Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old April 6th, 2013 #121
antiZOG
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 347
antiZOG
Default

Roy, I see your point, but I would like to mention that there IS an auto-pistol that shoots wadcutters.
I once owned a Smith & Wesson Model 52 -a very unique target pistol, that was designed to shoot ONLY .38 Special wadcutters, and it did so reliably, feeding the rounds from a magazine.
I still regret trading that pistol. It was highly accurate and designed for bullseye target-shooting competition, and a joy to shoot.
 
Old April 6th, 2013 #122
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

I'm aware of those custom match pistols from yesteryear; in fact I was remembering the 52 while posting.

They were irrelevant then, and they're irrelevant now.
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
 
Old June 25th, 2013 #123
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,432
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
Lazily browsing kahr's site. Those fucking maniacs ask a grand for their sub-compact 9mm. A grand.

For a 6-round magazine, DAO 9mm.

Advantages over a $200 .38 snub from a pawn shop? Uh... 0.225" less width for concealability. Hoo boy. Big fucking advantage.

Oh, and a grand less to feed your alcoholism.

Because any wage-earner pissing it away on these overpriced niche autos everywhere nowadays must be a drunk.
Bullshit, you can buy sub-compact Glocks for around $550-$600 new in a lot of areas. Closer to $450 for a used one in good condition.

If you want to risk buying some no-name .38 snub from a pawn shop for $200 that will probably blow up in your face, then go for it. Pawn shops are a shady business, and one of the last places I'd buy a gun from. A lot of them are ran by Jews.
 
Old June 27th, 2013 #124
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,432
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post

Why should the race and/or business practices of a seller influence one's decision to purchase an economically priced revolver that has passed all points of a normal visual and mechanical inspection? Does he know of some defects that his buyer can't ascertain? What could those be?
There could be a hair line fracture in the frame or the top strap that can't be seen visibly, so unless you bring a magnifying glass and examine it very closely you can't be certain. People bring junk like that into pawn shops all the time, and they seek to dump it off on which ever idiot will buy it. The average gun buyer isn't going to examine it under that scrutiny.

Glock 27, $525 new:

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/73394

Which means you could get them for $400-$425 used.
 
Old June 27th, 2013 #125
antiZOG
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 347
antiZOG
Default

I like revolvers AND semi-autos. Both categories have their good points. I prefer 1920's through mid-1980's manufacture. By the late 80's/early 90's many manufacturers were adding un-needed "safety" features, in response to lawsuit/liabilty fears. This trend generally added more moving parts, complicated the internal workings of the gun, and often resulted in heavier, less-crisp trigger pulls.
 
Old June 29th, 2013 #126
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,432
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post

So it's a total non-issue.
Your retarded behavior and total lack of firearms knowledge is a non-issue

Quote:
I guess blaming the gun for your poor marksmanship wasn't enough.
Another straw man from the resident fag. No surprises there .
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #127
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,432
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
Autos' only real ammo problem is their lesser damage potential, as they aren't wadcutter shooters, at all.
If this were the case then law enforcement officers around the world would still be using revolvers with wadcutters.

Quote:
I much prefer a full caliber bullet over the reduced frontal area on the sharply ogived, auto-friendly JHPs that aren't even guaranteed to expand, and usually don't.
Usually don't expand? You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about kiddo. I think you got JHP and EFMJ rounds mixed up. EFMJ aren't as good, and are used in states where JHP rounds were made illegal.

Quote:
And even when one does, effects less total tissue damage than would a full wadcutter of the same caliber.
Which means a .40, or .45 JHP round is still going to do more damage than a .38 special wadcutter.

Quote:
I guess most people don't care.
About your opinion? Correct.

Last edited by Crowe; June 30th, 2013 at 12:14 AM.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #128
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,432
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
Well, if your latest blind assumption is that the caliber wars are decided by whatever pigs use the most then hey... you're advocating for the 9mm luger.

You don't wanna go there.
Most cops use .40 or .45. They moved up from 9mm for the same reason they quit using .38 special. Why? They were ineffective at dropping coked out niggers.

And I'd take a semi-auto 9mm over a .38 special any day of the week. I'll take the 9mm JHP +P rounds over your .38 special wadcutters.
Quote:
No, they don't. A human body isn't a laboratory block of gelatin. In real-world shootings the variables are too many and unpredictable to guarantee bullet expansion at all, much less full expansion. The odds are roughly 50% between no expansion and an autopsy bullet that resembles brenna's abortion rather than the perfect blooms pictured in gun magazine advertisements that you're conditioned to expect.
I've tested rounds on animal carcasses and I know they work. If your JHP rounds aren't expanding then look for a better brand.


Quote:
The unexpanded cavity diameter of a typical .45 JHP bullet isn't greater than .356". Even less on a .40 S&W. If either bullet fails to expand or expands less than ideally the permanent wound cavity diameter is smaller than one produced by a full wadcutter .38, .357 or 9mm.

It ain't magic.
Your whole logic is based on the idea that JHP rounds don't work most of the time, and its the most retarded thing I've heard in awhile.

.357 magnum is a much more powerful round than .38 special. If someone is going to get a snub, you may as well get a .357 magnum. Or if you got the money go all out with a .500 magnum snub. I rented one a few months ago at the range, and the recoil wasn't as bad as I expected.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #129
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Great self defense caliber and piece--against crippled grizzly bears charging in open terrain.


Good luck with that.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #130
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

I'm confused about something. Are you saying that a .45 dia JHP that doesn't expand will leave a smaller permanent wound channel than a .355 dia wadcutter or haven't I had enough coffee yet this morning? Honest question.

As far as clothing, material, barrier penetration, bone, etc effecting expansion of JHP.....

Those have all been serious problems with the reliability of using a HP style bullet head in a cartridge. It is undeniable that barrier penetration (a thick jacket, denim, coat of fur, etc) is a major concern because the material can clog the open face of a HP round and cause it to not expand fully (if at all). That is one of the reasons the FBI has 4 layers of denim as their base standard barrier for ballistic gel penetration tests, and include testing through sheet metal, glass, and dry wall.

This issue has been addressed by bullet manufacturers in the latest generation of defensive and hunting rounds.

New gen bullet construction are utilizing a tapered jacket design where the copper jacket wall is much thinner towards the nose of the bullet, allowing for faster and more reliable expansion. Couple this with a polymer plug that fills the opening of the hollow point that does two things:

1) it is designed to prevent the opening from being clogged by an unknown material, thus ensuring the round will expand inside a wound channel.

2) the material and shape of the plug is designed to assist with expansion of the bullet itself in conjunction with the tapered jacket design (magical - because I don't understand how it works in self defense rounds, but do understand how it works in a ballistic tipped hunting round because of the shape).

I do agree that a body is much different than a ballistic gel block, as there are many more variables involved. And that is the reason that I included hunting rounds in my post. Hunting rounds are now utilizing the same technology as self defense rounds, and they are field tested every day. The results are verifiable, quantifiable, and undeniable. These designs work, they work incredibly well, and they work every time. It doesn't matter if you are talking about using a high powered rifle caliber, or a pistol caliber that can be used for hunting/self defense.

Even with next gen bullet design, the time old adages of dia/weight still are applicable. The bigger the diameter, the bigger the hole (wound channel); the heavier the bullet, greater penetration (velocities being the same between bullet weights).

The .38 special, 9mm Luger, and .357 Magnum all use the same diameter bullet - .355" diameter. So I really don't understand the arguments about which one is "better". Unexpanded at similar velocities, they will all have the same penetration, and create the same permanent wound channel, as they are all the same freaking bullet.

The only difference between these "calibers" are the weight ranges of the bullet, and the velocities in which they are traveling. Even though a 9mm casing is much smaller than the .38 special or .357 Magnum, if using a +P powder load (a compressed powder load as opposed to a 50% fill you typically see in a .357 Magnum), you can get near the same velocity as the .357 Magnum. How is this possible? Some call it magic, but it has to do with internal case pressure and volume fill of the powder load. The greater volume a powder load has inside the casing, more pressure is created upon powder ignition, resulting in a much more efficient powder burn and a higher velocity.

In the end, the argument comes down to "range of options". The .357 has a range of bullet heads that are heavier than the 9mm or the .38 special even though they are all the exact same diameter. Can I load .38 special and 9mm Luger rounds in the +P (higher pressure) range that will give the exact same terminal ballistic performance as a standard .357 Magnum round? The answer is YES.

So much of the .355" diameter caliber arguments are based on 100 year old bullet and firearm frame design that isn't really applicable in the modern firearm market.





Quote:

1 Nosler Ballistic Tip®
Streamlined polymer tip, color-coded by caliber, resists deformation in the magazine and initiates expansion upon impact.

2 Fully-Tapered Jacket and Special Lead-Alloy Core
Allows controlled expansion and optimum weight retention at all practical velocity levels. The heavy jacketed base prevents bullet deformation during firing.

3 Heavy Jacketed Base
Acts as a platform for large-diameter mushroom.

4 Ballistically Engineered Solid Base®
Boat tail configuration combines with the streamlined polymer tip for extreme long-range performance and for easier loading

Last edited by Mr A.Anderson; June 30th, 2013 at 09:42 AM.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #131
Donnie in Ohio
Switching to glide
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 9,396
Blog Entries: 11
Donnie in Ohio
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
Great self defense caliber and piece--against crippled grizzly bears charging in open terrain.
Or a black bear all hopped-up on Skittles. Jesus.

The recoil looks a bit....much.
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #132
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
The curved area behind a hollowpoint cavity gives no resistance to tissue. Half the bullet is essentially hardball.
I understand how that would make a difference - however slight (measured in hundredths of an inch) if the caliber were the same. I have never seen evidence that a .45 caliber, non expanding round or ogive shaped hp bullet (with failure to expand) will result in less damage as measured by a permanent wound cavity than a bullet that is a full 1/10th of an inch smaller in diameter through the entire wound channel.

Also, the exact manufacture of hp bullet will have a different sized "nose" to the bullet itself, which (whether it expands or not) will have the same flat facial area that a wadcutter's flat face has to destroy tissue the entire path through a wound channel.

Bigger diameter = bigger hole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
I know they claim they 'fixed' it. Maybe it's more of the usual marketing hype. Industry press is dubious and hunters aren't scientists, and deer aren't people.
Hunters aren't scientists, and deer are not people - correct. However, an average white tail deer is roughly the size of a small human, with similar bone mass, density, and thickness that a bullet must penetrate to reach the vital organs.. Larger game such as mule deer, black bear, elk, moose and grizzly are much larger than a human and are undeniably much harder to kill (a greater amount of bone and tissue to penetrate to reach vital organs). These bullet designs have been thoroughly field tested by killing all of the above game for years. The technology vetted through hundreds of thousands of game kills has finally moved into the self defense pistol rounds.

Add to that barrier penetration testing requirements, and these bullet designs are a proven commodity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
I'll continue carrying wadcutters while awaiting update from the men with relevant degrees in those areas of research.
These were the same men that determined the 5.56 should be the standard caliber for military rifles because of the "tumbling" bullet design which never worked reliably. The 5.56mm (otherwise known as the .223 Rem) is a varmint round. It is used to kill game the size of a dog and smaller (coyote, groundhog, prairie dog, etc).

When it comes to bullet design, I trust designs made specifically for hunting purposes - because these bullets are designed to kill (a specific size range of animal based on caliber) every single time, without fail. A poor hunting bullet design will be exposed as such immediately because of daily field testing by the average person. A poor self defense round designed by the proclaimed experts (see Federal Hydro-Shock) will continue selling for years and is easily hyped as the average person doesn't go around testing it by shooting and killing people on a daily basis.

Last edited by Mr A.Anderson; June 30th, 2013 at 10:37 AM.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #133
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
Would love to see that proved.
Would love to see what, exactly, proved?

Not being a smartass here. Like I said before, both you and Crowe have valid points in the discussion.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #134
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
You're confusing educated men with the whiz kids.
Me? No I'm not. I'm saying the real educated men are the designers that work for companies such as Nosler, Hornady, Winchester, Remington, Barnes, etc, who design bullets that work well for killing with decades of proof their designs work as advertised. Whiz kids are the result of being the lowest bidder.

What exactly was it you would like to see proved? Not saying that I can provide the data, but am curious.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #135
HardHawk
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: a LAND that never been occupied
Posts: 1,933
Default


Just received 2 of this at the gunshop, I am partners in. After using them for a week, for self defense especially for people who can not handle recoil, are a shit load of rapid gun fire if they can hit their target and overcome the muzzle flash.


And if you know what you do then can modify in an emergency situation your pistol into this. Not the same gun but can be if you make it to be.

 
Old June 30th, 2013 #136
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
This thread makes me sad.

Empiricism wins.

I'm going to bed.
Empiricism wins when the results are quantifiably measured against an unsubstantiated claim. I don't understand why this would make you sad.

The points that I was making are:

That new generation bullet designs have been thoroughly tested and proven to work.
That these new bullet designs relegate standard arguments based upon a ballistics table (velocity, kinetic energy) an outdated and irrelevant notion.
That common firearm feeding designs (tilting barrel) have greatly reduced the feeding issues that once commonly plagued semi-auto pistols.
That the belief a semi-auto has more moving parts than a revolver, thus making it less reliable, is false.

Reading back through this thread in it's entirety, several people have given good advice, and several have given terrible advice.

Personally, I believe the best CCW weapon is on that a person is extremely comfortable and proficient with, first and foremost. As far as caliber for a CCW, with proper ammunition and maintenance, a .38 Special, 9mm, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, .44 Magnum, and .45 ACP will all get the job done. I do hesitate with the .380 auto and smaller because of terminal ballistic results are borderline.

With the emergence and proliferation of the Sub-Compact pistol frame since this thread started back in 2006, a person can get an easily concealable (pocket gun) semi-auto pistol in a .45 ACP if they so choose.

If you ask me, one is not "better" than the other. It all comes down to which a person is most comfortable and proficient with.

I personally carry a Springfield XD-9 Subcompact 9mm, loaded with either 135 gr Hornady Critical Duty or 124 gr Speer GoldDot. Both cartridges meet and exceed all FBI testing standards for barrier penetration, expansion, body penetration, and weight retention. Being a medium grain, they work well for hot or cold weather penetration.


Last edited by Mr A.Anderson; June 30th, 2013 at 12:24 PM.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #137
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,432
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
You said "law enforcement officers around the world." It may sound crazy, but more countries exist in the world than just america. And most of their governments prefer 9x19 as a military and civilian duty round, particularly in europe.
9mm with proper ammunition is sufficient for most situations. Excluding taking down coked out niggers. If they need more than that then they're probably sending in the swat team.


Quote:
You 'know' hollowpoint bullets are more effective the same way you 'know' the .22 rimfire is a primo self-defense round based on (your claim of) having killed a deer once upon a time -- empirically. But the problem with empirical evidence is it's falsifiable by definition. That's where science comes in...
Another strawman. I never said .22 lr was a great round for self defense, all I suggested is that you could kill a man with it.


Quote:
My understanding derives from pathologists and ballistics experts tasked by the FBI to figure this shit out ages ago, not from popular hearsay. Here's the summary of their conclusions:
Anderson brings up a good point which contradicts their conclusions. I told you before if your JHP rounds aren't getting adequate expansion, then find a different brand.

Quote:
Explain bullet 'power'.

You can't because it's magic.
Velocity = penetration as well as energy, and energy = the potential to transfer energy to the target. Energy transferred to the target = damage to that target. Its not magic. Its as simple as what hits harder a rock traveling at 100 mph or 200 mph. There is also friction and a shock wave caused by a bullet at high speed, which will increase tissue damage passing through the target. Providing you use a bullet that expands on impact, the bullet traveling faster is going to deliver more energy to the target. In the case of a .38 special compared to a .357 magnum, similar sized bullet, one is a more powerful round due to higher velocity.

There are situations where a high velocity bullet can penetrate without transferring most of its energy to the target, in which case a lower velocity bullet designed to transfer more energy to the target would win. But .357 wadcutter vs .38 wadcutter, the .357 is going to deliver more damage to the target by default. Higher velocity would also penetrate better vs someone wearing heavy clothing. What if the guy is wearing a coat + 2 shirts under that? Would you take the .357 in that situation or the .38? People aren't just running around naked out there.


Quote:
That's fucking absurd.
Using a .357 magnum over a .38 special is absurd? I don't know of a single person other than you who would take the .38 special over a .357 magnum. A grandma might prefer a .38 just because of the lower recoil. But I'm talking about grown men here.

Last edited by Crowe; June 30th, 2013 at 05:26 PM.
 
Old June 30th, 2013 #138
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
Velocity = penetration as well as energy, and energy = the potential to transfer energy to the target. Energy transferred to the target = damage to that target. Its not magic.
It's not magic, but it isn't exactly correct, either. What incapacitates and kills a target is physical damage caused by the bullet (ripping and tearing of flesh resulting in catastrophic damage to vital organs resulting in massive internal bleeding), not the amount of kinetic energy a bullet possesses or delivers to the target.

The amount of 'shock' energy a bullet has slamming into a target is the amount of raw recoil (kick) a person feels when firing (a manually operated) firearm (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). Most people that have been shot say it feels like getting hit by a 90 mph fast ball. I personally can't attest to that as I've only been hit with birdshot and rock salt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
Its as simple as what hits harder a rock traveling at 100 mph or 200 mph. There is also friction and a shock wave caused by a bullet at high speed, which will increase tissue damage passing through the target. Providing you use a bullet that expands on impact, the bullet traveling faster is going to deliver more energy to the target. In the case of a .38 special compared to a .357 magnum, similar sized bullet, one is a more powerful round due to higher velocity.
The 'Hydro-shock' theory has been pretty much debunked as a major factor in incapacitation. The temporary wound channel caused by the shock of the bullet will cause internal bruises, but no serious damage. That is one of the reasons I specifically mentioned Federal's Hydro-Shock as an ineffective, yet greatly hyped round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
There are situations where a high velocity bullet can penetrate without transferring most of its energy to the target, in which case a lower velocity bullet designed to transfer more energy to the target would win. But .357 wadcutter vs .38 wadcutter, the .357 is going to deliver more damage to the target by default. Higher velocity would also penetrate better vs someone wearing heavy clothing. What if the guy is wearing a coat + 2 shirts under that? Would you take the .357 in that situation or the .38? People aren't just running around naked out there.
If both bullets are the same style and diameter......much would depend upon the actual weight (gr) of the bullets relative to their speed (thus determining actual penetration). If both rounds are using a standard or mid ranged powder load, the .357 should have more penetration, thus causing more damage via having a longer permanent wound channel. However, as both bullets are non expanding, the permanent wound channel would be the same diameter (.355").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
Using a .357 magnum over a .38 special is absurd? I don't know of a single person other than you who would take the .38 special over a .357 magnum. A grandma might prefer a .38 just because of the lower recoil. But I'm talking about grown men here.
If I were to choose a revolver, I would personally take a .357 Magnum with a 4" barrel. The advantage being that I can shoot .38 special rounds (practice) out of it at the range, costing much less money. I personally think the .357 is a superior round to the .38 Special and 9mm in it's versatility and range of velocity and weight of bullets. That is not saying that a .38 special loaded with top shelf self defense rounds won't get the job done for a CCW scenario, because it most certainly will.

And remember, I chose the 9mm to carry for several reasons beyond terminal ballistics, which is to say again, anything chambered in the .38 special, 9mm and above will certainly get the job done.

Maybe this will help people understand about Terminal Ballistics, and how it isn't as simple as weight and velocity.
Quote:
The Mechanics of Projectile Wounding

There are four components of projectile wounding. While not all of these components relate entirely to incapacitation they must all be considered.


•Penetration. The tissue through which the projectile and which it disrupts or destroys.

•Permanent Cavity. This is the volume of space once occupied by tissue that has been destroyed by the passage of the projectile. In other words, the hole left by the bullet. It is a function of penetration and the frontal area of the projectile

•Temporary Cavity. This is the temporary stretching of the permanent cavity due to the transfer of kinetic energy during the passage of the projectile.

•Fragmentation. This is projectile pieces or secondary bone fragments which are dispersed outward from the permanent cavity. They may cause additional tissue damage. It does not normally occur at handgun velocities and if it does the fragments are usually within 1 cm of the permanent cavity. Note: At rifle velocities greater than about 2400 fs the fragments can travel several centimeters and greatly increase the permanent cavity and tissue damage.)


Modern medical science has shown us that the mechanism of incapacitation, while still not completely understood is based on two components. First is the rapid loss of blood and permanent tissue and nerve destruction caused by the the cutting and crushing action of the bullet's passage or the destruction of the central nervous system. The second component is not as easily as quantifiable and is the physical and emotional state of the target. A target pumped up on adrenaline or affected by narcotic or psychotic drugs can be extremely resistant to bullet caused trauma while a target full of fear and self doubt may "cease and desist" from a very minor wound. Since we cannot control the target's physical or mental state we have to just worry about doing all damage that we can TO the target.

Some will state that bullet placement is also a component. While in actuality it does play a part in the final results it is not a component of ammunition/bullet performance. A well placed hit that causes inadequate damage may be of infinitely less use than one that causes massive and deep damage in a less well placed hit. (Although, ideally what you want is a well placed hit that cause massive damage.)

Let's look at some of the theories, past and present.

Energy Transfer School - In this school of thought the more foot pounds of kinetic energy a bullet "dumps" (loses) in its journey through the target the more effective it should be in incapacitating the target. The measurements were derived by measuring the bullet's velocity at impact and also its exit velocity (if any) and then comparing the kinetic energy of the projectile at those two velocities. The difference was considered the energy transferred to the target. Under this theory a .22 Long Rifle bullet which did not exit the target could be more "effective" than let's say a .357 that blew right through the target. (While this is an extreme example you get the point.) What the bullet did TO the target while traversing it was not examined. This school of thought favored light-weight high-velocity bullets which possessed high kinetic energy and which usually did not exit their target. To give you an idea about problems with this idea "authorities" have stated that delivering between 35 and 270 ft/lbs of energy is "effective." That's almost a 9x discrepancy and there has never been any scientific or medical proof that KE does anything to soft targets. One of the most famous of the energy dump studies was done by DeMaio, in the late 60s.

Temporary Cavity School - In this school of thought the larger the temporary cavity made by the bullets passage the more effective it should be. The measurement of the temporary cavity was derived by measuring high speed x-ray photographs of the temporary cavity displaced by the bullet on the theory (never proven) that the farther tissue was displaced the greater the nerve trauma. The actual damage done by the bullet was ignored. In general the faster the bullet is traveling the greater the temporary cavity, all else being equal.

Several thing have proved wrong with this theory. First of all, as any surgeon knows, muscle and bowel tissue is very elastic. During surgery such tissue can be moved substantial distances without any harm to the person. Second, most temporary cavities are quite shallow (although bullet design plays a role here) and thus do not effect much in the way of vital organs. Third, the temporary cavity is not very large with pistol rounds (not much greater than about 4" in diameter) and of very short duration. Unless the limits of elasticity are reached (which take velocities in the 2200 f/s and higher range) no permanent damage or injury results. The exception to this is inelastic tissue such as organs like the brain, liver, kidneys, and spleen--but counting on hitting one of those organs is a risky business. This school also tends to favor high velocity although bullet construction/performance is also considered.

The most famous of these studies was the "Relative Incapacitation Index" study done by the the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice in the early 70s using their "computer man," and which was almost immediately invalidated due to false assumptions, blatant data errors, and the use of 20% gelatin.

It should be noted that there is, however, an instance where the temporary cavity may aid in the WTI process. That instance is when the a high velocity (> 2400 fs) rifle bullet fragments during the creation of the temporary cavity. Temporary cavities from most high power rifles can be 5 - 8 inches in size, and this can sometimes cause the tissue to suffer somewhat more damage than by just the bullets passage alone as the tissue can be cut or damaged during its stretched or stressed state by the bullet fragments and thus create a somewhat larger permanent cavity. If the wound is deep enough this can increase the incapacitation effect. This effect is seen with the military ball ammo fired in the full sized M16 rifles.

The "Hydrostatic Shock" School - This school of though, which is sort of an adjunct to the temporary cavity school, thinks that the "hydrostatic shock" or hydraulic pressure wave of the bullet's passage travels through out the body and shocks the brain and nervous system into momentarily shutting down which disables the target. Tests have been run with instrumented pig carcasses and other in the immediate vicinity of the bullets passage no significant hydraulic effect was noted.

Big Hole School - In this school of thought, sometimes referred to as the Fackler/IWBA school, and the medically correct one, the more permanent damage that is done to the target (and incidentally the more rapidly the target bleeds out) the more effective the bullet and more likely incapacitation. The more tissue cut, crushed, and/or destroyed by the bullet's passage the better, as more real system trauma results. In addition, in order to be effective at all target angles the bullet must penetrate sufficiently to reach vital organs in the target no matter from what direction the bullet impacts. Most authorities agree that for anti-personnel use a minimum penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin of about 12" (with 14" - 15" being considered ideal) is needed. This is necessary to achieve reliable performance under all conditions against a human target. It should be noted that minimum depth for major blood vessels and organs in a human is about 15cm ( 6")--from straight on, but it is considerably more from various angles. With bullets used for hunting the general consensus is the deeper the better. In both cases this has to be coupled with the ability to create the largest diameter permanent hole possible. Most authority seem to agree that the permanent hole needs to be at least .4" or greater in diameter and as deep as possible. A problem arises here in that as a bullet expands it tends to penetrate less, so expansion and penetration have to be carefully balanced by bullet weight and bullet construction. This bullet design problem is exacerbated by the fact that if a target is covered by some material such as cloth, glass, metal, etc. the expansion--and hence the penetration of the bullet--can alter dramatically.




A Quick Note on Bullet Diameter - Some folks who think the 9 mm is the perfect round say "how can a "silly millimeter" between a 9 mm / .355" and a 10 mm / .40" make any real difference. What they are missing is the fact that it's not the diameter that's important, but rather the area of impact that determines the amount of damage produced--the reason we like to use expanding bullets. Note the how the percentage of impact/damage area increase as bullet diameter goes up. Since expanding bullets frequently do not expand it makes sense to start with a bullet diameter you'd like the 9 mm bullets to expand to.

Incidentally, round or pointed nose, non-expanding bullets tend to push tissue aside rather than crush it, and the permanent cavity for a non-tumbling bullet of these designs usually runs about 65 -70 percent of the diameter of the projectile. Non-expanding heavy jacketed or monolithic (solid metal) projectiles with large metplates yield permanent cavities of between 70 and 80 percent of the diameter of the projectile (and the large metplats helps them to penetrate in a straight path rather than veer off. ) The very blunt and often sharp-edged shape of an expanded projectile can yield a a permanent cavity of between 80 - 90+ percent of the expanded projectile's diameter.

The most famous of these studies is the FBI "Ammunition Standards" testing and evaluation done in the late 80s which attempted to rank ammunition effectiveness. While the study was well done and showed the effectiveness of making a large diameter and deep hole the ranking system was flawed because of the following test assumptions

•Bullet expansion, in and of itself, was rewarded. Thus a 9 mm bullet that expanded to .45" was rated as more effective than a .45 cal bullet that did not expand even if the wounds were identical.
•Penetration depth of 12" was awarded a value of "1" while a penetration of 11.9" was given a value of "0," the same as a penetration of 6".

The FBI has since stopped ranking the ammunition and has just started to publish the test results themselves. I personally think that a ranking system based solely upon a combination of actual penetration depth modified by the average dimensions of a human torso (to discount cavity volume outside the depth of a torso), and the volume of the permanent cavity might make a useful ranking system if the statistical caveats could be worked out.

One word about depth of penetration. Some people in law enforcement hold that too much penetration with ammunition used for self defense is a bad thing. They fearfully warn that a bullet that passes through a target may hit someone else resulting in all kinds of law suits. However, considering that according to action reports from the NYPD that 80 - 90 percent of the shots fired in law enforcement situations fail to even hit the target (Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and a few other school grads excepted!) I wouldn't worry too much if your ammo is penetrative. Better too much than not enough when the chips are down. However, ammunition that meets stated requirements above for optimum performance will in most circumstances not exit with a frontal torso hit

Interestingly, the big hole school has always been accepted in the dangerous game hunting field as the way to go, yet for some reason tissue damage and deep penetration have taken a while to be accepted by handgunners. Maybe the reason that energy dump and temporary cavity believers aren't vocal in the hunting area is that it is hard to pontificate when you are in between the toes of a cape buffalo or in a lion's or bear's stomach. Another interesting observation is that much of the existing medical literature on bullet wounds is still full of misconceptions and false statements. While things seem to be slowly improving there is quite a way to go for medical literature to catch up with the truth. (The whole "I have a theory" that is then taken as gospel movement is the same one that seems to infect the global warming folk.)

The Bullet of the Month School (The Magic Bullet School) - This school of though is pushed by the unscrupulous manufacturers of some bullets that they claim are magic, and the gun writers who receive free samples and other perks laud them without scientifically testing them. These include things like bullets made of esoteric substances (like the "blended metal" bullets) and bullets with unusual shapes, construction ("exploding" bullets), or other properties. Most are things that have been dreamed up long ago and have been resurrected in an attempt to make money and are consistently shown to be no better than or usually worse performers than more conventional designs when tested.


More....... http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal.htm

Last edited by Mr A.Anderson; June 30th, 2013 at 06:20 PM.
 
Old July 1st, 2013 #139
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,432
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson View Post
It's not magic, but it isn't exactly correct, either. What incapacitates and kills a target is physical damage caused by the bullet (ripping and tearing of flesh resulting in catastrophic damage to vital organs resulting in massive internal bleeding), not the amount of kinetic energy a bullet possesses or delivers to the target.
Providing the bullet is designed to inflict substantial damage, hitting at a higher velocity will help it inflict more damage. If the bullet hits bone, a harder impact could serve to fragment and splinter bone to a greater extent which could cause a shrapnel effect in your body.

I've personally seen this first hand on animals I've shot. I had a deer suddenly turn around on me at the moment I fired, and I was sure the shot was off, but it died on the spot. I actually hit the deer on the outside of its ribs, the shot missed its heart entirely, but bone fractured and went into its heart. I'll admit It was a lucky shot. I was using .300 win mag ballistic tip.

Quote:
The amount of 'shock' energy a bullet has slamming into a target is the amount of raw recoil (kick) a person feels when firing (a manually operated) firearm (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). Most people that have been shot say it feels like getting hit by a 90 mph fast ball. I personally can't attest to that as I've only been hit with birdshot and rock salt.
Giving someone a "Shock" on impact could serve another purpose even if the injury from the shock itself isn't fatal. If someone is firing back that "Shock" could serve to throw their aim off target when firing back if you don't land a shot in a fatal area.
Quote:
The 'Hydro-shock' theory has been pretty much debunked as a major factor in incapacitation. The temporary wound channel caused by the shock of the bullet will cause internal bruises, but no serious damage. That is one of the reasons I specifically mentioned Federal's Hydro-Shock as an ineffective, yet greatly hyped round.
Hydro-shock isn't my ammo of choice, and its a bit overpriced.

Quote:
If both bullets are the same style and diameter......much would depend upon the actual weight (gr) of the bullets relative to their speed (thus determining actual penetration). If both rounds are using a standard or mid ranged powder load, the .357 should have more penetration, thus causing more damage via having a longer permanent wound channel. However, as both bullets are non expanding, the permanent wound channel would be the same diameter (.355").
What you said is correct, and weight is part of the equation. I use 230 gr JHP rounds in my .45 ACP.

Quote:
If I were to choose a revolver, I would personally take a .357 Magnum with a 4" barrel. The advantage being that I can shoot .38 special rounds (practice) out of it at the range, costing much less money. I personally think the .357 is a superior round to the .38 Special and 9mm in it's versatility and range of velocity and weight of bullets. That is not saying that a .38 special loaded with top shelf self defense rounds won't get the job done for a CCW scenario, because it most certainly will.
.38 special, to me is a round you shoot someone point blank with, or within 20 feet. At a much greater range than that a .357 magnum is going to start to show its real superiority over the .38 special. Better penetration at a much longer range. Full penetration on the torso of a coyote with a .357 magnum at around 80 yards. The wound profile wasn't straight either, the round took a turn while it was inside and came out at a slight angle. Just a standard run-of-the mill .357 JHP round I picked up from the army surplus store.

.38 special is more expensive than semi-auto ammunition. Maybe not if you load your own, but box for box they're more expensive because of the larger casing. Which is a huge advantage semi-autos have over a .38 special.

And if you load your own, how is .357 magnum that much more expensive than .38 special, assuming you reuse the casings? Powder is cheap.

Quote:
And remember, I chose the 9mm to carry for several reasons beyond terminal ballistics, which is to say again, anything chambered in the .38 special, 9mm and above will certainly get the job done.
9mm will no doubt get the job done most of the time. Its got faster velocity, which means better penetration than a .38 special. The wound cavity would be close to the same.

.38 special is one of the most overestimated rounds out there by gun noobs. Its frequently mistaken for being more powerful than semi-auto ammunition just because its got a larger *derp* casing.

Quote:
Maybe this will help people understand about Terminal Ballistics, and how it isn't as simple as weight and velocity.
Its sound information, and looking at ballistics from different angles.

Last edited by Crowe; July 1st, 2013 at 06:46 PM.
 
Old July 1st, 2013 #140
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
keifer
Default

When I took a round in the forearm from a .357 magnum there was no pain involved. There was just a slight sensation of heat in that immediate area. If not for that I would not have known anything had happened aside from the chaos. No doubt the fire rated door of the apartment slowed down the round, maybe even broke it apart, maybe even redirected from its intended course which was my head from a mere 18 inches away. Or maybe the nigger just couldn't shoot. What I will add to this conversation is echoed in many of my other posts, and that is you do not get to decide the situation, the situation chooses you. When that time comes it gets much more complicated than gel targets. And still yet, how often does someone take down a deer by shooting through a door. There are no end to the variables, chance, and shear luck. What I have concluded is what these conversations always seem to wind down to in conclusion to anyway, and that is go as big as you can effectively deliver a defense. Gun control means what you can shoot affectively with one hand. A two handed grip is a good sign that things are going in your favor.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 AM.
Page generated in 0.25968 seconds.