Compiled Official HST,Gold Dot,Critical Duty w/Tissue Crush Values Comparing Calibers

[DanTheWolfman]

Hello everyone, 1st post here.
I Compiled the Data from Vista & Hornady in different calibers and figured out the cu in" of Tissue Crush to compare calibers and rounds to each other. If you choose or carry 9mm (I do as an Armed Guard currently p30l plus p plus which works for my environment) that's fine, but I am seek of the incorrect hearsay that they are all equal when that is not true. I think I am on with a firm grasp of the subject having read Fackler Patrick, and have read and respect DrGkr 's work. At least now in the winter while not at work, I've decided to try to force myself to carry either .40 or .45 w heavy hst.

I hope some find the compiled data & Tissue Crush values informative, and how they mathematically compare to each other. DrGkr if I got something majorly wrong can you let me know (gently please)? Are their other formulas for assigning a more accurate Tissue Crush Value? With all the shooting requiring multiple hits (mostly w/ 9mm) now that cameras are everywhere, and the vast amount of Re-animation that happens once BP (or less hemorage shock?) returns with bad guys that fall down getting back up, shouldn't LE Agencies start to take a serious look at going back to .40? Is not less hits required ending engagements quicker both better tactically and for less bad Press? IE suspect shot 6 or 9 times doesn't sound nearly bad as suspect shot 10 or 15 times in headlines when media/film/tv has taught everyone is supposed to either fly back or slump dead instantly over after only 1-2 hits? Especially now that .40 has dropped significantly in price & gen 5 glocks are now heavier beefed up for better recoil control, M&P 2.0's are better than previous versions and also cheaper than previous options like the p229 etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJxu88b9XUUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJxu88b9XUU

[DanTheWolfman]

Anyone got any thoughts? Is there something you think I got grossly incorrect? Was really hoping this would get more engagement on this forum. I found a thread that referred to another three ways of figuring out tissue crush but is that for more unusual wounds or is there a more accurate way? DRGKR? Are there any companies or contacts that I could understudy to learn more about Terminal Ballistics and become a tester? Thank you

[DanTheWolfman]

Hi guys, would love some interaction on this.
I know hearsay caliber debates are tried but this is the real science/math best I can figure.
1.65x and 2.11x are not insignificant. 1.3x isn't either IMO.
Has everyone just gone yep 9 is fine?

Should I reconsider 147 in less than 4" atleast hst since that is or was DrGkr carry?
None uniform expansion in short barrels wen hitting only 1 side Striking bone vs 124 plus p is my internal debate.

Thanks slow workday so appreciate interaction.

Also, I suppose I could attempt to recompile od of drgkr data that's a bit scattered and various different retests different lots.

Always wondered why farther penetration less expansion but maybe that's just fbi 4 layer denim?

[03RN]

I'll look at it later. Day off and both kids are up

[5pins]

there any companies or contacts that I could understudy to learn more about Terminal Ballistics and become a tester? Thank you

Have you read Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma by Duncan MacPherson?

Always wondered why farther penetration less expansion but maybe that's just fbi 4 layer denim?

I'm not sure what you are asking here? Are you asking why a bullet that expands less penetrates more?

[DanTheWolfman]

Have you read Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma by Duncan MacPherson?



I'm not sure what you are asking here? Are you asking why a bullet that expands less penetrates more?

I'm not sure if I have...so no if not in the early IWBA stuff.

Sort of just trying to get a response but yes there are some fairly large differences and guessing it is just 4 layer denim expansion vs 4 layered clothing.

May get into my own ballistics testing. While I know it is not real gel...I have compared all of Gun Sam's data on HST, Gold Dots, and Critical Duties in his new this past year MDF Medium Density Fiberboard testing.....4 Layer Denim...3" CLEAR Gel 1/4" MDF....clear gel. The Tissue Crush Values in all of those in all calibers is VERY Similar...making Clear gel this way relevant.

I am thinking my first test if I get some may try 2 layer denim 2 T-shirt...for ease and to split the FBI/IWBA clothing protocol...and just shove MDF in 2" instead of 3" separate....based on actual thickness of pecs/RMCP putting in pig ribs. Not sure if that would make my results closer to VISTA/Hornady's 4 layer FBI protocol results or get me closer to DrGkr results or nicely inbetween. IF not, can use his protocol. It does seem to make Clear Ballistics Relevant when compared and I think similar could be found.

Harder option is mixing making own, calibrating all that.

Would love to understudy under DrGkr....or work w/ TNoutdoors9 who has switched to making his own gel now that he is back.

[03RN]

You're compiling clear gel "data"? Glad you saved me from wasting my time.

[DanTheWolfman]

You're compiling clear gel "data"? Glad you saved me from wasting my time.

No, in the vid I compare ALL OFFICIAL VISTA/Hornady Data across calibers hst, gold dot, critical defense 4 layer testing . I compare THOSE TISSUE CRUSH NUMBERS, that data on penetration and expansion, ME, velocity etc.

I explained how there is a clear gel protocol that does make it relative backing up official tissue crush values across all 9mm 40 .45 and some .38 .357 so far. It's all in the vid.

[the Schwartz]

You're compiling clear gel "data"? Glad you saved me from wasting my time.

The well-documented inability of the CBG product to produce scientifically-valid terminal ballistic test data should be apparent to anyone seriously researching the discipline given the abundance of evidence offered by SMEs in the field and the productive, and often intense, discussions found in here in the ''Ammunition'' subforum.

Out.

[DanTheWolfman]

The well-documented inability of the CBG product to produce scientifically-valid terminal ballistic test data should be apparent to anyone seriously researching the discipline given the abundance of evidence offered by SMEs in the field and the productive, and often intense, discussions found in here in the ''Ammunition'' subforum.

Out.

And YET AGAIN, that is not what I compiled in the video. AND YET AGAIN I have to say I am pointing out a WAY, with 4 layer AND a Medium Density Fiber board inserted it Can give VERY similar TISSUE CRUSH VALUES in different calibers compared to OFFICIAL 4 LAYER REAL GEL FBI protocol results from Federal/Vista.

I go off their OFFICAL results and DrGkr Results. Listen to the video.