. The 10% was chosen for the FBI protocols; the 20%, I was told, was intended for testing military calibers. Don't ask, I was puzzled about that too, but could not get a straight answer.;)

.

[LSP972]

Like most of your posts, Doc, this should be a sticky.

Indeed.

.

[Wondering Beard]

Could be, although as I recall it was supposed to be a kinda-sorta general rendition of the human body, minus any bones.

The original stuff was produced by Kind & Knox, and they made it in two strengths- 10% and 20%. The 10% was chosen for the FBI protocols; the 20%, I was told, was intended for testing military calibers. Don't ask, I was puzzled about that too, but could not get a straight answer.;)

.

I remember the two strength. For some reason, I have it in my head that the Secret Service used the 20% for their tests, I don't know why either.

This is straight from memory of reading something somewhere a long time ago: the original creation of ballistic gelatin was formulated or pushed forward by the Swedes (either gov't or private sector) to find a stimulant for muscles (it's more a homogeneous tissue?) in order to have a better ballistic test than the "computer man" or dead animals. Maybe they tried out the 20% formula first.

It's all hearsay and it would be nice to be set straight.

[LSP972]

Yeah, too bad Marty Fackler is no longer with us. He would know for sure. Doc worked quite closely with him… maybe he knows?

.

[DocGKR]

A renaissance in wound ballistics began in the 1980’s at the Letterman Army Institute of Research (LAIR) Wound Ballistics Laboratory under the direction of COL Martin Fackler. The researchers at LAIR shot multiple projectile types at varying velocities into 50-100 kg hogs as well as various tissue simulants in order to discover which tissue simulant most closely correlated with living muscle tissue. The final determination was that 10% Type A, 250 bloom Pharmagel (250A ordnance gelatin) at 4 degrees Centigrade was the tissue simulant that most closely correlated with living muscle tissue. Gelatin must have approximately the same density as the tissue it is simulating; both 10% and 20% gelatin can fulfill this requirement, but they do so at different temperatures. However, the traditionally used warmer 20% gelatin was determined to result in overexpansion of projectiles and excessive velocity retardation compared to the cooler 10% gelatin that more accurately replicated the damage pattern seen in living tissue. Other advantages of 10% compared to 20% ordnance gelatin is the decreased cost, simpler fabrication, and easier storage. Rather than relying on high speed motion picture analysis of gel block impacts and calculated KE loss, Dr. Fackler’s research at LAIR measured the actual damage the projectile did to the gelatin block by assessing the radial cracks and fissures in the gelatin--this is referred to as “static” gel testing. Compared to the dynamic method, static testing is extremely cost effective and does not require as much time, equipment, or infrastructure to conduct.

Dr. Fackler’s seminal work emphasized the anatomical and physiological effects of penetrating projectiles and clearly described the primary wounding mechanisms of tissue crush and stretch. His efforts also illuminated the effects of bullet upset--including yaw, fragmentation, and expansion in modifying wounding effects. Dr. Fackler also emphasizing the critical importance of adequate projectile penetration depth to ensure disruption of the major organs and blood vessels in the torso from any angle and through excessive adipose tissue, hypertrophied muscle, or intervening anatomic structures, such as a raised arm. The medical research at LAIR also debunked and decried the frequent overemphasis on kinetic energy, high velocity, occult pressure waves, and faulty computer modeling when attempting to analyze projectile terminal effects in the human body. Obviously, these research results lead to a significant degree of conflict and animosity between the medical researchers at LAIR and the ordnance engineers at Aberdeen, Edgewood, and Picatinny.

Following his retirement from the military in 1991 and the closing of LAIR, Dr. Fackler founded the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) to continue his research and data dissemination; IWBA put out a quarterly journal of research papers for the next decade. Some of the IWBA’s greatest contributions were in correlating lab testing and LE OIS incident forensic data to validate the accuracy of 10% gelatin as a tissue simulant in shots to living human torsos, developing the 4 layer denim test to assess the ability of handgun JHP projectiles to resist plugging with clothing materials and robustly expand, describing the terminal performance variability of the SMK OTM commonly used by LE and military snipers, recommending heavier 5.56 mm projectiles, exposing exotic ammunition vendors making exaggerated, fraudulent claims, as well as arguing for better body armor testing standards than the flawed NIJ methodology.

[LSP972]

I thought it was specifically muscle tissue, not any other human tissue

Looks like you were right.

I'm looking right now for my notes from the '93 seminar at Quantico. That was about the most fascinating week I have ever spent anywhere.

.

[SLG]

...at Quantico. That was about the most fascinating week I have ever spent anywhere.

.


Sorry to hear that. :-)

[TiroFijo]

Rather than relying on high speed motion picture analysis of gel block impacts and calculated KE loss, Dr. Fackler’s research at LAIR measured the actual damage the projectile did to the gelatin block by assessing the radial cracks and fissures in the gelatin--this is referred to as “static” gel testing. Compared to the dynamic method, static testing is extremely cost effective and does not require as much time, equipment, or infrastructure to conduct.

Doc, thanks a lot for an excellent summary!

May I ask, what useful information (if any) does hi speed motion picture analysis of gel block impacts and calculated KE loss bring to the table?

[disseminator]

While I am not ready to switch to FMJ any time soon, I think there are a few points here that we can all agree with.

For example: if you were to take your 9mm into the woods for protection, most of us realize that a heavy FMJ is superior to a JHP because of the penetrating characteristic of the FMJ being desirable against hardened targets. (Like a bear skull) A bonded JHP can mitigate this somewhat but not as good as FMJ.

I tend to think that JHP should penetrate more than they do. Based on Youtube ballistic gel tests, what most of us have access to, it does seem that the majority of the service calibers only barely meet the 12 minimum set forth by the FBI that everyone seems to go by.

In so rigidly designing JHP to meet the FBI "standard", bullet makers are giving up penetration in the name of more expansion so they can sell more JHP based on marketing. While I recognize this will be controversial to some, consider the fact that a heavier bullet in any given caliber can penetrate deeper than a lighter one, and so why not make a JHP that also penetrates deep?

Example: a 155 grain 40S&W should out penetrate a 147 grain 9mm but it doesn't because the velocity is so high for commercial 155 grain bullets that it expands in the first 8" rarely even reaching the 12" MINIMUM much less 18". Since temporary cavity has largely been proven a non issue in wounding with a handgun, what place does a 155 grain JHP have in this world? Take that same 40S&W with a 155 grain FMJ and you will have a much better penetrating round. So there is some logic in using FMJ over JHP in certain circumstances IMO.

[BehindBlueI's]

Based on Youtube ballistic gel tests

Why should I trust amateur gel testing as a basis for decision making?

[Trooper224]

While I am not ready to switch to FMJ any time soon, I think there are a few points here that we can all agree with.

You're mistaken. There isn't much there I agree with.

[disseminator]

Why should I trust amateur gel testing as a basis for decision making?

Well, that was part of my point actually. It's all most of us have to make decisions on different ammo choices. That is to say we don't have many really accurate sources to choose from.

[breakingtime91]

Well, that was part of my point actually. It's all most of us have to make decisions on different ammo choices. That is to say we don't have many really accurate sources to choose from.

Yes. Yes we do. Doc has shared most of it. I don't agree with anything you said really.

[curl]

Why should I trust amateur gel testing as a basis for decision making?
Some of those amateur gel testers make it a habit to provide calibration data for their gel, which, of course, is important in order to properly interpret penetration and expansion results. I would rather rely on those amateur tests, than "professional" tests which do not provide gel calibration data and, as a result, have widely different penetration and expansion results for the same type of JHP, at similar velocities, in different gels.

[disseminator]

Yes. Yes we do. Doc has shared most of it. I don't agree with anything you said really.

No need to be negative. I honor the list. I carry HST in my carry guns.

You don't agree with anything? How about my statement that FMJ will better penetrate a skull than JHP?

[rjohnson4405]

No need to be negative. I honor the list. I carry HST in my carry guns.

You don't agree with anything? How about my statement that FMJ will better penetrate a skull than JHP?

That statement is far too universal for most people to agree with. Do I believe under-powered Wolf 115 gr FMJ will penetrate better than 147 gr + P JHPs? I wouldn't bet on it.

But to say everyone can agree with these things, have people disagree, and then come back and pick out one statement as an example of why you're right doesn't make much sense to me.

[curl]

No need to be negative. I honor the list. I carry HST in my carry guns.

You don't agree with anything? How about my statement that FMJ will better penetrate a skull than JHP?

FMJ is certainly preferable to a JHP that does not penetrate enough, regardless whether that's 10", 12", or 14".
If a given JHP can reliably penetrate 14"-18" in bare 10% standard ordnance gel, than the case for FMJ vs. SUCH JHP becomes weak indeed; however, as is well-known, most service caliber JHPs (especially in 9mm for JHP recovered diameters greater than about 0.57") cannot reliably penetrate in that range. Evidently, the FBI 12" soft tissue absolute minimum penetration requirement will not necessarily be met by a JHP that penetrates 12" in standard ordnance gel; up to about 14" penetration in such gel may be required to achieve the minimum required penetration standard of 12" in soft tissue -- and that, of course, does not include bones or unshored skin, which could further significantly reduce maximum penetration in a body vs. gel. There are, of course, situations where 12" or 10", or even less, penetration in standard gel may be sufficient and most effective; however, (when an arm is in the way for example), 12" gel penetration capability may not be nearly enough. According to a well-known statement by Dr. Fackler in regard to SD situations, insufficient bullet penetration could get the defender killed. Undoubtedly, the 12" or so ubiquitous JHP bare standard gel penetration capability works in virtually all SD encounters, if, of course, on actually has the luxury of repeatedly shooting an attacker until the attacker is no longer a threat. Needless to say, for most civilians that's hardly the most probable SD situation.

[Trooper224]

No need to be negative. I honor the list. I carry HST in my carry guns.

You don't agree with anything? How about my statement that FMJ will better penetrate a skull than JHP?

You're analogy of shooting a grizzly bear in the head with a 9mm is rather inane and I doubt if the bullet choice would really be a definitive factor. I'm assuming you haven't seen that many people shot in the head with a handgun round, so you haven't seen how an FMJ will often fail too penetrate the curved surface of the skull and skim on the surface just under the skin, often exiting out the other side? I'd say that might be the result of shooting ol'grizz in the head with your ill suited to the task 9mm fmj.

[curl]

Doc, thanks a lot for an excellent summary!

May I ask, what useful information (if any) does hi speed motion picture analysis of gel block impacts and calculated KE loss bring to the table?
I am under the impression that what a gel does to the bullet is far more relevant than what the bullet does to the gel. Maybe I missed something.

[BehindBlueI's]

You're analogy of shooting a grizzly bear in the head with a 9mm is rather inane and I doubt if the bullet choice would really be a definitive factor. I'm assuming you haven't seen that many people shot in the head with a handgun round, so you haven't seen how an FMJ will often fail too penetrate the curved surface of the skull and skim on the surface just under the skin, often exiting out the other side? I'd say that might be the result of shooting ol'grizz in the head with your ill suited to the task 9mm fmj.

Yup. I know the doctors have said it with big words, but to repeat it in cop-speak: Bullets do weird shit inside the body. A slight variation in angle or shot placement may mean the difference in DRT vs an ouchie. Mother's Day, 2007, I had a woman shot in the chest with a .45 and it caught a rib and rode it around, exiting our her back. It hurt (apparently) but wasn't life threatening. Of all the shootings I've seen, that one always remains special because it was such a good outcome for such a lousy start. (quick side note, a group of 5 cops was about to serve a warrant near where it happened, heard the shot, and caught the guy running with the cash still in his hand).

August 2012, guy was shot just below the jugular notch because he owned the wrong guy money. Again, .45 FMJ, hit the spine and bounced down into his abdomen, he bled out on the table as they tried to get the holes plugged. I also remember that one because ER doc said "there's a 90% chance he'll be fine and can answer your questions after surgery." For my fellow DnD nerds, that guy rolled a 1.

Shot placement, then luck, then all the details of caliber and bullet construction, IMO.*


*may not apply to .25 ACP, etc.

[breakingtime91]

That statement is far too universal for most people to agree with. Do I believe under-powered Wolf 115 gr FMJ will penetrate better than 147 gr + P JHPs? I wouldn't bet on it.

But to say everyone can agree with these things, have people disagree, and then come back and pick out one statement as an example of why you're right doesn't make much sense to me.

thanks, pretty much summed it up for me. If I am in bear country, I have a 12 gauge with slugs backed up by my carry pistol for two leg threats.

[Jeep]

You're analogy of shooting a grizzly bear in the head with a 9mm is rather inane and I doubt if the bullet choice would really be a definitive factor. I'm assuming you haven't seen that many people shot in the head with a handgun round, so you haven't seen how an FMJ will often fail too penetrate the curved surface of the skull and skim on the surface just under the skin, often exiting out the other side? I'd say that might be the result of shooting ol'grizz in the head with your ill suited to the task 9mm fmj.


I agree with your skepticism, and it's not only grizzly bear skulls. A curved surface of any kind--skulls, other bones, armored steel--can deflect a projectile and a relatively light projectile is the most easily deflected (the curve serves to increase the relative thickness of the bone/armor). The way that armies avoided that problem with kinetic tank rounds was to put a "wobble cap" on the leading edge of the round.

It's not easy to defeat the issue with pistol bullets, but it might be that the structure of a JHP, particularly one with a wide cavity such as a HST bullet, might be less susceptible to deflection than a FMJ. I don't know, however, one way or the other. Revolver bullets with wide, flat noses such as a wad cutter or semi-wad cutter made of hard-cast lead have a good reputation for penetration, but I have some doubts on whether they would work well on the more sloped portions of a grizzly's skull.

In any case, a somewhat pointy round nose bullet, such as found with most 9 mm FMJ's, seems like a poor choice, as it is going to be even more likely to be deflected.

[Welder]

FMJ is certainly preferable to a JHP that does not penetrate enough, regardless whether that's 10", 12", or 14".

Aerindel or Guncat, is that you? Sounds very similar to the argument being made on Beretta Forum which is why I started this thread here in the first place.

Daggone it, where is my popcorn?

[curl]

While I am not ready to switch to FMJ any time soon, I think there are a few points here that we can all agree with.

For example: if you were to take your 9mm into the woods for protection, most of us realize that a heavy FMJ is superior to a JHP because of the penetrating characteristic of the FMJ being desirable against hardened targets. (Like a bear skull) A bonded JHP can mitigate this somewhat but not as good as FMJ.

I tend to think that JHP should penetrate more than they do. Based on Youtube ballistic gel tests, what most of us have access to, it does seem that the majority of the service calibers only barely meet the 12 minimum set forth by the FBI that everyone seems to go by.

In so rigidly designing JHP to meet the FBI "standard", bullet makers are giving up penetration in the name of more expansion so they can sell more JHP based on marketing. While I recognize this will be controversial to some, consider the fact that a heavier bullet in any given caliber can penetrate deeper than a lighter one, and so why not make a JHP that also penetrates deep?

Example: a 155 grain 40S&W should out penetrate a 147 grain 9mm but it doesn't because the velocity is so high for commercial 155 grain bullets that it expands in the first 8" rarely even reaching the 12" MINIMUM much less 18". Since temporary cavity has largely been proven a non issue in wounding with a handgun, what place does a 155 grain JHP have in this world? Take that same 40S&W with a 155 grain FMJ and you will have a much better penetrating round. So there is some logic in using FMJ over JHP in certain circumstances IMO.

A 155 grain .40 S&W JHP will penetrate more than a 147 grain 9mm JHP, at similar or greater velocity, if the expansion is similar; that's, of course, a function of bullet design.

[curl]

While I am not ready to switch to FMJ any time soon, I think there are a few points here that we can all agree with.

For example: if you were to take your 9mm into the woods for protection, most of us realize that a heavy FMJ is superior to a JHP because of the penetrating characteristic of the FMJ being desirable against hardened targets. (Like a bear skull) A bonded JHP can mitigate this somewhat but not as good as FMJ.

I tend to think that JHP should penetrate more than they do. Based on Youtube ballistic gel tests, what most of us have access to, it does seem that the majority of the service calibers only barely meet the 12 minimum set forth by the FBI that everyone seems to go by.

In so rigidly designing JHP to meet the FBI "standard", bullet makers are giving up penetration in the name of more expansion so they can sell more JHP based on marketing. While I recognize this will be controversial to some, consider the fact that a heavier bullet in any given caliber can penetrate deeper than a lighter one, and so why not make a JHP that also penetrates deep?

Example: a 155 grain 40S&W should out penetrate a 147 grain 9mm but it doesn't because the velocity is so high for commercial 155 grain bullets that it expands in the first 8" rarely even reaching the 12" MINIMUM much less 18". Since temporary cavity has largely been proven a non issue in wounding with a handgun, what place does a 155 grain JHP have in this world? Take that same 40S&W with a 155 grain FMJ and you will have a much better penetrating round. So there is some logic in using FMJ over JHP in certain circumstances IMO.


Aerindel or Guncat, is that you? Sounds very similar to the argument being made on Beretta Forum which is why I started this thread here in the first place.

Daggone it, where is my popcorn?

I have read the relevant thread on the other forum; however, I can assure (or disappoint?) you that I am neither Aerindel or Guncat (though they did make some good points).

[Welder]

I have read the relevant thread on the other forum; however, I can assure (or disappoint?) you that I am neither Aerindel or Guncat (though they did make some good points).

Shoot. I saw the Dec 2015 join date and that your only posts on this forum until now are in this thread and I thought, "Here we go, this is going to be good." :) Arcfide?

[curl]

Shoot. I saw the Dec 2015 join date and that your only posts on this forum until now are in this thread and I thought, "Here we go, this is going to be good." :) Arcfide?

It's an interesting topic, that's all. I've never registered at the other forum.

[jetfire]

This is one of those arguments that makes me bang my head against my desk. Look, just because there are entire graveyards full of dudes that have been killed with FMJ ammo doesn't mean it's better than modern, bonded defensive JHP. It's like looking at a fast car from 1984 and thinking that it's just as good today. It's not, technology has advanced and JHP bullets today are a lot better than JHP bullets of days past, and certainly than FMJ.

Does that mean I worry that I'm going to be killed by ninjas if all I happen to have in the house is some 9mm NATO? No. I just go buy good ammo.

[disseminator]

You're analogy of shooting a grizzly bear in the head with a 9mm is rather inane and I doubt if the bullet choice would really be a definitive factor. I'm assuming you haven't seen that many people shot in the head with a handgun round, so you haven't seen how an FMJ will often fail too penetrate the curved surface of the skull and skim on the surface just under the skin, often exiting out the other side? I'd say that might be the result of shooting ol'grizz in the head with your ill suited to the task 9mm fmj.


Yup. I know the doctors have said it with big words, but to repeat it in cop-speak: Bullets do weird shit inside the body. A slight variation in angle or shot placement may mean the difference in DRT vs an ouchie. Mother's Day, 2007, I had a woman shot in the chest with a .45 and it caught a rib and rode it around, exiting our her back. It hurt (apparently) but wasn't life threatening. Of all the shootings I've seen, that one always remains special because it was such a good outcome for such a lousy start. (quick side note, a group of 5 cops was about to serve a warrant near where it happened, heard the shot, and caught the guy running with the cash still in his hand).

August 2012, guy was shot just below the jugular notch because he owned the wrong guy money. Again, .45 FMJ, hit the spine and bounced down into his abdomen, he bled out on the table as they tried to get the holes plugged. I also remember that one because ER doc said "there's a 90% chance he'll be fine and can answer your questions after surgery." For my fellow DnD nerds, that guy rolled a 1.

Shot placement, then luck, then all the details of caliber and bullet construction, IMO.*


*may not apply to .25 ACP, etc.


I agree with your skepticism, and it's not only grizzly bear skulls. A curved surface of any kind--skulls, other bones, armored steel--can deflect a projectile and a relatively light projectile is the most easily deflected (the curve serves to increase the relative thickness of the bone/armor). The way that armies avoided that problem with kinetic tank rounds was to put a "wobble cap" on the leading edge of the round.

It's not easy to defeat the issue with pistol bullets, but it might be that the structure of a JHP, particularly one with a wide cavity such as a HST bullet, might be less susceptible to deflection than a FMJ. I don't know, however, one way or the other. Revolver bullets with wide, flat noses such as a wad cutter or semi-wad cutter made of hard-cast lead have a good reputation for penetration, but I have some doubts on whether they would work well on the more sloped portions of a grizzly's skull.

In any case, a somewhat pointy round nose bullet, such as found with most 9 mm FMJ's, seems like a poor choice, as it is going to be even more likely to be deflected.

So just to be clear: I am fine with dissension to my points. ( Internet and all )

I wasn't really thinking of a Grizzly Bear, more like a Black bear. ;)

As for the penetration of a Wolf FMJ vs. 147 HST, I will go with the Wolf FMJ for more penetration in gel or steel or skulls.

The points about bullet deflection are well made and well received. No doubt there are unknowable variables that will come into play in a shooting be it animal or human.

I wasn't trying to be hostile to anyone or make assumptions as to the reliability of JHP itself. I simply believe a little more penetration would be a good thing in regards to the "standard" JHP that are sold today. In that context I think there is merit to the OP's point. But I do not advocate carrying FMJ in your EDC unless you are in the woods and don't have a better option. ( Like a 500 magnum for Grizzly Bears )

[JHC]

I wouldn't mind it if there were more specialty deep penetration loads available for service calibers at under boutique ammo prices. Tough FMJs with a flat meplat would probably be most economical.

[curl]

This is one of those arguments that makes me bang my head against my desk. Look, just because there are entire graveyards full of dudes that have been killed with FMJ ammo doesn't mean it's better than modern, bonded defensive JHP. It's like looking at a fast car from 1984 and thinking that it's just as good today. It's not, technology has advanced and JHP bullets today are a lot better than JHP bullets of days past, and certainly than FMJ.

Does that mean I worry that I'm going to be killed by ninjas if all I happen to have in the house is some 9mm NATO? No. I just go buy good ammo.

Modern JHPs may be indeed better in the sense of expanding more reliably after defeating certain barriers. However, the laws of physics are inexorable indeed and penetration/expansion in bare gel or soft tissue is not much different with "modern" JHPs than with JHPs that were available over 20 years ago -- even in 9mm!

[jetfire]

9mm Ranger-T will penetrate 17 inches after defeating steel and still expand to 0.45; it'll do a solid 14 inches in bare gel or heavy cloth. Street results with Ranger T-series have been excellent as well. Arguing for FMJ as a preferable choice is just being contrarian because you've decided you're smarter than the FBI, LAPD SWAT, and a whole host of professional face-shooting dudes that chose JHP.

[curl]

9mm Ranger-T will penetrate 17 inches after defeating steel and still expand to 0.45; it'll do a solid 14 inches in bare gel or heavy cloth. Street results with Ranger T-series have been excellent as well. Arguing for FMJ as a preferable choice is just being contrarian because you've decided you're smarter than the FBI, LAPD SWAT, and a whole host of professional face-shooting dudes that chose JHP.
Perhaps you did not read what I previously stated regarding FMJs vs. JHPs -- that penetrate 14"-18" in 10% standard bare ordnance gel. BTW, whatever penetration/expansion results are obtained "in a gel" have dubious value unless gel calibration is known.

[JHC]

9mm Ranger-T will penetrate 17 inches after defeating steel and still expand to 0.45; it'll do a solid 14 inches in bare gel or heavy cloth. Street results with Ranger T-series have been excellent as well. Arguing for FMJ as a preferable choice is just being contrarian because you've decided you're smarter than the FBI, LAPD SWAT, and a whole host of professional face-shooting dudes that chose JHP.

Yep http://winchesterle.com/Products/handgun-ammunition/ranger/t-series/Pages/RA9T.aspx

But it sucked after auto glass which Doc postulated to a GJM question some months ago is about as indicative of a bear skull as any of the normal barrier test mediums.



Remember, PF's hidden middle initial is B, for BEARS!

[jetfire]

Perhaps you did not read what I previously stated regarding FMJs vs. JHPs -- that penetrate 14"-18" in 10% standard bare ordnance gel. BTW, whatever penetration/expansion results are obtained "in a gel" have dubious value unless gel calibration is known.

I mean, I've seen the actual LE tests of Ranger rounds in calibrated gel, and unless you're accusing Winchester of cooking their numbers I'd be willing to bet they're pretty good to go.

I did read the bit about JHP's that penetrate 14-18 in bare gel being good to go, but I also read the part right after that where you said that most modern JHP can't do that. Sure, there are JHP loads that won't hit that depth, but at the same time it's really easy to go out and buy bonded JHPs that will do it all day long. So unless you're poor and literally cannot afford quality ammo, I sort of fail to see the point. It's like saying that chuck roast is superior to Angus filet mignon just because not all filet mignon is Angus.

[curl]

Yep http://winchesterle.com/Products/handgun-ammunition/ranger/t-series/Pages/RA9T.aspx



Remember, PF's hidden middle initial is B, for BEARS!
It would certainly be useful if gel calibration for that Winchester data was given; some of those Rangers in 9mm would be "magic" indeed if 10% standard ordnance gel was used!

[curl]

I mean, I've seen the actual LE tests of Ranger rounds in calibrated gel, and unless you're accusing Winchester of cooking their numbers I'd be willing to bet they're pretty good to go.

I did read the bit about JHP's that penetrate 14-18 in bare gel being good to go, but I also read the part right after that where you said that most modern JHP can't do that. Sure, there are JHP loads that won't hit that depth, but at the same time it's really easy to go out and buy bonded JHPs that will do it all day long. So unless you're poor and literally cannot afford quality ammo, I sort of fail to see the point. It's like saying that chuck roast is superior to Angus filet mignon just because not all filet mignon is Angus.

See my previous reply.

[jetfire]

It would certainly be useful if gel calibration for that Winchester data was given; some of those Rangers in 9mm would be "magic" indeed if 10% standard ordnance gel was used!

So you're saying that Winchester, which sells this round to law enforcement, intentionally cooked their test in a way that would be tremendously easy to discovery by any one of the agencies that issues this round (like LAPD).

oooookaaaaaaaay

5208

[curl]

So you're saying that Winchester, which sells this round to law enforcement, intentionally cooked their test in a way that would be tremendously easy to discovery by any one of the agencies that issues this round (like LAPD).

oooookaaaaaaaay

5208
Again you missed what I stated. Deviation from standard gel certainly can and does happen, without "intentionally cooking the test." Winchester, if requested, would most likely not provide bogus calibration data. For example: Winchester data for RA9B in bare gel (unknown calibration): 14.7"@ 0.62" (recovered diameter?); DocGKR's data (unknown calibration but in line with MacPherson's penetration model: 13.8" @ 0.55" recovered diameter. Velocity was similar, and not a significant factor. Big difference.

[Kimura]

I think I'm missing something here. I get some aren't convinced by the science. And I get the whole "the ammo companies marketing machine does magic" thing that I'm reading as well. And if that's the only support there was, I might be skeptical as well. But like everything else rubber meets the road in the real world, and the top end, real world gunfighters choose JHPs when given a choice. Add to that the fact that the FBI looks at the results of real world shootings as part of their evaluation. Doesn't that honestly back up the science that's being presented or did I miss something?

[curl]

I think I'm missing something here. I get some aren't convinced by the science. And I get the whole "the ammo companies marketing machine does magic" thing that I'm reading as well. And if that's the only support there was, I might be skeptical as well. But like everything else rubber meets the road in the real world, and the top end, real world gunfighters choose JHPs when given a choice. Add to that the fact that the FBI looks at the results of real world shootings as part of their evaluation. Doesn't that honestly back up the science that's being presented or did I miss something?
JHPs that expand, stay intact, AND penetrate adequately are a better choice for SD than FMJs! I have not read any posts by anyone that claims otherwise!

[disseminator]

Even the most powerful JHP rounds will not penetrate as well as an FMJ.

That is well established. Here is one of countless videos that will Bear that out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCUFzNLHP2Q

[Hambo]

Even the most powerful JHP rounds will not penetrate as well as an FMJ.

That is well established. Here is one of countless videos that will Bear that out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCUFzNLHP2Q

Bears wear helmets?

[Erik]

Bears wear helmets?

Just Brownie Bears.

[breakingtime91]

Bears wear helmets?

well yea. and multicam

[breakingtime91]

Modern JHPs may be indeed better in the sense of expanding more reliably after defeating certain barriers. However, the laws of physics are inexorable indeed and penetration/expansion in bare gel or soft tissue is not much different with "modern" JHPs than with JHPs that were available over 20 years ago -- even in 9mm!

I am so confused by this statement. Modern JHPs penetrate more, expand better, stay together better, and are pretty much just better. then you the end your post by saying its not much different then twenty years ago? Sorry but that is a pretty stupid post.


direct quote of what you said: "the laws of physics are inexorable indeed and penetration/expansion in bare gel or soft tissue is not much different with "modern" JHPs than with JHPs that were available over 20 years ago -- even in 9mm!"

:rolleyes:

[curl]

I am so confused by this statement. Modern JHPs penetrate more, expand better, stay together better, and are pretty much just better. then you the end your post by saying its not much different then twenty years ago? Sorry but that is a pretty stupid post.


direct quote of what you said: "the laws of physics are inexorable indeed and penetration/expansion in bare gel or soft tissue is not much different with "modern" JHPs than with JHPs that were available over 20 years ago -- even in 9mm!"

:rolleyes:

You made a statement that modern JHPs penetrate more, I didn't; because "modern" JHPs expand more readily after defeating various barriers (like in FBI protocols) in no way suggests that for a given expanded diameter "modern" JHPs penetrate more in gel or soft tissue than the JHPs did 25 years ago. Physics can indeed be confusing for many, I know.

[TGS]

The only thing that comes into thought as of right now re: FMJ>JHPs is...........


VAMPIRE HERPES.

*Because stupid ideas like this shit just won't die.

[breakingtime91]

You made a statement that modern JHPs penetrate more, I didn't; because "modern" JHPs expand more readily after defeating various barriers (like in FBI protocols) in no way suggests that for a given expanded diameter "modern" JHPs penetrate more in gel or soft tissue than the JHPs did 25 years ago. Physics can indeed be confusing for many, I know.

I still don't understand what your getting at. Your saying that brands that have recently been introduced will always penetrate and the same or less depth then, say, hydrashocks? Also I am a fairly intelligent person that has been in this community for awhile so if you want to be insulting atleast provide some insight to what your saying. If you say I am bad at physics, ok, cool. But provide me examples of the equations, definitions, or principles you are using to determine this. Unless you gave me shit to look at/think about/research, I am just taking you at your word. Which honestly, from your relative new guy status is less to nothing to me.



From Docs article regarding pistol ammunition/duty ammo:
Notes:
-- Bullet designs like the Silver Tip, Hydra-Shok, and Black Talon were state of the art 15 or 20 years ago. These older bullets tend to plug up and act like FMJ projectiles when shot through heavy clothing; they also often have significant degradation in terminal performance after first passing through intermediate barriers. Modern ammunition which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs. The bullets in the Federal Classic and Hydrashok line are outperformed by other ATK products such as the Federal Tactical and HST, as well as the Speer Gold Dot; likewise Winchester Ranger Talons are far superior to the old Black Talons or civilian SXT's.

link: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo


While your point about not penetrating more is possibly true, the effect and reliable penetration/expansion is indeed better. Unless you can point me to an article to why this is bad I don't understand the position your trying to take?

[ShooterM9]

I have a hunch that 98% of the people passionately arguing over caliber and JHP v. FMJ are people who have never fired a gun in anger before and never will, and consist mostly of armchair experts.

I've been on gun forums long enough to ignore all such debates, which never change, never result in any new information and only generate heat and no light.

[curl]

I still don't understand what your getting at. Your saying that brands that have recently been introduced will always penetrate and the same or less depth then, say, hydrashocks? Also I am a fairly intelligent person that has been in this community for awhile so if you want to be insulting atleast provide some insight to what your saying. If you say I am bad at physics, ok, cool. But provide me examples of the equations, definitions, or principles you are using to determine this. Unless you gave me shit to look at/think about/research, I am just taking you at your word. Which honestly, from your relative new guy status is less to nothing to me.



From Docs article regarding pistol ammunition/duty ammo:
Notes:
-- Bullet designs like the Silver Tip, Hydra-Shok, and Black Talon were state of the art 15 or 20 years ago. These older bullets tend to plug up and act like FMJ projectiles when shot through heavy clothing; they also often have significant degradation in terminal performance after first passing through intermediate barriers. Modern ammunition which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs. The bullets in the Federal Classic and Hydrashok line are outperformed by other ATK products such as the Federal Tactical and HST, as well as the Speer Gold Dot; likewise Winchester Ranger Talons are far superior to the old Black Talons or civilian SXT's.

link: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo


While your point about not penetrating more is possibly true, the effect and reliable penetration/expansion is indeed better. Unless you can point me to an article to why this is bad I don't understand the position your trying to take?

Firstly, you called what I posted stupid and obviously it seems so to you because it's evident that you do not understand basic physics involved in bullet penetration -- so evidently the relevant physics result must be stupid! Take a hint if possible: MacPherson wrote the Bullet Penetration book a quarter-century ago when he developed the bullet penetration model for all kinds of bullets, including JHPs. Now, do you suppose that model is no longer valid to predict penetration and expansion in gel or soft tissue for a given "modern" JHP? Last time: more robust expansion in no way suggests more penetration compared to less robustly expanding JHPs, for a given expanded diameter, in gel or soft tissue -- even for 9mm! For example, the 9mm Winchester 147 grain JHPs referenced in Wolberg's study a quarter century ago penetrated much like a "modern" RA9B does, for example, with similar expansion in gel. And even for a "modern" JHP adequate penetration in soft tissue is vital (just ask Dr. Fackler). Pick up MacPherson's book and enlighten yourself, elementary physics and basic calculus is all it takes!

[jetfire]

I have a hunch that 98% of the people passionately arguing over caliber and JHP v. FMJ are people who have never fired a gun in anger before and never will, and consist mostly of armchair experts.

I've been on gun forums long enough to ignore all such debates, which never change, never result in any new information and only generate heat and no light.

I love it when people post in threads to tell the people in the thread how disinterested they are in posting in that thread. It's so delightfully meta. It's like getting blog comments that say "I don't read your blog."

[curl]

I love it when people post in threads to tell the people in the thread how disinterested they are in posting in that thread. It's so delightfully meta. It's like getting blog comments that say "I don't read your blog."

Quite. Oh the games people play now...

[breakingtime91]

decided not to encourage

[breakingtime91]

Firstly, you called what I posted stupid and obviously it seems so to you because it's evident that you do not understand basic physics involved in bullet penetration -- so evidently the relevant physics result must be stupid! Take a hint if possible: MacPherson wrote the Bullet Penetration book a quarter-century ago when he developed the bullet penetration model for all kinds of bullets, including JHPs. Now, do you suppose that model is no longer valid to predict penetration and expansion in gel or soft tissue for a given "modern" JHP? Last time: more robust expansion in no way suggests more penetration compared to less robustly expanding JHPs, for a given expanded diameter, in gel or soft tissue -- even for 9mm! For example, the 9mm Winchester 147 grain JHPs referenced in Wolberg's study a quarter century ago penetrated much like a "modern" RA9B does, for example, with similar expansion in gel. And even for a "modern" JHP adequate penetration in soft tissue is vital (just ask Dr. Fackler). Pick up MacPherson's book and enlighten yourself, elementary physics and basic calculus is all it takes!

All of that is great despite the fact that you didn't link the model or address the fact that you didn't tell me what aspect of physics you are referring to. I shouldn't of said your post was "stupid" just the fact that it doesn't run smoothly/make sense to me. Also, the post I referred to didn't reference anything besides you saying something. Show me the facts/relevant data and I'll research it. You have told me nothing besides the fact that it takes elementary physics (great since I work in an elementary school) and calculus. Once again great but show me the evidence or the equation I need.

Also, you are referring to one round in particular. Is this a cold hard fact of all rounds? Once again I need the data and research so I can agree with what your saying.

[TGS]

I love it when people post in threads to tell the people in the thread how disinterested they are in posting in that thread. It's so delightfully meta. It's like getting blog comments that say "I don't read your blog."

I love it when people post in a thread just to let others know how disinterested they are in others posting about their disinterest, because they're cooler.

[Trooper224]

I have a hunch that 98% of the people passionately arguing over caliber and JHP v. FMJ are people who have never fired a gun in anger before and never will, and consist mostly of armchair experts.

I've been on gun forums long enough to ignore all such debates, which never change, never result in any new information and only generate heat and no light.

I have a hunch you have your head up your ass. Care to have a hunch on which one of us is wrong?

[breakingtime91]

I have a hunch that 98% of the people passionately arguing over caliber and JHP v. FMJ are people who have never fired a gun in anger before and never will, and consist mostly of armchair experts.

I've been on gun forums long enough to ignore all such debates, which never change, never result in any new information and only generate heat and no light.

By chance, did you just come from the beretta forum?

[curl]

All of that is great despite the fact that you didn't link the model or address the fact that you didn't tell me what aspect of physics you are referring to. I shouldn't of said your post was "stupid" just the fact that it doesn't run smoothly/make sense to me. Also, the post I referred to didn't reference anything besides you saying something. Show me the facts/relevant data and I'll research it. You have told me nothing besides the fact that it takes elementary physics (great since I work in an elementary school) and calculus. Once again great but show me the evidence or the equation I need.

Also, you are referring to one round in particular. Is this a cold hard fact of all rounds? Once again I need the data and research so I can agree with what your saying.

I am not under any illusion that I have the ability to make sense to everyone. Again, if you want to try to make sense out of the terminal ballistics subject, I recommended MacPherson's book. Hopefully, it will make some sense to you.

[Lomshek]

Perhaps you did not read what I previously stated regarding FMJs vs. JHPs -- that penetrate 14"-18" in 10% standard bare ordnance gel. BTW, whatever penetration/expansion results are obtained "in a gel" have dubious value unless gel calibration is known.Does that mean you want DocGKR to list the calibration penetration for each test rather than just saying "calibrated gel" and summarizing his results in "the list"? If we're calling into question his reliability what stops him from lying about the calibration unless he shows us a photo of the BB in the gel with a ruler? He could be faking that too so perhaps we need him to video each calibration and gel test and publish those videos unedited for us to believe him.

Of course we could trust, at some point, that since his results agree with those of other testers (both paid and unpaid) as well as those who use bullets against bad guys on a regular basis he's probably telling the truth.


Quite. Oh the games people play now...

Curl, I have a few questions if you don't mind.

Are modern JHP's like Gold Dot and HST acceptable for defensive use or would you prefer FMJ in some (if so which?) or all situations?

Do you carry FMJ's in your pistol or a 50/50 mix of FMJ/JHP to cover any possible contingency and, if so, which JHP?

[breakingtime91]

I am not under any illusion that I have the ability to make sense to everyone. Again, if you want to try to make sense out of the terminal ballistics subject, I recommended MacPherson's book. Hopefully, it will make some sense to you.

can you give me a snippet? If not I'm writing this conversation and your credibility/usefulness to this thread off. You have given me nothing to go off besides the fact that you think I suck at physics, which is probably true since I was a Marine. But as a college student/education major I do know bs/ lack of knowledge when I see/hear/read it. I understand that MacPherson's book is probably great and will help me grow in knowledge but honestly, that doesn't help your argument because you are unable to cite any of his work to clarify/help your point. I could tell you right now that Einstein did great work describing penetration in a book..... ok great but what did he say and how is that proving my point? Hopefully you get where I am coming from and honestly I almost feel like your trolling because you give the least amount of information to keep the discussion going. If you ever do find the description/relevant articles please pm them to me since you feel unable or to shy to post them publicly. thanks.


Also, in most of my posts I linked articles supporting what I was saying. I feel like we may be in agreement about gel tests and closeness in penetration but my arguement is kind of what the fuck does that matter. Modern hollow points penetrate, expand, and kill more reliably then JHPs of the past. Prove me wrong.

[curl]

Does that mean you want DocGKR to list the calibration penetration for each test rather than just saying "calibrated gel" and summarizing his results in "the list"? If we're calling into question his reliability what stops him from lying about the calibration unless he shows us a photo of the BB in the gel with a ruler? He could be faking that too so perhaps we need him to video each calibration and gel test and publish those videos unedited for us to believe him.

Of course we could trust, at some point, that since his results agree with those of other testers (both paid and unpaid) as well as those who use bullets against bad guys on a regular basis he's probably telling the truth.



Curl, I have a few questions if you don't mind.

Are modern JHP's like Gold Dot and HST acceptable for defensive use or would you prefer FMJ in some (if so which?) or all situations?

Do you carry FMJ's in your pistol or a 50/50 mix of FMJ/JHP to cover any possible contingency and, if so, which JHP?
If BB gel calibration falls within a certain range, say 3.00-3.75 inches @ 590 fps, it may well be deemed "good enough" in some non-critical applications, particularly when penetration is deemed quite adequate. However, results may not be any more accurate (in determining penetration) than shooting a JHP into water and using MacPherson's bullet penetration model. For any serious work, calibration must be performed since gel calibration could fall outside of "acceptable" calibration range and thus suitable corrections would need to be made. Why not include such calibration information?
Whether 13" or so average penetration (9mm HST/GD) in bare standard gel is sufficient penetration is open to some debate; in most cases it would be. How sure do you want to be that penetration will be adequate in an unpredictable SD situation? How many shots could be expected to be fired with some degree of accuracy at the attacker? It gets complicated, but I prefer erring on more penetration than is likely to be needed; 14-16" in bare standard ordnance gel seems like a good compromise, with as tough a bullet as possible.

[breakingtime91]

If BB gel calibration falls within a certain range, say 3.00-3.75 inches @ 590 fps, it may well be deemed "good enough" in some non-critical applications, particularly when penetration is deemed quite adequate. However, results may not be any more accurate (in determining penetration) than shooting a JHP into water and using MacPherson's bullet penetration model. For any serious work, calibration must be performed since gel calibration could fall outside of "acceptable" calibration range and thus suitable corrections would need to be made. Why not include such calibration information?
Whether 13" or so average penetration (9mm HST/GD) in bare standard gel is sufficient penetration is open to some debate; in most cases it would be. How sure do you want to be that penetration will be adequate in an unpredictable SD situation? How many shots could be expected to be fired with some degree of accuracy at the attacker? It gets complicated, but I prefer erring on more penetration than is likely to be needed; 14-16" in bare standard ordnance gel seems like a good compromise, with as tough a bullet as possible.

Who is it open to debate with? Do you have any credible experts stating that? What are your qualifications to state that? Why are departments issuing both GD and HSt if it may not be adequate?

[curl]

can you give me a snippet? If not I'm writing this conversation and your credibility/usefulness to this thread off. You have given me nothing to go off besides the fact that you think I suck at physics, which is probably true since I was a Marine. But as a college student/education major I do know bs/ lack of knowledge when I see/hear/read it. I understand that MacPherson's book is probably great and will help me grow in knowledge but honestly, that doesn't help your argument because you are unable to cite any of his work to clarify/help your point. I could tell you right now that Einstein did great work describing penetration in a book..... ok great but what did he say and how is that proving my point? Hopefully you get where I am coming from and honestly I almost feel like your trolling because you give the least amount of information to keep the discussion going. If you ever do find the description/relevant articles please pm them to me since you feel unable or to shy to post them publicly. thanks.


Also, in most of my posts I linked articles supporting what I was saying. I feel like we may be in agreement about gel tests and closeness in penetration but my arguement is kind of what the fuck does that matter. Modern hollow points penetrate, expand, and kill more reliably then JHPs of the past. Prove me wrong.

I'll give you due credit for realizing that you "suck in physics." However, that's not terminal (no pun intended) and can be remedied, as I have suggested. Best wishes!

[Tamara]

I love it when people post in a thread just to let others know how disinterested they are in others posting about their disinterest, because they're cooler.

Too Meta; Didn't Read

[curl]

Who is it open to debate with? Do you have any credible experts stating that? What are your qualifications to state that? Why aren't departments issuing both GD and HSt if it may not be adequate?

Obviously, it's not only physics that's the issue with your confusion of the subject. 12" soft tissue penetration is the absolute minimum and up to 18" is better (FBI's line). 12" in gel does not necessarily mean 12" in soft tissue; usually there's less penetration in soft tissue and that does not include bones, etc. which further reduces penetration in a body vs. gel. So 13" penetration in gel may well mean less than 12" absolute minimum (FBI again) penetration in soft tissue.... But that's elementary, and I've stated it before. So, I suggest you read a lot more, even if you get more confused.....

[Lomshek]

If BB gel calibration falls within a certain range, say 3.00-3.75 inches @ 590 fps, it may well be deemed "good enough" in some non-critical applications, particularly when penetration is deemed quite adequate. However, results may not be any more accurate (in determining penetration) than shooting a JHP into water and using MacPherson's bullet penetration model.
For any serious work, calibration must be performed since gel calibration could fall outside of "acceptable" calibration range and thus suitable corrections would need to be made.
What does that paragraph mean? If the BB is within 3 - 3.75" @590 fps it's good enough for non-critical uses (this is defensive ammo so I'm confused about what constitutes non-critical) but no better than water jugs and extrapolation but if you use gel calibrated to a spec you don't specify then corrections won't need to be made???
Is 3-3.75" acceptable or not a tight enough tolerance? Are you saying you don't trust DocGKR's claims of using calibrated gel?



Whether 13" or so average penetration (9mm HST/GD) in bare standard gel is sufficient penetration is open to some debate; in most cases it would be. How sure do you want to be that penetration will be adequate in an unpredictable SD situation? How many shots could be expected to be fired with some degree of accuracy at the attacker?
It gets complicated, but I prefer erring on more penetration than is likely to be needed; 14-16" in bare standard ordnance gel seems like a good compromise, with as tough a bullet as possible.
Using your number of 14-16" it sounds like you'd be happy carrying Hornady XTP.

9mm Horn 124 gr JHP-XTP 90249: 1102 f/s; 14.6" pen; 0.54" expanded diameter
9mm Horn 147 gr JHP-XTP 9028: 988 f/s; 15.2" pen; 0.56" expanded diameter
.40 S&W Horn 155 gr JHP-XTP 9132: 1091 f/s; 14.3" pen; 0.57" expanded diameter
.40 S&W Horn 180 gr JHP-XTP 9136: 966 f/s; 14.8" pen, 0.66" expanded diameter
.45 ACP Horn 185 gr JHP-XTP 9090: 912 f/s, 16.7" pen, 0.57" expanded diameter
.45 ACP Horn 200 gr JHP-XTP 9112: 844 f/s, 18.7" pen, 0.54" expanded diameter
.45 ACP Horn +P 230 gr JHP-XTP 9096: 881 f/s; 15.6" pen, 0.72" expanded diameter

Can you please answer this question.

Do you carry FMJ's in your pistol or a 50/50 mix of FMJ/JHP to cover any possible contingency and, if so, which JHP?[/QUOTE]

[breakingtime91]

Obviously, it's not only physics that's the issue with your confusion of the subject. 12" soft tissue penetration is the absolute minimum and up to 18" is better (FBI's line). 12" in gel does not necessarily mean 12" in soft tissue; usually there's less penetration in soft tissue and that does not include bones, etc. which further reduces penetration in a body vs. gel. So 13" penetration in gel may well mean less than 12" absolute minimum (FBI again) penetration in soft tissue.... But that's elementary, and I've stated it before. So, I suggest you read a lot more, even if you get more confused.....

I understand but what you are stating about gold dots and hsts means many police departments are using shitty ammo and that Doc Roberts doesn't know what he is talking about. Once again who are you referencing that this ammo is shit and what are your credentials? You can keep treating me like an idiot or you can answer the questions I asked.

[curl]

What does that paragraph mean? If the BB is within 3 - 3.75" @590 fps it's good enough for non-critical uses (this is defensive ammo so I'm confused about what constitutes non-critical) but no better than water jugs and extrapolation but if you use gel calibrated to a spec you don't specify then corrections won't need to be made???
Is 3-3.75" acceptable or not a tight enough tolerance? Are you saying you don't trust DocGKR's claims of using calibrated gel?



Using your number of 14-16" it sounds like you'd be happy carrying Hornady XTP.


Can you please answer this question.

Do you carry FMJ's in your pistol or a 50/50 mix of FMJ/JHP to cover any possible contingency and, if so, which JHP?[/QUOTE]
Within that range, penetrations could vary up to about 2 inches; sometimes calibrations fall outside of that range making deviation in penetration even greater. That's unnecessary uncertainty in assessment of bullet performance that can easily be remedied with calibration data. I certainly agree that defensive ammo requires some care in proper selection (sure, placement, placement, placement, is paramount) in order to perform adequately.

Since there are JHPs that penetrate in the desirable range, FMJs are not necessary in order to achieve (most likely) adequate penetration. Winchester Ranger Bonded, for example, does the trick (Winchester posted data notwithstanding).

[curl]

I understand but what you are stating about gold dots and hsts means many police departments are using shitty ammo and that Doc Roberts doesn't know what he is talking about. Once again who are you referencing that this ammo is shit and what are your credentials? You can keep treating me like an idiot or you can answer the questions I asked.

Look. 13" penetration in gel works most of the time, particularly if you can keep firing away at the target until it is Swiss cheese. Anyone who guarantees that 13" penetration in gel covers the waterfront in SD situations is misinformed or dishonest. Sorry, I can't make it any simpler.....

[Mitchell, Esq.]

The only thing that comes into thought as of right now re: FMJ>JHPs is...........


VAMPIRE HERPES.

*Because stupid ideas like this shit just won't die.

I'd like to spend a willpower point this turn and use a glock loaded with vorpal gold dots on on the sparkly vampire.

[breakingtime91]

Look. 13" penetration in gel works most of the time, particularly if you can keep firing away at the target until it is Swiss cheese. Anyone who guarantees that 13" penetration in gel covers the waterfront in SD situations is misinformed or dishonest. Sorry, I can't make it any simpler.....

Ok. That's great, I already know the 12-18 thing. Once again what are your credentials and are you more qualified then our SME that posts in this sub forum?

[curl]

Ok. That's great, I already know the 12-18 thing. Once again what are your credentials and are you more qualified then our SME that posts in this sub forum?
Feel free to accept whatever information you deem credible, from whatever expert. I'll accept anything from anyone, as long as it has merit.

[breakingtime91]

Feel free to accept whatever information you deem credible, from whatever expert. I'll accept anything from anyone, as long as it has merit.

So you cant site an expert or your own credentials? So you just trolled the past three pages. Got it. Thanks for wasting my time.

[HCM]

Even the most powerful JHP rounds will not penetrate as well as an FMJ.

That is well established. Here is one of countless videos that will Bear that out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCUFzNLHP2Q

5215

[BehindBlueI's]

Hell, I suck at physics, and I don't math good either. I'll tell you in real live (at the time) bodies that HP bullets deflect less than their FMJ counterparts. I don't know that the bodies were properly calibrated, however.

I'll also admit I don't care why. I'm not designing bullets and I don't need to know any more than a truck driver needs to understand internal combustion.

[Malamute]

Feel free to accept whatever information you deem credible, from whatever expert. I'll accept anything from anyone, as long as it has merit.

What is your standard for credibility? Both what you accept, and reject.

At this point, it seems to be you accept that which agrees with your ideas, and reject those that do not, regardless of experience or accepted in the field.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

So you cant site an expert or your own credentials? So you just trolled the past three pages. Got it. Thanks for wasting my time.

It's a discussion on the effectiveness of Full Metal Jacket ammunition in service caliber pistols in the year 2015... At what point did you think this was not trolling?

[curl]

So you cant site an expert or your own credentials? So you just trolled the past three pages. Got it. Thanks for wasting my time.

Enlighten yourself instead of blindly following whatever "expert"! Yes, I know, that's not easy....

[curl]

What is your standard for credibility? Both what you accept, and reject.

At this point, it seems to be you accept that which agrees with your ideas, and reject those that do not, regardless of experience or accepted in the field.
Precisely, however I do not reject ideas, no matter from which "expert", that have merit. My "ideas" are based on well-established principles and laws. Unlike some, I choose not to blindly follow some "expert." Got it?

[curl]

Hell, I suck at physics, and I don't math good either. I'll tell you in real live (at the time) bodies that HP bullets deflect less than their FMJ counterparts. I don't know that the bodies were properly calibrated, however.

I'll also admit I don't care why. I'm not designing bullets and I don't need to know any more than a truck driver needs to understand internal combustion.

You make an excellent point indeed. It may not be a good idea at all to shoot BBs into a "body" first to check whether it is "calibrated"!

[curl]

curl, I'd appreciate it if you would use a less douchey tone to make your points.

Got your point loud and clear.

[breakingtime91]

It's a discussion on the effectiveness of Full Metal Jacket ammunition in service caliber pistols in the year 2015... At what point did you think this was not trolling?

True. I should of known better lol

[DocGKR]

First, almost all my wound ballistic research has been for military or LE organizations, as noted in the bio included in one of my few non-restricted briefings that was publicly released by DOD here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

Secondly, I find it amusing when folks write comments about me or the research I do, without ever having taken the time to contact me to clarify or verify what they write--it is not like my contact info is hard to find, since it is in the telephone directory and on the web....

[DocGKR]

"May I ask, what useful information (if any) does hi speed motion picture analysis of gel block impacts and calculated KE loss bring to the table?"

High speed videography is quite useful in assessing projectile AOA on impact. It has been my experience that calculated KE loss does not bring much to the table that cannot better be realized through directly looking at the actual projectile induced damage pattern--but then again I am a clinician who is looking for simple practical data and not an engineer who loves complex equations...

[Jeep]

Secondly, I find it amusing when folks write comments about me or the research I do, without ever having taken the time to contact me to clarify or verify what they write--it is not like my contact info is hard to find, since it is in the telephone directory and on the web....

It's probably just the facts/feelings thing again. The facts seem to hurt their feelings. If we were talking about college students, I suppose they'd say that the facts are "microaggressions." Either way, they aren't about to call you.

[curl]

First, almost all my wound ballistic research has been for military or LE organizations, as noted in the bio included in one of my few non-restricted briefings that was publicly released by DOD here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

Secondly, I find it amusing when folks write comments about me or the research I do, without ever having taken the time to contact me to clarify or verify what they write--it is not like my contact info is hard to find, since it is in the telephone directory and on the web....

I made a number of factual points in this thread; none of them have been factually challenged. Instead, replies have ranged from calling factual points stupid, trolling attempts, etc., evidently proving you signature "facts matter.. feelings can lie." There are two main points that I made here in regard to the information that you posted on other websites.

1. When giving out penetration and expansion information in gel tests, gel calibration is an important part of the test, as penetrations can vary as much as 2.0" just due to different viscosities in gels, even if BB penetrations in gels are within sometimes accepted 3.0-3.75" @590 fps calibration range. Of course, sometimes gel calibration is outside of that range making gel calibration information even more important. When penetration in a gel test is marginal, it becomes even more important for gel calibration to be known. The point was that gel calibration is an important aspect of the self-defense ammunition test, so that appropriate corrections can be made to compensate for non-standard gel. Unfortunately, calibration information is often not given, even by professionals, resulting in unnecessary uncertainty in self-defense bullet performance.

2. In a reasoned discussion of FMJ vs. JHP, the key factor, obviously, is whether a chosen JHP penetrates enough. What is very likely to be enough? I have maintained in this thread that 12-13" penetration in a bare 10% standard ordnance gel (let alone in a gel with lower viscosity) is not necessarily enough penetration, even if the FBI's minimum penetration standard of 12" in soft tissue is to be achieved. Furthermore, add in bone, and unshored skin and consequently 13" JHP penetration, even in a standard gel, is not nearly enough. Earlier in this thread you stated that "in the past two decades almost all the issued FBI service caliber handgun ammo has tended to penetrate about 14-16" in bare gel, just about right in the middle of that 12-18" range that almost everyone who evaluates such things recommends." It was my premise in this thread as well that 14-16" JHP penetration in bare standard ordnance gel would make a JHP a clear choice for self-defense vs. FMJ. However, looking at nearly all available data, including your own tests where gel calibration was sometimes given, I don't find that most of the JHPs on your "list" are capable of such penetrations in bare gel; they expand too much for a given mass and velocity. This brings up this question: do you now prefer 14-16" service caliber JHP penetration in bare standard gel, as opposed to 12-14" penetrations that you have evidently previously preferred?

[Welder]

It's a discussion on the effectiveness of Full Metal Jacket ammunition in service caliber pistols in the year 2015... At what point did you think this was not trolling?

Are you calling me a troll for originally asking the question?

[curl]

Are you calling me a troll for originally asking the question?

Excellent topic, providing that it's factual, of course. Facts matter indeed, and feeling can indeed lie...

[RJ]

Excellent topic, providing that it's factual, of course. Facts matter indeed, and feeling can indeed lie...

Sorry if I missed it, but what *is* your carry load?

ETA: I use 9mm Speer Gold Dot 124 gr HP; they are generally available, don't 'pop' my hands like the +p rounds do, and offer performance near those on Doc's list.

[breakingtime91]

I made a number of factual points in this thread; none of them have been factually challenged. Instead, replies have ranged from calling factual points stupid, trolling attempts, etc., evidently proving you signature "facts matter.. feelings can lie." There are two main points that I made here in regard to the information that you posted on other websites.

1. When giving out penetration and expansion information in gel tests, gel calibration is an important part of the test, as penetrations can vary as much as 2.0" just due to different viscosities in gels, even if BB penetrations in gels are within sometimes accepted 3.0-3.75" @590 fps calibration range. Of course, sometimes gel calibration is outside of that range making gel calibration information even more important. When penetration in a gel test is marginal, it becomes even more important for gel calibration to be known. The point was that gel calibration is an important aspect of the self-defense ammunition test, so that appropriate corrections can be made to compensate for non-standard gel. Unfortunately, calibration information is often not given, even by professionals, resulting in unnecessary uncertainty in self-defense bullet performance.

2. In a reasoned discussion of FMJ vs. JHP, the key factor, obviously, is whether a chosen JHP penetrates enough. What is very likely to be enough? I have maintained in this thread that 12-13" penetration in a bare 10% standard ordnance gel (let alone in a gel with lower viscosity) is not necessarily enough penetration, even if the FBI's minimum penetration standard of 12" in soft tissue is to be achieved. Furthermore, add in bone, and unshored skin and consequently 13" JHP penetration, even in a standard gel, is not nearly enough. Earlier in this thread you stated that "in the past two decades almost all the issued FBI service caliber handgun ammo has tended to penetrate about 14-16" in bare gel, just about right in the middle of that 12-18" range that almost everyone who evaluates such things recommends." It was my premise in this thread as well that 14-16" JHP penetration in bare standard ordnance gel would make a JHP a clear choice for self-defense vs. FMJ. However, looking at nearly all available data, including your own tests where gel calibration was sometimes given, I don't find that most of the JHPs on your "list" are capable of such penetrations in bare gel; they expand too much for a given mass and velocity. This brings up this question: do you now prefer 14-16" service caliber JHP penetration in bare standard gel, as opposed to 12-14" penetrations that you have evidently previously preferred?

Lol no one trolled you. I asked you to prove your points and your credentials and you have failed to do so.

[Welder]

Excellent topic, providing that it's factual, of course. Facts matter indeed, and feeling can indeed lie...

I'll agree with that. But in the absence of firsthand experience, a person either must doubt everything they're told in life and then experience / prove it for themselves (which would lead to a lot of reinventing of the wheel), or they need to find an expert on the matter and ask their opinion. On this particular subject I decided the experts would be found on this forum, which is why I asked here. I didn't ask at my local gun shops, didn't ask any of my local police force although I have quite a few friends there, and didn't ask my buddies in the Services. I don't post here hardly at all, but I read here extensively and have learned enough to separate what rings true from what doesn't.

The Bible says, "In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom." You may not be religious, but I have found that statement to be true. When there are multiple people here whose firsthand research and/or experience is all saying pretty much the same thing, my questions are answered and I'll move on to the next thing. Frankly I don't know anything about BB's besides that I could never hit a darn thing with my Red Ryder, don't know anything about gel except that I ain't puttin' that stuff anywhere near my hair, and I don't need to know anything more about either of those subjects. They may be academically interesting, but at some point a person has to put their trust in those who have gone before. Otherwise, much spinning of wheels and no forward motion.

I realize not everybody sees things that way. I own my own small business and have gotten used to the fact that I simply cannot dig to the bottom of everything if I'm going to accomplish anything. I have to find the *right* expert(s), get their answer, and use that to move forward. To people who think like you do, that might sound a little reckless, but it's the way I am and I can't help it. The trick is knowing who to trust.

All that said, except for one I posted years ago on Welding Web, this has to be one of the best threads I've come up with, and I am enjoying reading the whole dang thing. I really thought there would be like 5 responses, but there has been some enjoyable reading here! Informative, insulting, humor, plenty of posts with "derp" used in a sentence...what more could a person want?

[curl]

I'll agree with that. But in the absence of firsthand experience, a person either must doubt everything they're told in life and then experience / prove it for themselves (which would lead to a lot of reinventing of the wheel), or they need to find an expert on the matter and ask their opinion. On this particular subject I decided the experts would be found on this forum, which is why I asked here. I didn't ask at my local gun shops, didn't ask any of my local police force although I have quite a few friends there, and didn't ask my buddies in the Services. I don't post here hardly at all, but I read here extensively and have learned enough to separate what rings true from what doesn't.

The Bible says, "In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom." You may not be religious, but I have found that statement to be true. When there are multiple people here whose firsthand research and/or experience is all saying pretty much the same thing, my questions are answered and I'll move on to the next thing. Frankly I don't know anything about BB's besides that I could never hit a darn thing with my Red Ryder, don't know anything about gel except that I ain't puttin' that stuff anywhere near my hair, and I don't need to know anything more about either of those subjects. They may be academically interesting, but at some point a person has to put their trust in those who have gone before. Otherwise, much spinning of wheels and no forward motion.

I realize not everybody sees things that way. I own my own small business and have gotten used to the fact that I simply cannot dig to the bottom of everything if I'm going to accomplish anything. I have to find the *right* expert(s), get their answer, and use that to move forward. To people who think like you do, that might sound a little reckless, but it's the way I am and I can't help it. The trick is knowing who to trust.

All that said, except for one I posted years ago on Welding Web, this has to be one of the best threads I've come up with, and I am enjoying reading the whole dang thing. I really thought there would be like 5 responses, but there has been some enjoyable reading here! Informative, insulting, humor, plenty of posts with "derp" used in a sentence...what more could a person want?
Inquisitive minds want to know... so you chose a good topic that's hardly a matter of mathematical certainty, only degrees of probability as most complex issues are. What you believe, I suppose, depends what your background is and your level of knowledge. For example, if you have a background in physics and mathematics you do not have to have specialized expertise in terminal ballistics to know when some things are not "real." That's why I mentioned that I will accept anything from anyone as long as it does not violate what I know is well-established fact and physical law. Regarding this topic, there are undoubtedly scores who believe that a JHP that penetrates 12" in gel (most gels at that) has sufficient penetration in virtually all self-defense situations. Superficial knowledge, as was posted in this thread earlier, can indeed be quite dangerous...

[DocGKR]

1. Every gel block we shoot is validated (not calibrated) by shooting a standard .177 inch BB into the gel block at a velocity of 590 f/s +/- 15 f/s, an ideal range of penetration is defined as 8.5 cm +/- 1.0 cm of penetration, although some organizations accept up to +/- 1.5 cm. As noted above, the testing we've done is almost all for LE or mil entities; the reports provided to the organizations requesting the test includes the BB validation data. Since we only use validated gel blocks, I don't feel any particular need to include the exact validation numbers in public internet posts, as it is really not relevant to any but the most arcane discussions.

2. Note that Dr. Fackler's original penetration recommendation was for a minimum of 10-12" penetration; that was later revised by the FBI BRF to a 12" minimum. I prefer barrier blind, robust expanding service caliber JHP's that ideally penetrate 12-18" in validated 10% gel, paying particular attention to the 4LD and automobile windshield protocols. In addition, the vast majority of loads we've recommended have proven to work effectively in multiple actual shooting incidents.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Are you calling me a troll for originally asking the question?

No.

You asked a legit question. This thread has taken a turn though...for the derp side.

[Malamute]

Precisely, however I do not reject ideas, no matter from which "expert", that have merit. My "ideas" are based on well-established principles and laws. Unlike some, I choose not to blindly follow some "expert." Got it?

Nope. Don't "got it".

You are equating anyone following the preponderance of research on wound ballistics, by one (and a number of others) of the more experienced people in the field, and backed up by numerous experienced LEOs, shooters and investigators, as "blindly following".

So far, you haven't given any of your credentials on the matter, and why your opinion, as it varies from the science and research on the subject, should have merit. So far, it all seems to be your opinion, but you haven't given a baseline as to your reasons for your opinions, or experience and background, why your opinion should have any weight or merit. You've been asked this before, and you've ignored it. It looks more like a matter of wanting to be different, or rebellious, for its own sake, not due to any valid counter point of differing evidence or experience. You aren't making a convincing argument or point for your position. At all.


So, what is your complaint now with Dr Roberts gel tests since he explained that they would not be used if not within accepted parameters of validation or "calibration?

[curl]

1. Every gel block we shoot is validated (not calibrated) by shooting a standard .177 inch BB into the gel block at a velocity of 590 f/s +/- 15 f/s, an ideal range of penetration is defined as 8.5 cm +/- 1.0 cm of penetration, although some organizations accept up to +/- 1.5 cm. As noted above, the testing we've done is almost all for LE or mil entities; the reports provided to the organizations requesting the test includes the BB validation data. Since we only use validated gel blocks, I don't feel any particular need to include the exact validation numbers in public internet posts, as it is really not relevant to any but the most arcane discussions.

2. Note that Dr. Fackler's original penetration recommendation was for a minimum of 10-12" penetration; that was later revised by the FBI BRF to a 12" minimum. I prefer barrier blind, robust expanding service caliber JHP's that ideally penetrate 12-18" in validated 10% gel, paying particular attention to the 4LD and automobile windshield protocols. In addition, the vast majority of loads we've recommended have proven to work effectively in multiple actual shooting incidents.

Regarding gel "calibration," I adopted that term following MacPherson's use of the term used to determine how close a given gel is to the standard. As mentioned, even in the narrow range of validation or calibration (3.0-3.75") there is 2.0" variation in penetration. Some tests, where calibration was actually given, had validation or calibration at about 10.0 cm (3.94") @ around 578 fps; obviously, good thing calibration was given in order to properly interpret the highly optimistic results of that gel test.

Regarding JHP penetration in bare standard gel, do you still prefer 12-14" penetration over 14-16" penetration? As a separate point, effective performance through various barriers is undoubtedly a plus. I don't question that JHPs that penetrate 12-14" in bare standard gel can perform "well" in police shootings, especially when multiple shots usually impact the subject. That's not necessarily true in a civilian self-defense situation, where the number of shots that could impact an attacker may be quite limited.

Penetration in a body, can, of course, be widely different (less) than penetration in standard gel. For example, in an autopsy made available on the other forum (Beretta), where a similar topic is discussed, at least three 9mm JHP wounds penetrated only about 7", one of those fractured the 4th anterior rib; the other two were soft tissue track only. However, 16 (sixteen) 9mm JHPs ultimately killed the person who was shot by a police officer, so I guess some would say those JHPs "worked."

[Welder]

curl, no offense meant, but I am going to guess that at different times in your life you have been found standing next to a hot stove with a burned finger, and next to a frozen flagpole with your tongue stuck to it. :p

[Hambo]

This thread has taken a turn though...for the derp side.

That's for sure.

[curl]

curl, no offense meant, but I am going to guess that at different times in your life you have been found standing next to a hot stove with a burned finger, and next to a frozen flagpole with your tongue stuck to it. :p

No offense is taken at your guess; however, I prefer to discuss facts instead of guesses.

[RJ]

Sorry if I missed it, but what *is* your carry load?

ETA: I use 9mm Speer Gold Dot 124 gr HP; they are generally available, don't 'pop' my hands like the +p rounds do, and offer performance near those on Doc's list.


No offense is taken at your guess; however, I prefer to discuss facts instead of guesses.

Excellent.

I may have missed it, but what is *your* carry load? Mine is above.

[breakingtime91]

Excellent.

I may have missed it, but what is *your* carry load? Mine is above.

Sir, my friend, he is a troll and a person that will keep going.his opinion means nothing and he isn't doing anything with his time

[Lomshek]

Excellent.

I may have missed it, but what is *your* carry load? Mine is above.



Since there are JHPs that penetrate in the desirable range, FMJs are not necessary in order to achieve (most likely) adequate penetration. Winchester Ranger Bonded, for example, does the trick (Winchester posted data notwithstanding).I guess that's his way of saying he carries Winchester Ranger Bonded (not sure what "posted data notwithstanding" means).

This would be a much shorter thread if Curl just said he prefers JHP ammo that errs on the long side of the acceptable penetration range and didn't spend half his excessive words inferring that Doc's gel is not properly validated/calibrated and his results can't be trusted.

[Sigfan26]

No offense is taken at your guess; however, I prefer to discuss facts instead of guesses.


Excellent.

I may have missed it, but what is *your* carry load? Mine is above.

I am intrigued as to your personal carry load as well. I prefer 147+P HST.

[Luke]

I carry either my own loads or Winchester white box. Works the best.

[Sigfan26]

I carry either my own loads or Winchester white box. Works the best.

Use a friends loads... Gives you somebody to blame if they don't work.

[DocGKR]

There is great value in the use appropriately gathered and interpreted surgical and/or post-mortem data. The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results. There is an extremely strong correlation between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents. That is the reason why LE agencies such as the FBI, CHP, LAPD, SJPD, RCMP, etc… continue to rely on properly conducted gelatin studies when selecting ammunition.

[curl]

Trying to be factual here, because facts indeed matter...

Regarding Wolberg's published paper, evidently no JHP expanded to or over 0.60"; average expansion, "RD", in soft tissue was about 0.533", with maximum RD of 0.584" @ 10.0" penetration and minimum RD of 0.462" @ 17.0" penetration. Although RD in bare gel is not given (only "expansion ratio" of 1.20, which does not uniquely specify RD) use of MacPherson's bullet penetration model and consideration of the design of the particular bullet @950 fps suggests that average RD in bare standard gel was on the order of 0.57-0.58". While average penetration was quite similar (close to 13") in both gel and soft tissue, it is quite obvious that when the bullet expanded in tissue as much as it did in bare gel, penetration in tissue was usually significantly less than in gel -- as much as about 3". This particular JHP exhibited fairly wide variation in RD (0.462-0.584"), even though the bullet path was soft tissue only; obviously if the bullet maintained a more consistent RD in soft tissue (as many "modern" JHPs probably would), average penetration in tissue would have been well below average penetration of the same bullet in standard gel (let alone a gel that has significantly lower viscosity than standard, like, for example, gel with 10.0 cm @ 578 fps calibration). Wolberg's paper, of course, did not consider penetration with bones and unshored skin; however, this reality could require about 6" of additional bullet penetration capability, making equivalent standard gel penetration requirement about 18" or so (essentially like the well-known south Florida case, but with an arm not close to the body and rib, but no humerus, impact).

As mentioned previously, a detailed autopsy of a teenager shot 16 times by a police officer has been made accessible on the other forum, where a similar topic is underway. That large police department has a lot of shootings indeed and it's very unlikely that the 9mm "modern" JHPs that were used in referenced shooting were somehow defective. If it is of interest to this forum, I am willing to make an attempt over the next few days (with an assistance of a highly qualified M.D.) to closely approximate the penetrated path length of each bullet in that detailed autopsy. It's an interesting and revealing data point, indeed......

[RJ]

Trying to be factual here, because facts indeed matter...

(snip)...

Ok, cool.

What is *your* carry load?

As I've mentioned, I find 9mm GD 124+ps a little hard to find, and they pop a bit more than I'd like for my wife and I. So I carry the regular, GD 124 JHPs, knowing I give up a bit of performance. I spend more time on personal fitness, dry fire and training to enhance my shot placement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SamAdams]

I wouldn't mind it if there were more specialty deep penetration loads available for service calibers at under boutique ammo prices. Tough FMJs with a flat meplat would probably be most economical.

+ 1 on that. Well tested offerings in outdoorsmans loads for service pistols would be great. I don't even so much mind paying the boutique prices. Its that you see too many times when these guys drive bullets too fast (after all 'faster is better', right?) - causing bullet failure. Perhaps this is a pipe dream given how small a market this is compared to that for self defense against two legged bad guys.

Isn't there any data from the military in regards to the performance of FMJs pistol rounds in combat ? I would think that if it was so superior to (well designed) JHPs, that this information would be out there.

[Nephrology]

As mentioned previously, a detailed autopsy of a teenager shot 16 times by a police officer has been made accessible on the other forum, where a similar topic is underway. That large police department has a lot of shootings indeed and it's very unlikely that the 9mm "modern" JHPs that were used in referenced shooting were somehow defective. If it is of interest to this forum, I am willing to make an attempt over the next few days (with an assistance of a highly qualified M.D.) to closely approximate the penetrated path length of each bullet in that detailed autopsy. It's an interesting and revealing data point, indeed......

I would be curious as to how your 'highly qualified MD' would go about approximating the penetration path length of bullets via autopsy photographs....

[curl]

I would be curious as to how your 'highly qualified MD' would go about approximating the penetration path length of bullets via autopsy photographs....

A qualified M.D. has sufficient information from the autopsy detail, both pictorial and very descriptive, to closely approximate the bullet path (within an inch or so). One does not need to poke a rod into a wound channel to get a fairly good approximation of the depth of the channel. No claim is made for laser precision, of course (and is hardly necessary to be useful).

[Nephrology]

A qualified M.D. has sufficient information from the autopsy detail, both pictorial and very descriptive, to closely approximate the bullet path (within an inch or so). One does not need to poke a rod into a wound channel to get a fairly good approximation of the depth of the channel. No claim is made for laser precision, of course (and is hardly necessary to be useful).

What is their specialty? subspecialty? where did they do their training? is this something they regularly do as a part of their job? on what basis will they be doing their estimation?

I ask because I am in medicine, and while I am still early in my training I am having hard time imagining exactly how precise they can be without directly laying hands on the cadaver or at the very least having the opportunity to ask for further images. Even a trained radiologist will have a hard time interpreting a film to the degree of precision you are implying without the ability to request further imaging at the very least. For something as specific as estimating depth or measuring an anatomical landmark I would absolutely want at least a CT.

[curl]

What is their specialty? subspecialty? where did they do their training? is this something they regularly do as a part of their job? on what basis will they be doing their estimation?

I ask because I am in medicine, and while I am still early in my training I am having hard time imagining exactly how precise they can be without directly laying hands on the cadaver or at the very least having the opportunity to ask for further images. Even a trained radiologist will have a hard time interpreting a film to the degree of precision you are implying without the ability to request further imaging at the very least. For something as specific as estimating depth or measuring an anatomical landmark I would absolutely want at least a CT.
Got to go, but I will extend you the courtesy of a reply. Specialty is in internal medicine; board certified; one of the top rated doctors (peer rating) in a fairly large city; knows the human body very, very, well... Keep in mind that in a homogenous medium like gel, that's even within "acceptable" calibration range (3.0-3.75" @ 590 fps), penetration can vary by 2.0"-- so 1-1.5" estimated error in this case should be acceptable to all but perhaps mathematicians. Have you seen the autopsy data? It's quite detailed; hence quite usable. Later...

[Nephrology]

Got to go, but I will extend you the courtesy of a reply. Specialty is in internal medicine; board certified; one of the top rated doctors (peer rating) in a fairly large city; knows the human body very, very, well... Keep in mind that in a homogenous medium like gel, that's even within "acceptable" calibration range (3.0-3.75" @ 590 fps), penetration can vary by 2.0"-- so 1-1.5" estimated error in this case should be acceptable to all but perhaps mathematicians. Have you seen the autopsy data? It's quite detailed; hence quite usable. Later...

Well, I would hope he is board certified if he is practicing medicine...

If the photos you refer to are the ones I am thinking of (OIS in PA with multiple .223/.40S&W GSWs) then I only recall there being a few photographs. Assuming we are thinking of the same data, I would be very skeptical of your friend's ability to accurately interpret depth of penetration, for a variety of reasons :

1. He is an internist. Not to say he is a bad doc or that internists are not intelligent, but fundamentally what he does for a living is only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Beyond what exposure to anatomy/surgery/trauma he got in medical school, I would be quite surprised if in his daily job he does any substantial surgical/forensic exploration or measurement of human anatomy. Furthermore, he is not in a surgical specialty, so the way he relates to anatomy is not going to be as specifically informed as someone who cuts for a living.

2. If it is the OIS I have in mind, the data was really quite limited. I recall there being maybe 3-6 photos of the cadaver total. I don't even recall anything giving the height/weight of the cadaver or any rulers placed against the GSWs in question. Also, like I said, if I was being asked to estimate depth of penetration + bullet path through a cadaver, I would want at least half a dozen or more images from multiple angles of each GSW in question, in addition to some sort of medical imaging (minimum of an AP and lateral X-ray, ideally an abdominal/chest CT with additional films of each limb affected). You really can't say with certainty what structures the bullet impacted without getting some kind of film. If we are thinking of different OISes, then I apologize and would appreciate a link to the information you had in mind.

Again, I am sure your friend is a great doc, but to say he can give you a good estimate of the depth of penetration based on a few photos is sort of like saying that an airline pilot would be able to give you informed critique of the mistakes leading up to a military helicopter crash based on cell phone footage. Both fruits, but truly apples and oranges.

[DocGKR]

SDPD initially used the Winchester 147 gr OSM loading--Wolberg's initial paper published in early 1991 detailed 28 shots with that load, most of which expanded from .53-.58, with a penetration range of 10-17" and an average tissue penetration depth of 13" or so. In gel, this same load had a penetration range of 12-14" and an average expansion of about 13". Wolberg continued collecting OIS data and periodically reported his findings at various conferences and LE training lectures. About 70% of the nearly 150 shootings collected from 1987-2000 by Wolberg were with the Federal 9 MS 147 gr loading which offered a bit more expansion than the OSM loading, but similar penetration.

Autopsy studies need to be correctly and include all relevant crime scene evidence in order to be useful. There are several poorly performed post GSW autopsy studies floating about the internet done by ME's or coroners who did not understand what they were seeing, for example the one from the 2006 PA shooting noted above where the initial report erroneously stated the officers' .40 180 gr bullets only penetrated 2" in tissue. The resulting misinformation has often created quite a bit of controversy...

[Nephrology]

Autopsy studies need to be correctly and include all relevant crime scene evidence in order to be useful. There are several poorly performed post GSW autopsy studies floating about the internet done by ME's or coroners who did not understand what they were seeing, for example the one from the 2006 PA shooting noted above where the initial report erroneously stated the officers' .40 180 gr bullets only penetrated 2" in tissue. The resulting misinformation has often created quite a bit of controversy...

Agreed - hence my skepticism that an internist would be able to properly evaluate an OIS via internet photography alone...

[okie john]

Watching Doc calmly address the derp in this thread is like watching a Jedi handle a mouthy paraplegic.


Okie John

[Malamute]

The question of where the source of encouragement for FMJ over expanding loads is slowly coming out, without the questions asked about that being directly answered. I may have missed something, but so far, it seems that Brassfetcher is one source, with 4 years experience in wound ballistics work, and a lot of self directed video work on youtube, and an un-named MD that doesn't specialize in GSW treatment or wound ballistics. OK, sounds reasonable to trust them over an entire field of study, with a number of people that have decades of experience studying the subject, and regular conferences discussing the research and study results, and comparing them to actual shootings and bullet performance. I think I've finally "got it".

[BehindBlueI's]

A qualified M.D. has sufficient information from the autopsy detail, both pictorial and very descriptive, to closely approximate the bullet path (within an inch or so). One does not need to poke a rod into a wound channel to get a fairly good approximation of the depth of the channel. No claim is made for laser precision, of course (and is hardly necessary to be useful).

You're outsmarting yourself.


Feel free to accept whatever information you deem credible, from whatever expert. I'll accept anything from anyone, as long as it has merit.

Enlighten yourself instead of blindly following whatever "expert"! Yes, I know, that's not easy....

The fact he's a doctor doesn't grant him any expertise. I've seen plenty of docs and coroners who thought they knew things they didn't know because they only get to see their little piece of the puzzle. They are the blind men holding different pieces of the elephant. It's no different than an LEO who's never been in a shooting, never worked a shooting, and went his entire career where there's maybe one homicide a year (or less) and is an expert because....LEO.

I'll let you in on something. Coroners only get to see the ones who died, and unless the detective is feeling chatty have no information on what the scene looked like. Docs may never see a GSW, but let's assume they work a busy ER in a "transitional neighborhood" and do. They don't get to see the ones that are DRT, and any ER doc here can correct me if I'm wrong but I've never seen them measure a wound's depth, know what caliber/bullet was used, and again unless the patient is chatty, they have no idea what the scene looked like (was the guy shot through a door? Was he shot from 3' away or 75y away?) While each has something valid to add to the conversation, they are seldom able to see the whole puzzle and to have limited background in firearms/bullets (they can't tell a Gold Dot from a HST, in other words).

Sample sizes of one or two are meaningless. I had a .44 magnum penetrate 6" in soft tissue. Hard case LRN, zero deformation. I've also had a .380 FMJ go entirely through the abdomen, front to back, of an extremely obese male. So what did you just learn? Nothing. You don't know if there were intermediate barriers, what kind of ammunition was used (soft cowboy load, handload, buffalo bore super duper penetration load?) bullet weight, etc. However based on a sample size of one and Internet rules of what's a fact, you now "know" that a .44 magnum penetrates less than a .380. Even as a detective who gets to see the live ones, the dead ones, and to often get to see the scene and recreate the shooting, I often don't get to know what kind of bullet was used. I can look at the bullet if it's plucked out of the victim, but I don't know enough to tell one HP from another. If I have brass I can make an educated guess from there. If I have unspent cartridges in the gun, that's the most reliable way, and since not everyone sticks around after shooting someone, that information isn't always available. Some CCW type folks who shoot a bad guy don't even know themselves what type of ammo they had, or they stagger bullets because they saw it on the Internet...

I'll be the last person to tell you gel block tests are the end-all be-all. They don't measure psychological effect, and while some folks here get a panty bunching when I mention it, most stops are psychological even if they ultimately prove fatal. I suspect, but cannot prove, that louder cartridges have more of an effect and there's some old timers who will tell you the muzzle flash of the early .357 magnums were likely part of their reputation for one shot stops. However they are useful and, along with the testing protocols, have proven to be an analogue to how well things work in real use.

In short, if you aren't just trolling keep in mind that not every claim to expertise is truly expertise. If you'll take your barber's advice on auto repairs over a mechanic because they've both seen a car thus both have equal credibility and something to add, well, that's on you. Odds are it will never matter in this context.

Out of curiosity, though, why do you keep avoiding saying what your carry ammo is? I carry bonded HP in a heavy for caliber weight. Federal Tactical Bonded .40, 180gr, which we've used for a long time and since we average a PAS about every month have a lot of data to support it working. Winchester PDX-1 bonded for my .357 magnum. Winchester PDX-1 or Federal HST for my .45...based primarily on ammo availability.

[Nephrology]

Docs may never see a GSW, but let's assume they work a busy ER in a "transitional neighborhood" and do. They don't get to see the ones that are DRT, and any ER doc here can correct me if I'm wrong but I've never seen them measure a wound's depth, know what caliber/bullet was used, and again unless the patient is chatty, they have no idea what the scene looked like (was the guy shot through a door? Was he shot from 3' away or 75y away?)

With the caveat being that I am still a baby doc, in our ED the only thing that really matters to us is - 1) Are they dying right now, if not 2) is there a danger of them dying soon (blood pressure? pulses? heart rate? intraabdominal/intrathoracic bleeding? etc)

and then, after all that - 3) Where were they shot? 4) how many times? This helps us above question #2 and is part of our initial physical exam. We pretty much push them to surgery right away, the only question is what do we have to do before that happens (push blood/fluids, manage tension pneumo/hemothorax, imaging for the surgeons + to assess for bleeding, thoracotomy in extreme cases, etc). Surgery manages pretty much everything from there.

All this to say that even an experienced ER doc that sees a lot of penetrating trauma will probably never be in the position of carefully inspecting GSWs as they become surgery patients right away, and before they become surgery patients the doc has a LOT more on their mind than whether it was a 147gr or a 180gr JHP. Personally, I can tell by looking at a patient if it's a pistol/rifle/shotgun injury but that's really it.

Anyone with more experience can feel free to chime in and correct me if I am wrong.

[DocGKR]

"They don't measure psychological effect, and while some folks here get a panty bunching when I mention it, most stops are psychological even if they ultimately prove fatal. I suspect, but cannot prove, that louder cartridges have more of an effect and there's some old timers who will tell you the muzzle flash of the early .357 magnums were likely part of their reputation for one shot stops."

This--probably 50% of GSW victims psychologically choose to cease their actions vs. being physiologically forced to stop...

[RJ]

Ok, cool.

What is *your* carry load?

As I've mentioned, I find 9mm GD 124+ps a little hard to find, and they pop a bit more than I'd like for my wife and I. So I carry the regular, GD 124 JHPs, knowing I give up a bit of performance. I spend more time on personal fitness, dry fire and training to enhance my shot placement.




Got to go, but I will extend you the courtesy of a reply. ..

*dink dink*

Is this thing on?

Yo, buddy, question for ya above...carry load? You know, what you prefer?

With all the posts about the debate about the effectiveness of FMJ vs. JHP, I thought I might learn something about YOUR choice, given you have expounded voluminously on the subject.

But I guess not.

Adios.

[Malamute]

*dink dink*

Is this thing on?

Yo, buddy, question for ya above...carry load? You know, what you prefer?

With all the posts about the debate about the effectiveness of FMJ vs. JHP, I thought I might learn something about YOUR choice, given you have expounded voluminously on the subject.

But I guess not.

Adios.


Wait,....is Curl Brownie?

Many unanswered questions of substance, insistence on outdated methods with vague answers as to why, without solid reasoning why, (and/or in Brownies case, unwilling to go side by side to compare methods and scores in drills and tests).

[curl]

Well, I would hope he is board certified if he is practicing medicine...

If the photos you refer to are the ones I am thinking of (OIS in PA with multiple .223/.40S&W GSWs) then I only recall there being a few photographs. Assuming we are thinking of the same data, I would be very skeptical of your friend's ability to accurately interpret depth of penetration, for a variety of reasons :

1. He is an internist. Not to say he is a bad doc or that internists are not intelligent, but fundamentally what he does for a living is only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Beyond what exposure to anatomy/surgery/trauma he got in medical school, I would be quite surprised if in his daily job he does any substantial surgical/forensic exploration or measurement of human anatomy. Furthermore, he is not in a surgical specialty, so the way he relates to anatomy is not going to be as specifically informed as someone who cuts for a living.

2. If it is the OIS I have in mind, the data was really quite limited. I recall there being maybe 3-6 photos of the cadaver total. I don't even recall anything giving the height/weight of the cadaver or any rulers placed against the GSWs in question. Also, like I said, if I was being asked to estimate depth of penetration + bullet path through a cadaver, I would want at least half a dozen or more images from multiple angles of each GSW in question, in addition to some sort of medical imaging (minimum of an AP and lateral X-ray, ideally an abdominal/chest CT with additional films of each limb affected). You really can't say with certainty what structures the bullet impacted without getting some kind of film. If we are thinking of different OISes, then I apologize and would appreciate a link to the information you had in mind.

Again, I am sure your friend is a great doc, but to say he can give you a good estimate of the depth of penetration based on a few photos is sort of like saying that an airline pilot would be able to give you informed critique of the mistakes leading up to a military helicopter crash based on cell phone footage. Both fruits, but truly apples and oranges.

Firstly, we apparently are not discussing the same autopsy case and thus available information which, as previously pointed out, includes detailed description of the wound track; thus your assessment of what a qualified M.D. could estimate in terms of the wound channel with the autopsy detail that I am referring to is groundless. Regarding board certification in internal medicine; it is not necessary to be board certified to practice -- in general-- but is if you want to be on staff within a university medical school and hospital, or other prestigious medical institution. Based on the autopsy detail that I am referring to, a decent internist could certainly estimate, within the error previously mentioned, the extent of bullet penetration. If the members/moderators of this forum are not interested in this estimation, that's certainly not something I will pursue here. As free moral agents, we certainly get to hold whatever beliefs we choose, for whatever reason.

[Malamute]

...If the members/moderators of this forum are not interested in this estimation, that's certainly not something I will pursue here. As free moral agents, we certainly get to hold whatever beliefs we choose, for whatever reason.


I think many would be interested in hearing more. More hasn't been very forthcoming on your part in several subjects so far though. Please proceed. I'm certain any useful information will be well received. Seriously.


Last sentence. Interesting.

[Lomshek]

Where's the brick wall emoticon?

[GJM]

This--probably 50% of GSW victims psychologically choose to cease their actions vs. being physiologically forced to stop...

I would be interested in the stats for this, and how they were derived. For the sake of discussion, if it is exactly 50%, and there is no difference between JHP and FMJ in causing a psychological stop, it shouldn't really matter what you are shooting in the cases that are pyschological stops?

What is interesting, in terms of the performance of bullets, are the instances where you need a physiological stop. The trade off would seem to between sufficient penetration and maximum expansion. In the hunting fields, you don't rely on psychological stops, but instead need physiological stops to harvest an animal. With some exceptions, hunters choose expanding bullets since they often cause more damage than solid, non expanding bullets. Exceptions being on animals like an elephant, and with certain lower velocity cartridges, where a solid is required to get necessary penetration. Expansion being desirable until there is insufficient penetration.

[RJ]

Wait,....is Curl Brownie?

Many unanswered questions of substance, insistence on outdated methods with vague answers as to why, without solid reasoning why, (and/or in Brownies case, unwilling to go side by side to compare methods and scores in drills and tests).

Woah...well, never thought of that.

Is there a picture of his helmet?

[curl]

I would be interested in the stats for this, and how they were derived. For the sake of discussion, if it is exactly 50%, and there is no difference between JHP and FMJ in causing a psychological stop, it shouldn't really matter what you are shooting in the cases that are pyschological stops?

What is interesting, in terms of the performance of bullets, are the instances where you need a physiological stop. The trade off would seem to between sufficient penetration and maximum expansion. In the hunting fields, you don't rely on psychological stops, but instead need physiological stops to harvest an animal. With some exceptions, hunters choose expanding bullets since they often cause more damage than solid, non expanding bullets. Exceptions being on animals like an elephant, and with certain lower velocity cartridges, where a solid is required to get necessary penetration. Expansion being desirable until there is insufficient penetration.

FMJ, JHP, or caliber matter little in a psychological stop. It has been estimated that over 90% of would-be criminals cease and desist by just pointing a gun at them, loaded or not. The issue becomes what about those that need to be physiologically stopped, with as few shots as possible in any given situation.

[RJ]

Where's the brick wall emoticon?

5233

[curl]

*dink dink*

Is this thing on?

Yo, buddy, question for ya above...carry load? You know, what you prefer?

With all the posts about the debate about the effectiveness of FMJ vs. JHP, I thought I might learn something about YOUR choice, given you have expounded voluminously on the subject.

But I guess not.

Adios.

I've previously mentioned Ranger Bonded, controlled expansion, as probably adequate; heavy for caliber as fast as possible, but within SAAMI.

[BehindBlueI's]

I would be interested in the stats for this, and how they were derived. For the sake of discussion, if it is exactly 50%, and there is no difference between JHP and FMJ in causing a psychological stop, it shouldn't really matter what you are shooting in the cases that are pyschological stops?

What is interesting, in terms of the performance of bullets, are the instances where you need a physiological stop. The trade off would seem to between sufficient penetration and maximum expansion. In the hunting fields, you don't rely on psychological stops, but instead need physiological stops to harvest an animal. With some exceptions, hunters choose expanding bullets since they often cause more damage than solid, non expanding bullets. Exceptions being on animals like an elephant, and with certain lower velocity cartridges, where a solid is required to get necessary penetration. Expansion being desirable until there is insufficient penetration.

Anecdotally, I'd say its over 50%. I suppose how you define "stopped" will matter, and also if you count people who could fight for, say, 5 seconds before physically giving out but don't.

My stats show that roughly half of self defense shootings don't even hit but put the suspect in flight, what I would consider a stop. Of those who hit, roughly half are serious injury or fatal (serious like paralyzed or massive blood loss), which would jive with Doc pretty well as he is specifically talking about those actually wounded.

People with no training and no stress inoculation tend to drop or flee at ANY injury. Chemically augmented, dedicated, or well trained folks can push through. We had a cop a few years ago who was shit from ambush, non survivable hit that took off the top of his heart, and he got several rounds off and struck his attacker. Compare to the guy who took a .25 to the bladder, fell, and crab walked backwards as he took more fire. No plan, no training, OODA loop issues.

I believe based on my experiences that smaller injuries create less chance of a stop, particularly in dedicated attackers (ie domestic). Rimfire is easier to shrug off. 9mm ball is easier to shrug off then .357 ball. I don't know him much is due to tissue damage and pain vs panic induced from noise and flash, and don't have any idea how to test it in a controlled setting. In the few .44 magnum shoots I've seen, they have been show stoppers even when the hit wasn't a physical stopper. Groin hit was an instant drop. High shoulder was an instant drop. Gut was an instant drop. Etc.

One of our PAS last year started with the cop shot in the foot, 9mm ball. He shot the bad but with .40 bonded, through the upper abdomen and hit the spine. Bad guy was able to stagger a few yards and take cover/fall behind cover and still shot back blindly until out of ammo. Would he have kept fleeing if nor disabled? That's why its so tough to have precise and meaningful stats.

[BehindBlueI's]

FMJ, JHP, or caliber matter little in a psychological stop. It has been estimated that over 90% of would-be criminals cease and desist by just pointing a gun at them, loaded or not. The issue becomes what about those that need to be physiologically stopped, with as few shots as possible in any given situation.

I'd disagree caliber doesn't matter. I have no opinion on if fmj or HP matter.

[SamAdams]

I've previously mentioned Ranger Bonded, controlled expansion, as probably adequate; heavy for caliber as fast as possible, but within SAAMI.

Your reply provides the opening for a rebuttal - - that is just too easy & obvious.

[curl]

Your reply provides the opening for a rebuttal - - that is just too easy & obvious.

I welcome factual comments, critical or not, about what I stated.

[RJ]

I've previously mentioned Ranger Bonded, controlled expansion, as probably adequate; heavy for caliber as fast as possible, but within SAAMI.

I looked at the 37 posts you made in this thread, dang if I can find where you mentioned your carry load was Ranger bonded. My bad.

In that case, of the loads on Doc's list which one do *you* use for your 9mm loads?

From Doc's list:

"Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester 124 gr +P bonded JHP (RA9BA)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)"

Now, I'm pretty much a noob at this, but I don't have to be really that bright, or fully awake, to notice that those three loads are...Jacketed Hollow Point rounds, no?

What say you to that? I mean, would it not be expected that you would use a FMJ round?

Just sayin'. :cool:

[curl]

I'd disagree caliber doesn't matter. I have no opinion on if fmj or HP matter.

Psychologically, people have been stopped by .22LR as easily as by .44 Mag.

[curl]

I looked at the 37 posts you made in this thread, dang if I can find where you mentioned your carry load was Ranger bonded. My bad.

In that case, of the the loads on Doc's list which one do *you* use for your 9mm loads?

From Doc's list:

"Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester 124 gr +P bonded JHP (RA9BA)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)"

Now, I'm pretty much a noob at this, but I don't have to be really that bright, or fully awake, to notice that those three loads are...Jacketed Hollow Point rounds, no?

What say you to that? I mean, would it not be expected that you would use a FMJ round?

Just sayin'. :cool:
I'm very hesitant to get into "caliber wars," as it is almost never productive. Having said that, I do not cherish 9mm, even though, yes, it could "work."

[Tamara]

Rich,

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if he ever answers the question directly and not elliptically or evasively, it will be 230gr FMJ. Just a hunch.

[SamAdams]

I welcome factual comments, critical or not, about what I stated.

O.K. I'll spell it out for you though Rich Jenkins covered it. You spouted off about the 'superiority' of FMJs for SD against two legged threats, but you apparently carry JHPs.

This 19 page thread hasn't been a total waste of time, but nothing said was enough to convince even you - to carry FMJs.

[curl]

Rich,

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if he ever answers the question directly and not elliptically or evasively, it will be 230gr FMJ. Just a hunch.
180 grain RB in 40 cal, 230 grain RB in .45ACP.

[RJ]

I'm very hesitant to get into "caliber wars," as it is almost never productive. Having said that, I do not cherish 9mm, even though, yes, it could "work."

Who said anything about caliber? I just asked what your carry ammo was.

You seem to be missing the point.

Here, let me spell it out for you:



1. You've spent 39 (and counting) posts extolling the virtures of FMJ ammunition, going against years of factual evidence and the professional opinions of acknowledged industry experts.

2. And yet, when questioned about *your* personal selection, to, you know, back up your opinion, by putting your life on the line selecting a carry ammo, you obfuscate, obstruct, avoid, and skirt around a simple, direct question.

3. Why would I not conclude that you therefore have nothing substantive, to offer this relative newcomer to the question of what carry ammo to use?

[curl]

O.K. I'll spell it out for you though Rich Jenkins covered it. You spouted off about the 'superiority' of FMJs for SD against two legged threats, but you apparently carry JHPs.

This 19 page thread hasn't been a total waste of time, but nothing said was enough to convince even you - to carry FMJs.
You obviously have not read my previous posts, where I make it quite clear that my preference is for JHPs, if those JHPs are unlikely to under penetrate. The only thing worse than a FMJ is an under penetrating JHP.

[RJ]

180 grain RB in 40 cal, 230 grain RB in .45ACP.

Excellent!

Somebody help me, these are jacketed hollow point rounds, right?

From Doc's list:

Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (RA40B/Q4355/S40SWPDB1)

Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

[Tamara]

180 grain RB in 40 cal, 230 grain RB in .45ACP.

#IStandCorrected

[curl]

Who said anything about caliber? I just asked what your carry ammo was.

You seem to be missing the point.

Here, let me spell it out for you:



1. You've spent 39 (and counting) posts extolling the virtures of FMJ ammunition, going against years of factual evidence and the professional opinions of acknowledged industry experts.

2. And yet, when questioned about *your* personal selection, to, you know, back up your opinion, by putting your life on the line selecting a carry ammo, you obfuscate, obstruct, avoid, and skirt around a simple, direct question.

3. Why would I not conclude that you therefore have nothing substantive, to offer this relative newcomer to the question of what carry ammo to use?



Again, 180 gr. RB in 40 cal, 230 gr. in .45 ACP.

[RJ]

The question of where the source of encouragement for FMJ over expanding loads is slowly coming out, without the questions asked about that being directly answered. I may have missed something, but so far, it seems that Brassfetcher is one source, with 4 years experience in wound ballistics work, and a lot of self directed video work on youtube, and an un-named MD that doesn't specialize in GSW treatment or wound ballistics. OK, sounds reasonable to trust them over an entire field of study, with a number of people that have decades of experience studying the subject, and regular conferences discussing the research and study results, and comparing them to actual shootings and bullet performance. I think I've finally "got it".

Excellent post. ^^^.

I think I get it also. Having selected a carry ammo, I will continue to work on physical fitness, training, dry fire, and training, focusing on shot placement. As to this thread, my work here is done. :cool:

[curl]

Excellent post. ^^^.

I think I get it also. Having selected a carry ammo, I will continue to work on physical fitness, training, dry fire, and training, focusing on shot placement. As to this thread, my work here is done. :cool:
The more you train, the less important is the choice of your carry ammo. If you have doubt about adequacy of your carry ammo, more training will surely compensate for it!

[Nephrology]

Firstly, we apparently are not discussing the same autopsy case and thus available information which, as previously pointed out, includes detailed description of the wound track; thus your assessment of what a qualified M.D. could estimate in terms of the wound channel with the autopsy detail that I am referring to is groundless.

I am not sure if I understand why you think this invalidates my point, but I would appreciate you forwarding me the details of the autopsy in question.


Regarding board certification in internal medicine; it is not necessary to be board certified to practice -- in general-- but is if you want to be on staff within a university medical school and hospital, or other prestigious medical institution.

You are correct in that you only need to have graduated taken USMLE Step 3 to practice medicine independently, but in practice I have never met a physician worth his or her salt who was not also boarded in their specialty/subspecialty. This isn't just for 'prestigious' medical institutions, but basically any community hospital or group practice I have ever been to (I have lived in Portland, OR; Rochester, MN; various cities in Connecticut, and currently live in Denver, CO).


Based on the autopsy detail that I am referring to, a decent internist could certainly estimate, within the error previously mentioned, the extent of bullet penetration.

I still don't understand why you think this. There is very little in the curriculum of either medical school or an internal medicine residency that gives you the ability to evaluate traumatic injury to any substantial degree. This is something much more likely to be taught as part of a surgical residency program or maybe some emergency residency programs. The closest they might get is reading films, but reading a CXR isn't really the same thing as doing an

[curl]

I am not sure if I understand why you think this invalidates my point, but I would appreciate you forwarding me the details of the autopsy in question.



You are correct in that you only need to have graduated taken USMLE Step 3 to practice medicine independently, but in practice I have never met a physician worth his or her salt who was not also boarded in their specialty/subspecialty. This isn't just for 'prestigious' medical institutions, but basically any community hospital or group practice I have ever been to (I have lived in Portland, OR; Rochester, MN; various cities in Connecticut, and currently live in Denver, CO).



I still don't understand why you think this. There is very little in the curriculum of either medical school or an internal medicine residency that gives you the ability to evaluate traumatic injury to any substantial degree. This is something much more likely to be taught as part of a surgical residency program or maybe some emergency residency programs. The closest they might get is reading films, but reading a CXR isn't really the same thing as doing an

As previously mentioned, the autopsy link is available on Beretta forum, in a quite recent similar topic thread. Previous autopsies that I have seen do not provide quite as much information as THIS one does; both pictorial and detailed description detail of the bullet path. With this information, undoubtedly medical students could get a darn good idea of the distance the bullet traveled. Bullet penetration in a body is not exact science, of course; if it was, get testing would be utterly useless.

[Joe in PNG]

Curl, a little refresher on science, and how to prove things scientifically may be in order. Because that is not what you are doing.
Basically, to prove something, you need to do the following:
1) Hypothesis- this thing does this because of this
2) Data- Here's the numbers to back this up
2a) You need to actually provide actual numbers, and lots and lots of numbers for this to work
2b) You also need to actually name the names of actual people. Vauge reference to the work of unnamed individuals is pure fail here.
2c) The data needs to be repeatable- the same test under the same circumstances done by different people.
3) Conclusion- Because of 1) & 2), this thing is true.

You are failing to provide things like actual data, or links to people doing actual research. Please start over, and present your argument scientifically, using the 1-2-3 outline above, kthanx.

[curl]

Curl, a little refresher on science, and how to prove things scientifically may be in order. Because that is not what you are doing.
Basically, to prove something, you need to do the following:
1) Hypothesis- this thing does this because of this
2) Data- Here's the numbers to back this up
2a) You need to actually provide actual numbers, and lots and lots of numbers for this to work
2b) You also need to actually name the names of actual people. Vauge reference to the work of unnamed individuals is pure fail here.
2c) The data needs to be repeatable- the same test under the same circumstances done by different people.
3) Conclusion- Because of 1) & 2), this thing is true.

You are failing to provide things like actual data, or links to people doing actual research. Please start over, and present your argument scientifically, using the 1-2-3 outline above, kthanx.
I have made no claim of any scientific proof; indeed I have not seen any scientific proofs in any firearms related Internet forums. I have specifically mentioned that I view the results of the referenced autopsy as an interesting and useful data point. Incidentally, thanks for "a little refresher on science."

[Jared]

The more you train, the less important is the choice of your carry ammo. If you have doubt about adequacy of your carry ammo, more training will surely compensate for it!

I don't think you've provided one single valid data point that should cause anyone that is currently carrying ammo that is recommended on DocGKR's list to have any doubt about the adequacy of their carry ammo.

Watching folks trying to get any actual valid data out of you has been like watching someone try to nail Jell-O to a wall. The fact that you came flat out and said that you carry JHP ammo in this thread further undermines everything you've said espousing the virtues of FMJ in calibers where good JHP options exist.

[BehindBlueI's]

Psychologically, people have been stopped by .22LR as easily as by .44 Mag.

But not in the same proportions Again, I've worked easily hundreds of people shot. I've specifically mentioned rimfire and .44 mag and the results I've seen in actual shootings. What I don't know is how much is due to the noise/muzzle blast and how much due to actual physical damage/pain.

Sure, some people die from a 3' fall, and some people survive a 50' fall. That's useless information. You have to know the denominator as well as the numerator for any meaningful information to be gleaned.

[curl]

I don't think you've provided one single valid data point that should cause anyone that is currently carrying ammo that is recommended on DocGKR's list to have any doubt about the adequacy of their carry ammo.

Watching folks trying to get any actual valid data out of you has been like watching someone try to nail Jell-O to a wall. The fact that you came flat out and said that you carry JHP ammo in this thread further undermines everything you've said espousing the virtues of FMJ in calibers where good JHP options exist.

There is actually no inconsistency whatsoever in what I posted regarding FMJ vs. JHP; however, I fully realize that even the Gospels are subject to misinterpretation. I am still willing, with an assistance of a highly qualified Medical Doctor, to utilize detailed autopsy report to present in this forum the approximate penetration depths of sixteen 9mm JHPs fired into a teenager by a police officer. If this information is not welcomed here, it will certainly not be presented here. It's up to the moderator/s of this forum.

[Welder]

If it's easy for you to find, would you mind linking to the autopsy stuff from Beretta Forum? Either a direct link to autopsy info or a link to the post on BF about it would be great.

So here's the original thread on BF that caused me to start this one on PF: http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=120516

Post 69 by .Aerindel. in the above thread sends us to another BF thread: http://berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=119878

Which has links to autopsy results of Laquan McDonald (who was shot 16 times and almost has to be the referenced case) found here: http://invisible.institute/news/autopsy-of-laquan-mcdonald

Hope these direct answers help the discussion move along. ;)

[Nephrology]

As previously mentioned, the autopsy link is available on Beretta forum, in a quite recent similar topic thread. Previous autopsies that I have seen do not provide quite as much information as THIS one does; both pictorial and detailed description detail of the bullet path. With this information, undoubtedly medical students could get a darn good idea of the distance the bullet traveled. Bullet penetration in a body is not exact science, of course; if it was, get testing would be utterly useless.



Which has links to autopsy results of Laquan McDonald (who was shot 16 times and almost has to be the referenced case) found here: http://invisible.institute/news/autopsy-of-laquan-mcdonald

Presuming you are referring to this link (there is no photographic information at the link attached), I can state with confidence that you could not get the depth of penetration with anyone's help but God's. The coroner does a fine job explaining the structures damaged but without photographs (and ideally a film or 6) you can't figure how far each individual bullet went.

Any medical student can tell you that anatomy varies incredibly from person to person. Without photographs and films (and then again, maybe even with) you can't say how deep the bullets went because you don't know the dimensions of the structures they penetrated. I'm assuming that there are photos somewhere - if you could please post a direct link I would very much appreciate it. I am not going to go digging through an entire forum to find this information when you presumably already know where it is and can post the link on your own.

[Wondering Beard]

Well, I've finally found a use for the 'Ignore' button (I haven't even thought of using it for Brownie because that level of silliness carries its own mirth) but in this case the amount of sophomoric ineptitude, mangled arguments and absence of self awareness just gets boring.

[Hambo]

Just wait...PFestivus will be here before you know it. :D

[Joe in PNG]

I have made no claim of any scientific proof; indeed I have not seen any scientific proofs in any firearms related Internet forums. I have specifically mentioned that I view the results of the referenced autopsy as an interesting and useful data point. Incidentally, thanks for "a little refresher on science."

Curl, you still do not seem to know just how to prove a point. You are a classic case of pseudo-scientific argument. Lots of out of context factoids without attribution, lots of questioning established facts without providing alternate data sets, lots of... well, anything except Hypothesis->Data->Conclusion.

Whatever you are trying to accomplish, you are failing at it, and failing really really hard. If you are attacking the accepted consensus, you must provide an alternate data set by accepted experts.
The fact that you will not provide alternate data sets tends to indicate that you can not provide alternate data to support your Hypothesis. That you are prevaricating, evading, and weaseling to cover up that you do not have data to prove what you are saying. That you are just spouting pseudoscience.

[TR675]

Interesting thread. Reminds me of something. I have some questions about whether or not to vaccinate my nine month old son and was wondering if this is a good thread to ask them in.

I understand that there is a lot of "science" out there regarding vaccinations but I dislike or reject or question it for reasons that I may or may not make clear over the course of many posts supported by sources and evidence I prefer to avoid mentioning. Would anyone like to engage me in a long and pointless discussion?

[SLG]

Interesting thread. Reminds me of something. I have some questions about whether or not to vaccinate my nine month old son and was wondering if this is a good thread to ask them in.

I understand that there is a lot of "science" out there regarding vaccinations but I dislike or reject or question it for reasons that I may or may not make clear over the course of many posts supported by sources and evidence I prefer to avoid mentioning. Would anyone like to engage me in a long and pointless discussion?

This is a very tough question you pose, but since I'm not a Dr., I feel eminently qualified to address it.

[Hauptmann]

http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p637/scottomega76/168cdbf5990442e21e2589e31b98222c_zpspiuwo8gv.jpg (http://s1159.photobucket.com/user/scottomega76/media/168cdbf5990442e21e2589e31b98222c_zpspiuwo8gv.jpg.h tml)

[Nephrology]

This is a very tough question you pose, but since I'm not a Dr., I feel eminently qualified to address it.


Interesting thread. Reminds me of something. I have some questions about whether or not to vaccinate my nine month old son and was wondering if this is a good thread to ask them in.

I understand that there is a lot of "science" out there regarding vaccinations but I dislike or reject or question it for reasons that I may or may not make clear over the course of many posts supported by sources and evidence I prefer to avoid mentioning. Would anyone like to engage me in a long and pointless discussion?

Thanks for reminding me why I need to get me another prescription for beta blockers.

[BehindBlueI's]

Thanks for reminding me why I need to get me another prescription for beta blockers.

The sunglasses? You need a prescription for those?

At the risk of upping the fuckery quotient in this thread, I think vaccines are fine as long as you don't mix them with glutens. I pick the glutens off my food, personally.

[curl]

Presuming you are referring to this link (there is no photographic information at the link attached), I can state with confidence that you could not get the depth of penetration with anyone's help but God's. The coroner does a fine job explaining the structures damaged but without photographs (and ideally a film or 6) you can't figure how far each individual bullet went.

Any medical student can tell you that anatomy varies incredibly from person to person. Without photographs and films (and then again, maybe even with) you can't say how deep the bullets went because you don't know the dimensions of the structures they penetrated. I'm assuming that there are photos somewhere - if you could please post a direct link I would very much appreciate it. I am not going to go digging through an entire forum to find this information when you presumably already know where it is and can post the link on your own.

Description of the wound track is clear enough to make a good estimation of the distance between bullet entry and recovery. For example regarding bullet #2: (soft tissue only neck wound) Entry is 11" from the top of the head and 2" left of anterior midline and recovery is 12" from the top of the head and 5" right of anterior midline; this makes the distance between entry and recovery approximately 7.5". This is a matter of simple geometry and hardly requires "God's help."

[DocGKR]

Only if the bullet goes in a straight line, which is not always the case...

[curl]

From the detailed description this bullet did essentially go in a straight line:"Direction is left to right, SLIGHTLY front to back, and SLIGHTLY downward.

[Nephrology]

Description of the wound track is clear enough to make a good estimation of the distance between bullet entry and recovery. For example regarding bullet #2: (soft tissue only neck wound) Entry is 11" from the top of the head and 2" left of anterior midline and recovery is 12" from the top of the head and 5" right of anterior midline; this makes the distance between entry and recovery approximately 7.5". This is a matter of simple geometry and hardly requires "God's help."

You are not reading this correctly. Note that you are reading a description of a GSW in the neck (marked #2 on the diagram). The description "11" from the top of the head and 2" left of anterior midline" is giving you the X and Y coordinates of where the coroner is visualizing the bullet to have entered, not how deeply it traveled. i.e. measuring 11" down from the top of the head and going left 2" from anterior midline would place entry wound just above the left clavicle (on me). This is supported by the coroner's illustration on the cover page of her report.

To estimate the depth of penetration, you would need a different set of measures entirely (the Z axis), which are not provided in this report. This is, as you put it, "simple geometry." We cannot estimate the depth in the Z dimension with just X and Y alone, without making gross assumptions about the depth of the subject's torso.

To illustrate how to read the coroner's descriptions -

http://i.imgur.com/wFLzo7t.jpg

(I know that the exit wound is 12" and not 11" below the top of the head but I am lazy, it is late, and this will have to suffice).

An example of where depth is 100% impossible to ascertain because of the lack of Z dimension, GSW #15, entry in the lower right back:

15. GUNSHOT WOUND OF THE RIGHT LOWER BACK:

There is a gunshot wound of entrance of the right lower back
located 28 inches from the top of the head and 1-7/8 inches
right of posterior midline. The 3/16 1/8 inch ovoid wound has
a circumferential, moist, pink marginal abrasion that measures
1/16 inch at 12 o'clock, 1/8 inch at 3 o'clock, 1/16 inch at 6
o'clock and l/16 inch at 9 o'clock. There is no soot or
stippling.

After perforating the skin and subcutaneous tissue of the right
lower back, the bullet subsequently perforates the sacrum, the
abdominal cavity and the musculature of the left side of the
abdomen.

A moderately deformed, copper?jacketed, medium caliber bullet is
recovered from the soft tissue of the left abdominal wall
approximately 25 inches from the top of the head and
approximately 2 inches left of anterior midline. The bullet is
photographed, sealed within an appropriately labeled envelope
and submitted to a representative of the Chicago Police
Department.

Associated with this wound is a fracture of the sacrum as well
as hemorrhage and pulpifaction of the wound track.

The direction is back to front, right to left and upward."

All we know is -

1. The bullet entered the right lower back at the location specified ( X= -28" from the top of the head, Y= 1 7/8" right from posterior midline)

2. From there, the bullet penetrated a distance of Z inches and was recovered in the abdominal wall of the deceased at X = -25" and Y= ~2" left from the umbilicus.

Without knowing Z, we have no depth of penetration. Furthermore, we also know that this bullet managed to fracture the sacrum during its path of travel, further obfuscating our interpretation of depth, as the bullet almost certainly deviated at least a small degree after hitting a dense flat bone like the sacrum.

Again, illustrated -

http://i.imgur.com/1djWC38.jpg

[curl]

You are not reading this correctly. Note that you are reading a description of a GSW in the neck (marked #2 on the diagram). The description "11" from the top of the head and 2" left of anterior midline" is giving you the X and Y coordinates of where the coroner is visualizing the bullet to have entered, not how deeply it traveled. i.e. measuring 11" down from the top of the head and going left 2" from anterior midline would place entry wound just above the left clavicle (on me). This is supported by the coroner's illustration on the cover page of her report.

To estimate the depth of penetration, you would need a different set of measures entirely (the Z axis), which are not provided in this report.

To illustrate how to read the coroner's descriptions -

http://i.imgur.com/wFLzo7t.jpg

(I know that the exit wound is 12" and not 11" below the top of the head but I am lazy, it is late, and this will have to suffice).
I am reading it correctly, and there is NO exit wound. The bullet entered 11" below top of the head and was recovered 12" below top of the head, after traveling left to right 7.0". Using simple Pythagorean theorem, that distance (in two dimensions) is 7.07". Note: "Direction is left to right (7.0") and SLIGHTLY (12"-11"=1.0") downward," and this planar path (7.07") has now been taken into account. Further, "direction is SLIGHTLY front to back" so if it's 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5" front to back distance it doesn't really matter much because the final distance will be the square root of (7.07" squared + (SLIGHT front to back distance) squared. Obviously, the total distance the bullet traveled in 3-D will be no more than 7.5" with any "SLIGHT" front to back distance.

[Nephrology]

I am reading it correctly, and there is NO exit wound. The bullet entered 11" below top of the head and was recovered 12" below top of the head, after traveling left to right 7.0". Using simple Pythagorean theorem, that distance (in two dimensions) is 7.07". Note: "Direction is left to right (7.0") and SLIGHTLY (12"-11"=1.0") downward," and this planar path (7.07") has now been taken into account. Further, "direction is SLIGHTLY front to back" so if it's 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5" front to back distance it doesn't really matter much because the final distance will be the square root of (7.07" squared + (SLIGHT front to back distance) squared. Obviously, the total distance the bullet traveled in 3-D will be no more than 7.5" with any "SLIGHT" front to back distance.

...the Pythagorean theorem is used to measure the hypotenuse of a two-dimensional triangle - i.e, 3 points connected on the same plane. Last I checked, humans exist in 3 dimensions.

In the case of GSW #2, you can sort of use your assumption because the bullet is traveling primarily along the Y axis, for which we have a distinct measurement. For the majority of the rest of the penetrating trauma (i.e. GSW #15), you cannot use the Pythagorean theorum, because again, we have no measurement for the Z axis.

[BehindBlueI's]

Exercise:

Take a soft tape measure and hold it to the wall over your kitchen counter. Say, 12" so the end of the tape is under your thumb and 12" is at the edge of the counter. Move the 12" toward you roughly 4-5", note that 12" no longer reaches the counter and you'll need to let out more tape to about 14". This is what you've done so far with your math. Now take the 14" and move it roughly 4-5" left. You'll find the tape no longer touches the counter again and you'll have to let it out another 2" or so to touch.

That's what Nephrology is telling you. You have one triangle, you can do the math to get to the first tape movement. You don't know how far to move the tape the second time, so to speak.

At this point, other than for the sake of argument and to show you don't understand things as well as you think you do, what's the point of continuing? You've already stated you carry bonded HP.

[Nephrology]

You can use Pythagoras' Theorem in 3 dimensions, you essentially just have to do it twice (as curl did in his example in post #215 (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18515-Let-s-talk-about-handgun-FMJ-effectiveness&p=389466&viewfull=1#post389466)). I'd likely be unsuccesful explaining math over the internet in as few words as I'm willing to type, so I'm just use a screenshot of the pertinent portion of this page (http://www.odeion.org/pythagoras/pythag3d.html):

5249

It's also important to remember that 2 points will always be co-planar. They may not reside in the XY, YZ, or ZX planes of an arbitrarily defined cartesian coordinate system, but they will always share a plane (actually they'll share an infinite number of planes since you need 3 points to uniquely define a single plane).

This is a fair counterpoint (2AM is not a time of the day I associate with my strongest mathematical reasoning skills). That said, you still need the "b" value in order to find "h", which is the essence of my point - without knowing the distance between the anterior and posterior boundaries of the cadaver (b), we cannot find h.

[curl]

You can use Pythagoras' Theorem in 3 dimensions, you essentially just have to do it twice (as curl did in his example in post #215 (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18515-Let-s-talk-about-handgun-FMJ-effectiveness&p=389466&viewfull=1#post389466)). I'd likely be unsuccesful explaining math over the internet in as few words as I'm willing to type, so I'm just use a screenshot of the pertinent portion of this page (http://www.odeion.org/pythagoras/pythag3d.html):

5249

It's also important to remember that 2 points will always be co-planar. They may not reside in the XY, YZ, or ZX planes of an arbitrarily defined cartesian coordinate system, but they will always share a plane (actually they'll share an infinite number of planes since you need 3 points to uniquely define a single plane).

That's correct; I assumed that participants in this thread are familiar with simple high-school geometry. So the bullet path in this case, #2, is soft tissue only, penetration of 7.1-7.5". Shall I go on?

[curl]

This is a fair counterpoint (2AM is not a time of the day I associate with my strongest mathematical reasoning skills). That said, you still need the "b" value in order to find "h", which is the essence of my point - without knowing the distance between the anterior and posterior boundaries of the cadaver (b), we cannot find h.

As pointed out previously, it doesn't matter because the depth is "SLIGHT" compared to the 7' lateral penetration. Obviously, that's because when you have a 7" distance squared and you add to it whatever "slight" distance squared, the sum will not change much whatever "slight" is. That's simple math, indeed. The difference in height between entry and retrieval point was 12-11=1" and that was deemed "SLIGHT." So even if the "SLIGHT" difference in depth is twice the "SLIGHT" difference in height, namely 2", it doesn't change the length of the bullet path much, as pointed out above.

[Nephrology]

Can you please explain how you are finding the values d, b, and h, when you are only given c and a?

Also note that there will be two different values for a and c (a' and c'), as the vertical/lateral displacement in the anterior and posterior planes will obviously not be the same.


As pointed out previously, it doesn't matter because the depth is "SLIGHT" compared to the 7' lateral penetration. Obviously, that's because when you have a 7" distance squared and you add to it whatever "slight" distance squared, the sum will not change much whatever "slight" is. That's simple math, indeed. The difference in height between entry and retrieval point was 12-11=1" and that was deemed "SLIGHT." So even if the "SLIGHT" difference in depth is twice the "SLIGHT" difference in height, namely 2", it doesn't change the length of the bullet path much, as pointed out above.

Please apply this reasoning to GSW #15.

[curl]

Can you please explain how you are finding the values d, b, and h, when you are only given c and a?

Also note that there will be two different values for a and c (a' and c'), as the vertical/lateral displacement in the anterior and posterior planes will obviously not be the same.



Please apply this reasoning to GSW #15.

Before we tackle #15, let's settle #2. I take it you don't see how the bullet path calculates close to 7.5". If, you don't see it, define/show precisely what you are referring to as "a-h",so the math can be done in terms of those dimensions. As given from the detailed autopsy we have: lateral penetration of 7", downward ("slight") penetration of 1" (tangent of 1/7), and "slight" front to back penetration. In terms of those specified dimensions, what is your "a,b,c,d, b, h"?

[Nephrology]

Before we tackle #15, let's settle #2. I take it you don't see how the bullet path calculates close to 7.5". If, you don't see it, define/show precisely what you are referring to as "a-h",so the math can be done in terms of those dimensions. As given from the detailed autopsy we have: lateral penetration of 7", downward ("slight") penetration of 1" (tangent of 1/7), and "slight" front to back penetration. In terms of those specified dimensions, what is your "a,b,c,d, b, h"?

I see how you are estimating #2 - as I said many posts back, if the majority of the bullet's displacement is along the X axis and/or Y then your equation roughly fits. Where I am having trouble following your logic is when the bullet penetrates along the depth of the body habitus (i.e. GSW #15, inter alia)

Refer to tom Jones' previous post for the diagram from which I am deriving the variables. For #15, a and c (entry wound) = -28" and right 1 7/8", a' and c' (site where the bullet came to rest along the anterior abdominal wall) = -25" and left 2" (all measurements from top of the head and midline, respectively)

[curl]

I see how you are estimating #2 - as I said many posts back, if the majority of the bullet's displacement is along the X axis and/or Y then your equation roughly fits. Where I am having trouble following your logic is when the bullet penetrates along the depth of the body habitus (i.e. GSW #15, inter alia)

Refer to tom Jones' previous post for the diagram from which I am deriving the variables. For #15, a and c (entry wound) = -28" and right 1 7/8", a' and c' (site where the bullet came to rest along the anterior abdominal wall) = -25" and left 2" (all measurements from top of the head and midline, respectively)

So you accept that the bullet penetration path length for #2 is most probably 7.1 - 7.5" long?

[BehindBlueI's]

So you accept that the bullet penetration path length for #2 is most probably 7.1 - 7.5" long?


At this point, other than for the sake of argument and to show you don't understand things as well as you think you do, what's the point of continuing? You've already stated you carry bonded HP.

What do you think you learn from such a small sample size, or is it just you want to be right about something in this discussion, no matter how irrelevant to the actual fmj vs hp topic? Like I said a loooong time ago, bullets do weird shit inside the body, and I have seen .44 penetrate less than .380. So what?

[Nephrology]

So you accept that the bullet penetration path length for #2 is most probably 7.1 - 7.5" long?

I accept that your estimation is probably closer than a random number generator in the case of GSW #2. Please explain to me how you could apply the same math to arrive at a conclusion for the depth of penetration of GSW #15.

[curl]

What do you think you learn from such a small sample size, or is it just you want to be right about something in this discussion, no matter how irrelevant to the actual fmj vs hp topic? Like I said a loooong time ago, bullets do weird shit inside the body, and I have seen .44 penetrate less than .380. So what?

You do make a decent point; any one bullet can do "weird" things in a body. However, the FBI made REALLY A LOT out of failure of ONE bullet to penetrate sufficiently in ONE individual! The fact is that even if that 115 gr. 9mm ST penetrated 12" or 13" in gel (instead of under 9") it still would not have been enough if Platt's arm was not close to his body when he was shot by Dove (let alone if, in addition, the bullet hit his humerus and/or rib) -- the widely accepted notion that 12-13" JHP penetration -- in gel--- is adequate, notwithstanding. That's why some, including me, prefer FMJs over JHPs that have a significant risk of under penetration.

[DocGKR]

Using geometry to calculate penetration depth based on entry and exit points only works if the bullet track in tissue is in a straight line; as noted earlier, bullets do NOT always follow a straight path in the body...

Secondly, when evaluating penetration depth characteristics, it is important to know what intervening obstacles the projectile might have struck prior to hitting tissue--that information is often missing from surgical and postmortem medical reports.

While hitting the humerus or femur and have a significant effect on bullet penetration depth, ribs tend to have much less of an effect (ex. see Dahlstrom and Powley's RCMP handgun study)

[curl]

I accept that your estimation is probably closer than a random number generator in the case of GSW #2. Please explain to me how you could apply the same math to arrive at a conclusion for the depth of penetration of GSW #15.

Is that a random number generator with a range of 7.1-7.5, or a random number generator from 0 to infinity? Narrow it down, to add a bit of clarity. Where's significant or probable uncertainty outside of 7.1-7.5" range?

[BehindBlueI's]

You do make a decent point; any one bullet can do "weird" things in a body. However, the FBI made REALLY A LOT out of failure of ONE bullet to penetrate sufficiently in ONE individual! The fact is that even if that 115 gr. 9mm ST penetrated 12" or 13" in gel (instead of under 9") it still would not have been enough if Platt's arm was not close to his body when he was shot by Dove (let alone if, in addition, the bullet hit his humerus and/or rib) -- the widely accepted notion that 12-13" JHP penetration -- in gel--- is adequate, notwithstanding. That's why some, including me, prefer FMJs over JHPs that have a significant risk of under penetration.

Human nature, I suppose. It's a lot easier to blame a bullet than fundamental flaws in training and tactics. Beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't think anyone is arguing FOR a JHP that has a significant risk of under penetration. This is not the forum where people subscribe to the latest bullet fad, recommend glaser safety slugs, are enthralled by ultralight fragmenting bullets because they post high ME numbers, etc. I don't presume to speak for everyone, but the general consensus seems to be along the lines of "carry a heavy for caliber bullet that retains mass" for everyone including you. So at this point who are you arguing against?

[curl]

Regarding the relevant shooting, I have seen the video. Clearly, there were no obstacles or barriers between the shooter and the deceased. Based on autopsy detail, bullet #2 travelled essentially in a straight line, undoubtedly as straight as most gel shot tracks I've seen.

The topic here is FMJ vs. JHP; my position, backed by well-established facts, has been that the commonly accepted notion that 12" or so JHP penetration -- in gel-- may not be sufficient in many cases and, in those cases, an FMJ may perform more effectively.

[Nephrology]

Regarding the relevant shooting, I have seen the video. Clearly, there were no obstacles or barriers between the shooter and the deceased. Based on autopsy detail, bullet #2 travelled essentially in a straight line, undoubtedly as straight as most gel shot tracks I've seen.

#15, please? You have been avoiding this for some time.

[curl]

#15, please? You have been avoiding this for some time.

Gladly as soon as we settle #2, as stated previously. Do you accept that penetration path length of #2 is most likely 7.1"-7.5", and if not, why not? It would certainly help the discussion if you gave a straight instead of "random" answer to this simple question.

[DocGKR]

I've just re-watched the video as well; looks like it is possible some projectiles struck the pavement prior to entering tissue--hard to tell without the full crime scene data and photos, including photos of the recovered projectiles, as that can offer information on potential intermediate barrier strikes and eccentric upset.

[curl]

It's "possible" that some of the 16 bullets struck the pavement prior to entering tissue; however, based on relative position of the shooter and the deceased wound track #2 is highly likely to have been a direct impact.

[Welder]

I saw the video, too...the guy went down immediately. If he ever was a threat, he certainly stopped being one pretty darn quick.

Pardon me if this was answered somewhere already and I missed it, but exactly what ammo was being used in this shooting? Seems that would be at least as germane to the topic of this discussion as wound depths.

[El Cid]

It's "possible" that some of the 16 bullets struck the pavement prior to entering tissue; however, based on relative position of the shooter and the deceased wound track #2 is highly likely to have been a direct impact.

You understand bullet #2 is not necessarily the 2nd round fired right? On the ME report one of the first statements is that the bullet wounds were numbered arbitrarily without regard to sequence or severity.

[curl]

I saw the video, too...the guy went down immediately. If he ever was a threat, he certainly stopped being one pretty darn quick.

Pardon me if this was answered somewhere already and I missed it, but exactly what ammo was being used in this shooting? Seems that would be at least as germane to the topic of this discussion as wound depths.
This may be actually be a good time for another guess; your guess here about the particular 9mm JHP is as good as probably anyone's. However, it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference; it was a 9mm "modern" JHP and most of them typically penetrate 12-13" in bare gel (otherwise expansion is quite unimpressive). That PD shoots a lot of people and if those JHPs were defective in some way, it would have most likely been discerned prior to this shooting.

Totally agree on your comments about continued use of lethal force in this case; the teenager fell down on his RIGHT side when shot and bullet track #2 is from LEFT to RIGHT (neck soft tissue track) making it highly unlikely that the track was caused by a reflected bullet.

[curl]

You understand bullet #2 is not necessarily the 2nd round fired right? On the ME report one of the first statements is that the bullet wounds were numbered arbitrarily without regard to sequence or severity.

Of course, the chronological order of shots is not an issue here whatsoever.

[El Cid]

Of course, the chronological order of shots is not an issue here whatsoever.

Then how do you know shot #2 was "highly likely to have been a direct impact?"

[curl]

Then how do you know shot #2 was "highly likely to have been a direct impact?"

A reflected shot from the pavement would most likely have an upward path not downward (simple physics)..... If the deceased was standing when he was shot, (first few shots) the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection would have been too great for the short distance between the shooter and the deceased -- assuming the shooter missed completely from such a short distance.

[Welder]

This may be actually be a good time for another guess; your guess here about the particular 9mm JHP is as good as probably anyone's.

Being a lowly welder and not a medical professional or LEO "in the know," I honestly don't care exactly what happens to the bullet inside the body as long as it does its job and saves my life if my life is on the line. I think it's pretty clear from the video that the guy ceased being a threat before all 16 rounds went into him. So we know that it didn't take 16 rounds to "stop" him. Or anything nearly like that from all I can see from a grainy, non close-up video.

I guess my point is that even if I knew exactly what ammo was being used in that video, and it was in fact the same ammo that is in the pistol in my waistband right now, I don't see anything in the video that would make me want to change my ammo choice. We see in the video, and also see in the autopsy that the guy was dusted on both sides repeatedly. I really don't see the intelligence on hinging your argument on one or two bullets in one specific incident, type of ammo unknown. My memories of Stats 101 are telling me that you need a whole lot larger data set before you have a convincing argument.

[curl]

Being a lowly welder and not a medical professional or LEO "in the know," I honestly don't care exactly what happens to the bullet inside the body as long as it does its job and saves my life if my life is on the line. I think it's pretty clear from the video that the guy ceased being a threat before all 16 rounds went into him. So we know that it didn't take 16 rounds to "stop" him. Or anything nearly like that from all I can see from a grainy, non close-up video.

I guess my point is that even if I knew exactly what ammo was being used in that video, and it was in fact the same ammo that is in the pistol in my waistband right now, I don't see anything in the video that would make me want to change my ammo choice. We see in the video, and also see in the autopsy that the guy was dusted on both sides repeatedly. I really don't see the intelligence on hinging your argument on one or two bullets in one specific incident, type of ammo unknown. My memories of Stats 101 are telling me that you need a whole lot larger data set before you have a convincing argument.
Yeah, but was that a psychological or a physiological stop? What if YOUR attacker is not prone to a psychological stop and you MUST physiologically "stop" him?

[curl]

Not to mention, unlike this hapless teenager, your attacker has a gun.........

[BehindBlueI's]

Yeah, but was that a psychological or a physiological stop? What if YOUR attacker is not prone to a psychological stop and you MUST physiologically "stop" him?

"What if" leads you into a realm of fantasy. It's the source of a shit ton of bad info.

[Malamute]

This may be actually be a good time for another guess; your guess here about the particular 9mm JHP is as good as probably anyone's. However, it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference; it was a 9mm "modern" JHP and most of them typically penetrate 12-13" in bare gel (otherwise expansion is quite unimpressive). That PD shoots a lot of people and if those JHPs were defective in some way, it would have most likely been discerned prior to this shooting...



How do we know that? There are still old school loads on the market.

Theres at least one member of the CPD on the board, I don't recall his user name. He may be able to shed light on the ammo used.

[curl]

"What if" leads you into a realm of fantasy. It's the source of a shit ton of bad info.

What if an attacker has a gun is a more realistic consideration in self-defense (especially for a civilian) than assuming that many shots can be fired at an attacker until he is psychologically or physiologically incapacitated. Sufficiently penetrating self-defense ammunition may be necessary for best results....

[curl]

How do we know that? There are still old school loads on the market.

Theres at least one member of the CPD on the board, I don't recall his user name. He may be able to shed light on the ammo used.

Probably, subject to change if and when we get to "know" otherwise. I'll be quite surprised when a reliable CPD source offers this information!

[Malamute]

Probably, subject to change if and when we get to "know" otherwise. I'll be quite surprised when a reliable CPD source offers this information!

You made a statement that indicated certainty, when it was an assumption. Much of your case against modern HP loads is in the same class of making assumptions and calling it fact.

[curl]

You made a statement that indicated certainty, when it was an assumption. Much of your case against modern HP loads is in the same class of making assumptions and calling it fact.

Which statement indicated certainty?

[Welder]

Yeah, but was that a psychological or a physiological stop?

I don't know, you're the medical 'expert', you tell me. But the fact that we have an autopsy to read, and that the coroner reported that death was caused by multiple gunshot wounds, leads me to believe that the fellow died.



What if YOUR attacker is not prone to a psychological stop and you MUST physiologically "stop" him?

That's why I have a CCW permit, have taken a class with one of the SME's on this site, bought ammo that was on the recommended carry list, carry every day, and practice as regularly as my job and daylight allow. I even play the I Don't Practice Anymore game when I have opportunity. Do you have further recommendations for what I should do, or any reason why I should become preoccupied with my ammunition? If anything, the more "evidence" I see brought to light here, the more I'm satisfied that I don't need to worry about my ammo *at all.*


Not to mention, unlike this hapless teenager, your attacker has a gun.........

See above. I haven't been in any gunfights, have you? Some people here have been, though, and I don't see any of them piling on your bandwagon. So if they've seen the elephant and aren't running scared from JHP bullets, I'm not sure why I should.

[Welder]

Which statement indicated certainty?

Your post 239.


However, it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference; it was a 9mm "modern" JHP....

[curl]

Your post 239.

"Probably" hardly implies certainty by any widely acceptable definition.

[curl]

I don't know, you're the medical 'expert', you tell me. But the fact that we have an autopsy to read, and that the coroner reported that death was caused by multiple gunshot wounds, leads me to believe that the fellow died.

I claimed no expertise here, but have been quite factual here. What ammunition/caliber someone uses for SD is a personal choice; as I've also stated we're all free moral agents to make whatever choice, for whatever reason. The fact that a person died as a result of 16 shots fired at him from some 10 feet away is hardly of deterministic value in whether such ammunition is effective for self-defense (especially civilian). Properly chosen, with sufficient penetration of course, JHPs are likely to be more effective than FMJs -- as I have all along maintained. In any event, more practice will help you overcome whatever ammunition deficiency may exist in your self-defense ammunition choice. Practice more worry less about FMJ vs. JHP -- the topic YOU brought up!



That's why I have a CCW permit, have taken a class with one of the SME's on this site, bought ammo that was on the recommended carry list, carry every day, and practice as regularly as my job and daylight allow. I even play the I Don't Practice Anymore game when I have opportunity. Do you have further recommendations for what I should do, or any reason why I should become preoccupied with my ammunition? If anything, the more "evidence" I see brought to light here, the more I'm satisfied that I don't need to worry about my ammo *at all.*



See above. I haven't been in any gunfights, have you? Some people here have been, though, and I don't see any of them piling on your bandwagon. So if they've seen the elephant and aren't running scared from JHP bullets, I'm not sure why I should.