357 Sig question

[Galbraith]

Maybe I have my terminology confused - I thought this was the temporary stretch cavity?

Attachment 41997
(taken from Brass Fetcher's .357sig gold dot video)

That is the TCS. However, the red clouds in the previous pic is part of that TCS that remains in the gel after the shot since gel isn't all that elastic and cracks/fractures causing the red dye to become more visible in those cracks. In actual tissue, there would be virtually no visible TCS effects to the surrounding tissue due to its elasticity(unless of course it is a rifle wound which can cause tearing of surrounding tissue). Any incapacitating effects generated by a TCS that does not physically damage the surrounding tissue would be more theoretical since you would find little evidence of it on the operating table.

[Chuck Haggard]

Having read the research, I think that the only way that the 357 Sig's velocity edge might matter would be when greater distance was involved--for example 60-75 yards. This statement is a guess, nothing more.

Yeah, about that...


https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/h...-at-100-yards/

[the Schwartz]

Necroposting...





Your image appears to show a much larger wound cavity with .357sig than 9mm -- something I imagine could be measured by standing the block on end and recording how much liquid it took to fill the cavity. Is the permanent wound cavity really that irrelevant in quantifying physiological damage?

Just a note- Temporary and permanent effects observed in 10% ordnance gelatin do not necessarily correlate to the occurrence of identical effects in living tissue. Some manufacturers (I'll not name names here) exploit the ignorance of their potential customers by touting effects produced in gelatin mediums as being representative of what occurs when their bullet passes through animal/human anatomy. Claims like these should be met with skepticism and an awareness that the desire for profit is the sole motivator for such behavior.

[jd950]

We all need to remember that in general, people with strongly held beliefs will not have those beliefs canceled out by data or proof or argument presented by others. The human mind doesn't work that way. It is just as true with caliber discussions as with anything else. Some people, for whatever reason, become strongly committed to ideas that may seem trivial or or unimportant to others. So we get into debates where one group is trying to convince an individual or another group that their belief is mistaken. Inevitably, no one changes their mind in most situations and everyone is frustrated.

Some calibers seem to evoke more of a religious fervor than others. The .45, the .357 magnum, the 10mm and to a lesser extent the .357 sig seem to be among those. Perhaps if someone does believe their particular ammo choice is a smokin' hot ray of death, it will give them at least some psychological edge in a deadly force encounter. The .357 sig is surely not a bad choice in a defensive gun (although not what I would choose) and if someone has a lot of confidence in it, perhaps it is the best choice for that person, whether the data agrees or not.

I work around a guy that constantly laments he cannot carry a 10mm instead of the "pea shooters" we are permitted to carry (yes, he really does say pea shooters}, because he would like to have a gun that will drop a bad guy instantly with a single shot every time. I nod my head and agree it is too bad he can't carry that caliber. He quiets down, I am amused, and life goes on.

[DocGKR]

As mentioned above, the Permanent Cavity is the tissue crushed by direct contact with the projectile; Temporary Cavity is the area of stretch surrounding the Permanent Cavity. Many online videos and articles make the major mistake of confusing TC with PC--they are not the same.

Below is the same comparison photo illustrating the PC in green, with the surrounding cracks representing the TC still in a red:



A more through discussion of basic wound ballistics, including the comments on PC vs TC replicated below, is found here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....formance-Facts

Tissue is damaged through two wounding mechanisms: the tissue in the projectile’s path is permanently crushed and the tissue surrounding the projectile’s path is temporarily stretched. A penetrating projectile physically crushes and destroys tissue as it cuts its path through the body. The space occupied by this pulped and disintegrated tissue is referred to as the permanent cavity. The permanent cavity, or wound track, is quite simply the hole bored by the projectile's passage. Obviously, bullets of greater diameter crush more tissue, forming a larger permanent cavity. The formation of this permanent cavity is consistent and reliable.

The tissue surrounding the permanent cavity is briefly pushed laterally aside as it is centrifugally driven radially outward by the projectile's passage. The empty space normally occupied by the momentarily displaced tissue surrounding the wound track, is called the temporary cavity. The temporary cavity quickly subsides as the elastic recoil of the stretched tissue returns it towards the wound track. The tissue that was stretched by the temporary cavity may be injured and is analogous to an area of blunt trauma surrounding the permanent crush cavity. The degree of injury produced by temporary cavitation is quite variable, erratic, and highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. Many flexible, elastic soft tissues such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to the blunt trauma and contusion caused by the stretch of temporary cavitation. Inelastic tissues such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder, are highly susceptible to severe permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture due to temporary cavitation insults. Projectiles are traveling at their maximum velocity when they initially strike and then slow as they travel through tissue. In spite of this, the maximum temporary cavity is not always found at the surface where the projectile is at its highest velocity, but often deeper in the tissue after it has slowed considerably. The maximum temporary cavitation is usually coincidental with that of maximum bullet yaw, deformation, or fragmentation, but not necessarily maximum projectile velocity.

[Doc_Glock]

The permanent crush cavity hasn't changed between the 9mm and the .357sig. They are virtually identical. The wider gel cloud that you see in the picture from the .357sig is the temporary cavity stretch(TCS). Gel tends to stretch and crack to a higher degree than actual tissue. Tissue is incredibly elastic, and has not been observed to actually be damaged when examined on the operating table or in the morgue. The only time that you see the TCS result in actual tissue damage is when you see wounds generated by rifle cartridges(usually 2000fps or more). The TCS can also result in tissue damage by larger calibers at velocities around 1500fps like the .45-70, full power 12gauge slugs, or magnum calibers like .50AE. This is why the .357sig and .45acp have similar temporary cavity stretches, even though the .45acp travels at a much slower velocity. The generally accepted scientific knowledge about this subject is that there is no measurable or observable benefit to the small increase in TCS from 9mm to .357sig to indicate that one is more effective than the other. Measurable benefits to the 9mm would be increased magazine capacity, lighter recoil for faster and more accurate follow-up shots, and reduced blast and flash.

Personally, based on my years to shooting game, I feel that there "might" be a benefit to a larger TCS depending on shot placement. For me at least, I still continue to use .45acp for a larger hole size and a larger TCS in a full sized service pistol. As the pistol size gets smaller, I prefer to reduce caliber size to make the pistol more manageable and keep capacity at a reasonable level.

Wonderfully explained! Thanks for taking the time.

[0ddl0t]

The degree of injury produced by temporary cavitation is quite variable, erratic, and highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. Many flexible, elastic soft tissues such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to the blunt trauma and contusion caused by the stretch of temporary cavitation. Inelastic tissues such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder, are highly susceptible to severe permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture due to temporary cavitation insults.

So if the center of a .35 bullet traveled 0.50 inches from the edge of the heart, the cavitation would not be able to cause a rupture regardless of fmj vs jhp or .38 vs .357 velocity?

And "gas filled hollow organs" -- would a lung full of air be more susceptible to tearing from TCS than an expended lung?

You've previously written about how ballistics tests in meat are troublesome because living tissue has more elasticity. With the recent advent of lab grown meat, are any of the big money players experimenting with it yet?

[DocGKR]

"So if the center of a .35 bullet traveled 0.50 inches from the edge of the heart, the cavitation would not be able to cause a rupture regardless of fmj vs jhp or .38 vs .357 velocity?"

Heart is muscle and thus very tolerant of stretch.

"And "gas filled hollow organs" -- would a lung full of air be more susceptible to tearing from TCS than an expended lung?"

.
Nope. Lung is not the type of organ being referenced.



Not much reason to experiment with lab grown meat....

[dpast32]

I'm not going into this issue, either one way or another. However, I will share here, the 'vision', or perhaps 'thought' that passes through my mind whenever I think about the extremely complex subject of forensic ballistics, & in this particular instance, meaning 'stopping power', which we all realize is simply a myth. Regarding the '9x19MM versus any of the 3 primary L.E. / CCW calibers, such as; .357 SIG, .40 S&W, .45 ACP debate, I just keep coming back to the same, simple equation ? Yes, I full admit it is simplistic in the extreme, but, It's always just floating around in the back of my head !! IT IS; "What would I prefer to be struck with an .35" 'rock' weighing 124 grains, OR ANY of the 3 noted 'rock's at beach's respective weights ? Now that I've actually put it into print, I'm not at all sure that I should post it ? But, it is what is, for better or worse ? As for me ? Presently, I remain with the bigger rock throwers, the one's that measure .45" & weigh 230 grains, containing some Federal +P 'HST' goodness. Hopefully, someone will understand what I'm trying to say. THANK YOU Guys,

Best, dpast32

[Wondering Beard]

I'm not going into this issue, either one way or another. However, I will share here, the 'vision', or perhaps 'thought' that passes through my mind whenever I think about the extremely complex subject of forensic ballistics, & in this particular instance, meaning 'stopping power', which we all realize is simply a myth. Regarding the '9x19MM versus any of the 3 primary L.E. / CCW calibers, such as; .357 SIG, .40 S&W, .45 ACP debate, I just keep coming back to the same, simple equation ? Yes, I full admit it is simplistic in the extreme, but, It's always just floating around in the back of my head !! IT IS; "What would I prefer to be struck with an .35" 'rock' weighing 124 grains, OR ANY of the 3 noted 'rock's at beach's respective weights ? Now that I've actually put it into print, I'm not at all sure that I should post it ? But, it is what is, for better or worse ? As for me ? Presently, I remain with the bigger rock throwers, the one's that measure .45" & weigh 230 grains, containing some Federal +P 'HST' goodness. Hopefully, someone will understand what I'm trying to say. THANK YOU Guys,

Best, dpast32

If you're looking at bullets like rocks to throw then sure, bigger and heavier makes sense. However, rocks aren't meant to penetrate flesh and hit vitals. It's a very different way of putting a dangerous person down.

So, I understand where you come from but the comparison isn't really apt. I would say that if you start thinking of pistol (not rifle) bullets like daggers that you can launch from a distance instead of stabbing at bad breath distance (though with very similar effects) and then start thinking of what type of dagger you want for that purpose, you'd be closer to how wound ballistics work.

P.S. I'm not advocating for needle like bullets, but rather for penetration to the vitals.