Hydrostatic Shock - That's the Ticket [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Hydrostatic Shock - That's the Ticket


PghJim
10-19-2012, 13:56
I came across a DVD, "Bulletproof Legal Defense", that helps you survive the SD encounter and how to stay out of prison afterwards. It is presented by Peyton Quinn who has a couple of training sites. Anyway, he states that the ammo that causes the greatest hydrostatic shock (pressure) will be the most effect in neutralizing the threat, including handgun ammo. I found one of his websites and you can read it yourself and give your opinion.

http://stresshooting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=86

Another thing I found interesting on the DVD was force on force training. The part that interested me was the BG was about 20 feet away when he pulls a knife and attacks. Even though the students knew it was going to happen, none could get a shot off before being stabbed.

ABNAK
10-19-2012, 15:07
Look at it this way: all other things being equal (shot placement, subject is or is not on drugs, same exact circumstances) the diameter of a bullet is miniscule in the equation. Granted, expanding HP's are preferable to FMJ, but the difference between a 9mm or 357Sig expanded to .58" and a .45ACP expanded to .75" is a minor factor in the "big picture". Sure, that .45ACP is making a hole .17" larger. Of equal velocity I guess I'd take the .45 for that reason.

However, given the *possibility* of hydrostatic shock/stretch cavity/BPW actually having an additive effect on a subject that would hasten the cessation of hostilities I would tend to lean towards the round that gave it to me. That's where velocity comes into play.

Choices?

357Sig in 125gr, preferably the hot-rodded "boutique" ones at 1400+fps

.40 in 150-155gr at 1200+fps

9mm +P in 124gr at 1250fps (maybe 1200fps). Second choice would be a 115gr +P+ at 1300+fps.

.45ACP +P in, well, no less than 185gr as long as it did it's tricks out of a smaller sized handgun for CCW (no larger than a Glock 19/23 for reference) ***Sidenote: I've heard the old Remington green/yellow box 185gr +P loads were pretty "dynamic", but IIRC that was out of a larger piece than I'd want to CCW.

PEC-Memphis
10-19-2012, 15:55
....the diameter of a bullet is miniscule in the equation. Granted, expanding HP's are preferable to FMJ, but the difference between a 9mm or 357Sig expanded to .58" and a .45ACP expanded to .75" is a minor factor in the "big picture". Sure, that .45ACP is making a hole .17" larger.

Shape plays a role here. Is the bullet shape going to push tissue aside (like a FMJ) or is it going to cut tissue it comes into contact with.

Shape also effects how much, and where, energy is transferred from the bullet to the target.

And it is really "hydrodynamic" rather than "hydrostatic" ....

And water, as well as other fluids, are actually compressible - contrary to the statement at the website.

cowboy1964
10-19-2012, 18:51
I don't even know where to begin with that. Even .380 ACP can create hydrostatic shock "on occasions"? What occasions would that be?

cowboy1964
10-19-2012, 18:57
And water, as well as other fluids, are actually compressible - contrary to the statement at the website.

Water can only be compressed a few percent tops and that's under extreme pressure. For ballistic purposes it can be considered incompressible.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/compressibility.html

SCmasterblaster
10-19-2012, 21:24
Thank you very much! :cool:

Henry's Dad
10-19-2012, 23:18
And it is really "hydrodynamic" rather than "hydrostatic" ....

And water, as well as other fluids, are actually compressible - contrary to the statement at the website.

I always thought water was highly non-compressible.

This was the explanation I was given as a kid when making water balloons: have as little air as possible in the balloon so that it is more likely to burst when you throw it at someone. Too much air in the balloon and the air pocket absorbs the shock and won't burst.

M 7
10-19-2012, 23:44
I always thought water was highly non-compressible.

This was the explanation I was given as a kid when making water balloons: have as little air as possible in the balloon so that it is more likely to burst when you throw it at someone. Too much air in the balloon and the air pocket absorbs the shock and won't burst.

Nope, if it's got a bulk modulus, it's compressible.

And, yes, water has a bulk modulus.

PghJim
10-20-2012, 02:43
Nope, if it's got a bulk modulus, it's compressible.

And, yes, water has a bulk modulus.

For our purposes the small compressibility of water is insignificant. In the video he had watermellons, which he shot with various rounds. He was up front in that they are not representations of humans, although they had the same water content. The rhine(sp)(skin) is very tuff. 45 ACP JHP's went through with little more than some cracking, 38 special was the same thing, but less cracking, 357 mag with JHP blew the water mellon completely apart. The 9mm JHP blew it apart a bit, but not nearly the same as the 357. He did not show a 40 S&W, but stated that the 357 magnum was the ultimate person stopper.

digilo
10-20-2012, 03:26
When I read people saying that .45 only makes a .17" bigger hole than 9mm after expansion, I have to wonder what bullet weight has to do with all this.... it requires more of a counteracting force to expand 230 gr of lead than 125, this has to be accounted for somewhere in the wounding data.

uz2bUSMC
10-20-2012, 05:59
When I read people saying that .45 only makes a .17" bigger hole than 9mm after expansion, I have to wonder what bullet weight has to do with all this.... it requires more of a counteracting force to expand 230 gr of lead than 125, this has to be accounted for somewhere in the wounding data.

There are other factors to consider besides the weight of the bullet. Diameter, frontal area and bullet construction are a few of these considerations. A 230 gr bullet in .45 caliber will have more frontal area than a 125 gr .357 upon contact with the counteracting force, as you put it. Thus, there is more of the media in contact with the bullet before expansion which is retarding it's movement. Also, as velocity doubles, retarding forces quadruple increasing the retarding force's ability to open the bullet. Some bullets are simply made weaker, regardless of weight, to open more easily or at lower velocities.

uz2bUSMC
10-20-2012, 06:01
I don't even know where to begin with that. Even .380 ACP can create hydrostatic shock "on occasions"? What occasions would that be?

Probably when it expands rapidly in conjuction with very shallow penetration.

RYT 2BER
10-20-2012, 08:10
Well than my 155 gr 10mm should ok :)

Darkangel1846
10-20-2012, 09:15
Hydrostatic shock from a handgun......really? What nonsense!

M 7
10-20-2012, 11:23
Hydrostatic shock from a handgun......really? What nonsense!

I agree. What a bunch of hokum. :animlol:

I thought that such misconceptions (significant/meaningful hydrodynamic effect at handgun velocities- less than 1600fps) had gone the way of terms like "stopping power", "knockdown", and "energy dump".

S'pose not. :dunno:

SCmasterblaster
10-20-2012, 12:19
Well than my 155 gr 10mm should ok :)

I'll be getting a .40 S&W soon.

fastbolt
10-20-2012, 13:57
An article providing a trip down memory lane, highlighting & combining some of the commonly promoted opinions I remember hearing starting back in the early 70's. :whistling:

FWIW, training to function while experiencing the physiological reactions occurring during the hormonal fear response, and having deeply ingrained proper skills available so someone can continue to effectively function under those conditions, without having to stop and try to think about it, is something that has been receiving attention in recent years.

M 7
10-20-2012, 14:08
For our purposes the small compressibility of water is insignificant. In the video he had watermellons, which he shot with various rounds. He was up front in that they are not representations of humans, although they had the same water content. The rhine(sp)(skin) is very tuff. 45 ACP JHP's went through with little more than some cracking, 38 special was the same thing, but less cracking, 357 mag with JHP blew the water mellon completely apart. The 9mm JHP blew it apart a bit, but not nearly the same as the 357. He did not show a 40 S&W, but stated that the 357 magnum was the ultimate person stopper.

All that is fine and dandy, but I'd question the value of any conclusions drawn from shooting watermelons, let alone the remainder of the website. Drawing conclusions from an invalid test medium (watermelons in this case) after admitting that they are an invalid medium is laughable at best and an insult to his reader's/client's intelligence.

There's quite a bit wrong with that website, stuff that seems to make sense at first, but fails upon close examination like this-

Those organs, especially water laden once like the liver or kidneys can be ruptured by the hydrostatic shock wave impulse.

Almost every organ in the human body is "water-laden" to some extent, but he confuses the water content with elasticity, tensile strength, and rigidity. The stomach, bladder, intestines, and bowels are even more "water-laden" than the liver and kidneys yet they are not subject to the same degree of rupture that the liver and kidneys are because those organs have greater rigidity and less elasticity than most of the other organs in the human body.

What a hot mess.

But to say categorically that hydrostatic shock has ‘no affect on stopping power’ as the FBI did many years ago after the Miami shooting is simply and clearly not true.
So we are left with the question of how a hydrocrack shock wave is created that does result in better stopping power in a handgun cartridge.

"hydrocrack shock wave" ? :shocked:

:freak:

Seriously?

He's gonna misattribute what was said in the FBI report FBI Report- "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" and then dismiss it as a result of shooting watermelons and after he trots out a term like "hydrocrack shock wave"?

Nah, no thanks. :shakehead:

SCmasterblaster
10-20-2012, 14:09
I am relying on my G17 and the WW 115gr JHP +p+. :cool:

chargingzebra
10-20-2012, 14:26
FWIW, training to function while experiencing the physiological reactions occurring during the hormonal fear response, and having deeply ingrained proper skills available so someone can continue to effectively function under those conditions, without having to stop and try to think about it, is something that has been receiving attention in recent years.

Fastbolt hit the nail on the head. Skip your next gun purchase and invest in some quality stress shoot or force on force combat marksmanship training.

When things go south, a .50 cal in the hands of someone who is overcome with fear and adrenaline will be less effective than one with a .22 and a cool head. Caliber matters, but should be secondary to being able to perform in these types of situations.

Also, generally the larger the caliber the less rounds you can fit in the gun. I go with .40 for the fact that it offers a decent trade off of energy, mag capacity, speed and accuracy that I find best suits my needs.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

PghJim
10-20-2012, 18:03
I basically believe Peyton is going from field experience of his and others. He never said water mellons were people, but neither is Gel. The balistic gel only gives you a consistant media. The Gel is not people either. The mellos are consistant and show a different aspect. He has seen and other have seen the sucessful effects of fast moving-high energy ammo and he believes that the hydrostatic shock (pressure) can explain it. Who knows, if it can tear apart the mellon shell that it does not even touch, why would it not cause some damage to nearby organs.

I am tempted to buy into some of this. After shooting several deer in my family with broadheads that are inch and a quarter to inch and a half, the permanent CC would be greater than the ammo we test and the penetration is max. However, after shooting a deer through boths lungs, you have to wait until the deer bleeds out somewhere before you try and find him, which can go about 45 minutes. Otherwise the wounded deer runs further away. Now add energy with a 44 magnum and the same shot placement will immediately put the deer down

M 7
10-20-2012, 19:12
I basically believe Peyton is going from field experience of his and others. He never said water mellons were people, but neither is Gel. The balistic gel only gives you a consistant media. The Gel is not people either. The mellos are consistant and show a different aspect.

Actually the gelatin is the only consistent medium and anyone operating under the belief that gelatin is identical to people is delusional- it is simply a soft tissue simulant and nothing more. Watermelons cannot be standardized for density and composition because they are highly variable in terms of rind thickness, pulp content, and ripeness- gelatin (and for that matter, water as a simulant) suffers none of these issues because they are isotropic (identical in all directions) materials.

He has seen and other have seen the sucessful effects of fast moving-high energy ammo and he believes that the hydrostatic shock (pressure) can explain it. Who knows, if it can tear apart the mellon shell that it does not even touch, why would it not cause some damage to nearby organs.

Because melon rind has neither the strength nor the elasticity of soft-tissue. You can break/tear apart melon rind with little effort using only your hands. Try that with visceral tissues of a deer like the lungs, stomach, intestines, bladder, kidney, liver, etc. the next time you are "elbow deep" in deer guts. (Ah, success! :supergrin:) They are very tough (elastic strength) and in most cases require tremendous physical effort to tear them apart.

I am tempted to buy into some of this. After shooting several deer in my family with broadheads that are inch and a quarter to inch and a half, the permanent CC would be greater than the ammo we test and the penetration is max. However, after shooting a deer through boths lungs, you have to wait until the deer bleeds out somewhere before you try and find him, which can go about 45 minutes. Otherwise the wounded deer runs further away. Now add energy with a 44 magnum and the same shot placement will immediately put the deer down

Unfortunately, the comparison between bullets and broadheads is not an "apples-to-apples" comparison- the broadhead produces exsanguination through laceration, the bullet does its job through crushed tissues (physical trauma) as well as a certain amount of exsanguination -kind of a "mixed bag", if you will.

PghJim
10-20-2012, 19:50
Actually the gelatin is the only consistent medium and anyone operating under the belief that gelatin is identical to people is delusional- it is simply a soft tissue simulant and nothing more. Watermelons cannot be standardized for density and composition because they are highly variable in terms of rind thickness, pulp content, and ripeness- gelatin (and for that matter, water as a simulant) suffers none of these issues because they are isotropic (identical in all directions) materials.

Depending on you use, water mellon can be consistant, particularly if they are calibrated


Because melon rind has neither the strength nor the elasticity of soft-tissue. You can break/tear apart melon rind with little effort using only your hands. Try that with visceral tissues of a deer like the lungs, stomach, intestines, bladder, kidney, liver, etc. the next time you are "elbow deep" in deer guts. (Ah, success! :supergrin:) They are very tough (elastic strength) and in most cases require tremendous physical effort to tear them apart.

You are missing the point, but oh what the hell. My wife did not want me to thaw out the liver, but it was not that difficult to tear, and I could not break apart a Mellon rine 4X4 with my hands. Anyone up for liver and onions?

Unfortunately, the comparison between bullets and broadheads is not an "apples-to-apples" comparison- the broadhead produces exsanguination through laceration, the bullet does its job through crushed tissues (physical trauma) as well as a certain amount of exsanguination -kind of a "mixed bag", if you will.


My God, you are all over the place on this one. If you do not believe in hydro static then only your permanant crush cavity matters. You will only disable a person if you hit the head or the left ventricle of the heart. Bones can be painful. Otherwise he still can be a threat. To wait for exsanguination is impossiple. A determined person can withstand most single organ hits for a while. I actually think the damage done is greater with the arrow than a bullet, but it can be disputed. Answer me this, why do many people who are shot just collapse when there is no physiological explaination for it?

You still did not comment on my deer example, 44 mag Vs. arrow.

cowboy1964
10-20-2012, 20:02
Probably when it expands rapidly in conjuction with very shallow penetration.

I can't see 200 ft lbs of energy creating enough hydrostatic shock to do anything of value. It's questionable what the threshold even is but most experts seem to think it doesn't even start until you get to 500 ft lbs. And of course the .380 ACP already has lame penetration to begin with, so you don't need even less.

uz2bUSMC
10-20-2012, 20:15
I can't see 200 ft lbs of energy creating enough hydrostatic shock to do anything of value. It's questionable what the threshold even is but most experts seem to think it doesn't even start until you get to 500 ft lbs. And of course the .380 ACP already has lame penetration to begin with, so you don't need even less.

Nah, I don't think it will have anything of value, either...just simply saying... everything has a "shock" value, whether or not it's worth a damn is the question. I don't cosider the .380 to have any value in any area, really, let alone hydrodynamics.

RYT 2BER
10-20-2012, 20:48
I thought that such misconceptions (significant/meaningful hydrodynamic effect at handgun velocities- less than 1600fps)


That ok. My 9x25 ammo is doing better than that i believe :whistling:

M 7
10-20-2012, 21:10
Depending on you use, water mellon can be consistant, particularly if they are calibrated.

"Calibrated" watermelons? Really? :dunno: So much for rational discussion. :upeyes:

Silly rhetoric? Check.


You are missing the point, but oh what the hell. My wife did not want me to thaw out the liver, but it was not that difficult to tear, and I could not break apart a Mellon rine 4X4 with my hands. Anyone up for liver and onions?

Not for one second do I believe that you've done any of this. Not in the 38 minutes that passed between my last post and yours. If you are going to tell fibs, you'll have to be a little more creative than that. :upeyes:

Unpolished, clumsy dishonesty? Check.

My God, you are all over the place on this one. If you do not believe in hydro static then only your permanant crush cavity matters. You will only disable a person if you hit the head or the left ventricle of the heart. Bones can be painful. Otherwise he still can be a threat. To wait for exsanguination is impossiple. A determined person can withstand most single organ hits for a while. I actually think the damage done is greater with the arrow than a bullet, but it can be disputed. Answer me this, why do many people who are shot just collapse when there is no physiological explaination for it?

:laughabove: Now that's all over the place- it'd be a pointless and colossal waste of time to try and make sense of any of that jibberish.

Endless non sequitur? Check.

You still did not comment on my deer example, 44 mag Vs. arrow.

Sure I did. You either a.) didn't read it and/or b.) didn't understand it. :yawn:

Failure to read/comprehend salient material? Check.

And all in one post.

Gotta be some kind of record. :shakehead:

Trigger Finger
10-20-2012, 21:26
The link in the initial post is interesting but I tended to loose interest when they are talking about a "58 grain 38 caliber" bullet as the first caliber to be fired at the watermelon. Never heard of a 38 caliber 58 grain bullet. This is either a mistake or something I have never heard of!!

All of this hydrostatic and other affects a bullet has is nice but tells me very little about actually shooting someone.

Not to brag or blow my own horn but just very briefly:
All I have to go by is what has happened to me personally when someone is shot.
The first shooting I was in I used a 124 grain HP 9MM and the suspect was knocked down (or fell down) got up and ran away.
The second shooting I used a 230 grain HP 45ACP and that person was knocked down (or fell down) and died.

This is all that really matters to me and most other police officers on my department!

I realize that many attempt to explain how and why some bullets are better, but I put more credence in actual results!

Tiro Fijo
10-20-2012, 22:52
...Answer me this, why do many people who are shot just collapse when there is no physiological explaination for it?...


They probably had health insurance and realized what their 20% cost would be. :whistling:



:rofl: :animlol:

PghJim
10-21-2012, 00:07
"Calibrated" watermelons? Really? :dunno: So much for rational discussion. :upeyes:

Silly rhetoric? Check.




Not for one second do I believe that you've done any of this. Not in the 38 minutes that passed between my last post and yours. If you are going to tell fibs, you'll have to be a little more creative than that. :upeyes:

Unpolished, clumsy dishonesty? Check.



:laughabove: Now that's all over the place- it'd be a pointless and colossal waste of time to try and make sense of any of that jibberish.

Endless non sequitur? Check.



Sure I did. You either a.) didn't read it and/or b.) didn't understand it. :yawn:

Failure to read/comprehend salient material? Check.

And all in one post.

Gotta be some kind of record. :shakehead:


I was just pulling your leg. I have no real dog in this fight, but passed it along for discussion. I do think there is something to it, I just do not know how much. I know the next fourth of July picnic we have I am just going to shoot the water mellon and save time cutting it.

English
10-21-2012, 05:34
The link in the initial post is interesting but I tended to loose interest when they are talking about a "58 grain 38 caliber" bullet as the first caliber to be fired at the watermelon. Never heard of a 38 caliber 58 grain bullet. This is either a mistake or something I have never heard of!!

All of this hydrostatic and other affects a bullet has is nice but tells me very little about actually shooting someone.

Not to brag or blow my own horn but just very briefly:
All I have to go by is what has happened to me personally when someone is shot.
The first shooting I was in I used a 124 grain HP 9MM and the suspect was knocked down (or fell down) got up and ran away.
The second shooting I used a 230 grain HP 45ACP and that person was knocked down (or fell down) and died.

This is all that really matters to me and most other police officers on my department!

I realize that many attempt to explain how and why some bullets are better, but I put more credence in actual results!

If you had shot 100 people with your 9mm and 100 people with your .45 and had the same results, your evidence would be highly meaningful. Even 50 of each would be good and 20 not bad. As it is, your experience means nothing relative to the variability of results.

English

PghJim
10-21-2012, 06:52
[QUOTE=Trigger Finger;19538863]The link in the initial post is interesting but I tended to loose interest when they are talking about a "58 grain 38 caliber" bullet as the first caliber to be fired at the watermelon. Never heard of a 38 caliber 58 grain bullet. This is either a mistake or something I have never heard of!!
QUOTE]

Since English commented on the rest, I will look at this. I would assume someone in law enforcement would know those are typo's and that he means 158gr bullet and 38 Special. Both of which he correctly states later.

uz2bUSMC
10-21-2012, 06:54
The first shooting I was in I used a 124 grain HP 9MM and the suspect was knocked down (or fell down) got up and ran away.
The second shooting I used a 230 grain HP 45ACP and that person was knocked down (or fell down) and died.

This is all that really matters to me and most other police officers on my department!

I realize that many attempt to explain how and why some bullets are better, but I put more credence in actual results!

I'm not knocking your experience in these shootings, but to look at them face value one cannot gain much information without more details.

-What loadings were you using? There are many varieties in both of those calibers and those weights.

-Were each of the suspects hit roughly in the same spot? Without the bullets sharing hits on the same vitals it would not be a good comparison.

-Did you attend the autopsy and observe the wound track with both shootings? Again, even if they were both torso hits there is no way to tell how similar the wound tracks were without seeing where the bullet went. I'm just assuming they were shot one time each??

M 7
10-21-2012, 09:02
I was just pulling your leg. I have no real dog in this fight, but passed it along for discussion.

Uh huh. :headscratch:

I do think there is something to it, I just do not know how much.

Yeah, I kinda gathered that.

I know the next fourth of July picnic we have I am just going to shoot the water mellon and save time cutting it.

Great. I can get on with the remainder of my day now that I know this. :phew:

PghJim
10-21-2012, 11:20
No sense of humor.

PrecisionRifleman
10-21-2012, 12:56
Look at it this way: all other things being equal (shot placement, subject is or is not on drugs, same exact circumstances) the diameter of a bullet is miniscule in the equation. Granted, expanding HP's are preferable to FMJ, but the difference between a 9mm or 357Sig expanded to .58" and a .45ACP expanded to .75" is a minor factor in the "big picture". Sure, that .45ACP is making a hole .17" larger. Of equal velocity I guess I'd take the .45 for that reason.

However, given the *possibility* of hydrostatic shock/stretch cavity/BPW actually having an additive effect on a subject that would hasten the cessation of hostilities I would tend to lean towards the round that gave it to me. That's where velocity comes into play.

Choices?

357Sig in 125gr, preferably the hot-rodded "boutique" ones at 1400+fps

.40 in 150-155gr at 1200+fps

9mm +P in 124gr at 1250fps (maybe 1200fps). Second choice would be a 115gr +P+ at 1300+fps.

.45ACP +P in, well, no less than 185gr as long as it did it's tricks out of a smaller sized handgun for CCW (no larger than a Glock 19/23 for reference) ***Sidenote: I've heard the old Remington green/yellow box 185gr +P loads were pretty "dynamic", but IIRC that was out of a larger piece than I'd want to CCW.

I can push a 155gr XTP @ 1300fps in a 40S&W casing in a 4" barrel. However I prefer to run the 155XTP @ 1150fps for accuracy, control, and follow up shots (G23). It's just a more balanced load IMO. I'm pretty confident in my handloaded 155's to get the job done. Besides if I'm at home I'm just using my Glock to make it to my 870 Police loaded with plated 00 buckshot, and buck and ball.

Trigger Finger
10-21-2012, 13:38
I'm not knocking your experience in these shootings, but to look at them face value one cannot gain much information without more details.

-What loadings were you using? There are many varieties in both of those calibers and those weights.

-Were each of the suspects hit roughly in the same spot? Without the bullets sharing hits on the same vitals it would not be a good comparison.

-Did you attend the autopsy and observe the wound track with both shootings? Again, even if they were both torso hits there is no way to tell how similar the wound tracks were without seeing where the bullet went. I'm just assuming they were shot one time each??

You are correct in what you say. I did not get into details and again I won't bore people or give them the impression that I am bragging. The point is that I attempted to shoot each in center mas firing a double tap. The suspect shot with the 9MM ran away and was never found, to the best of my knowledge.

All I am saying is that these two shootings I was in are all the real evidence I have to go buy. There is hydrostatic shock, wait there is NO hydrostatic shock????
I don't know what or who to believe. Conflicting statements and arguments is all I am reading on this subject that I am very interested in.

And I guess allot of you never heard of proof readers? If I am going to put something out there with pictures and what looks like an honest attempt to explain something, I am going to have a number of people proof it first. In police jargon you have a couple people check and proof read it first before you turn it into the Captain.

I guess I will have to be content to reading one argument after another on this subject.

M 7
10-21-2012, 14:02
No sense of humor.

Oh, I have a wonderful sense of humor and enjoy reading humorous posts.

So, when will you be posting something that is humorous? :dunno:


:animlol:

M 7
10-21-2012, 14:19
And I guess allot of you never heard of proof readers? If I am going to put something out there with pictures and what looks like an honest attempt to explain something, I am going to have a number of people proof it first. In police jargon you have a couple people check and proof read it first before you turn it into the Captain.

I agree- the linked site provided on page one is an absolute mess. Clarity and accuracy in print is essentially the "first impression" made upon the reader. If the site owner's/writer's arguments are poorly constructed and replete with misspellings and inaccuracies, the reader is bound to come away with a very poor perception of the writer and his opinion.

I guess I will have to be content to reading one argument after another on this subject.

The debate will never end. Most folks take a solid stance on what they believe to be "the best" and many refuse to see it in terms other than those. Although I like the subsonic high-sectional density JHPs, I also see the benefits (and the disadvantages) offered by supersonic lower sectional density JHPs and I am simply unwilling to kid myself into believing that either one is the "super bullet" or "magic bullet" that some folks seem to be in search of.

English
10-21-2012, 15:20
Peyton Quinn, the author of the article might have his heart in the right place, but, as the anti hydostatic shock people have pointed out, the article is full of typos and misconceptions.

Unfortunately the anti hydrostatic shock people are full of misconceptions as well. The term hydrostatic shock was unfortunate from the begining and seems to mixing physics and neurology without understanding either. If we are using it to say that some people who are shot, even with handgun rounds, collapse in an uncontrolled way and are effectively unconscious within a very few seconds, there can be little doubt that this does happen. Unfortunately that evidence has been denied by a group of influential people who claim that incapacitation can be achieved only by direct damage to the nervous system or by sufficient loss of blood. They have come up with a number of very poor explanations for why they are right and have traduced the individuals who have experienced the phenomenon. They have done this without repeatable experimental evidence and have managed to pass off their unfounded opinion as truth to large numbers of individuals, ammunition manufacturers, LE agencies and the military. They might well have caused the deaths of people who would not otherwise have died in doing so.

What we can say from physics is that any bullet, at any speed, travelling through any fluid medium must create a hydrodynamic pressure wave. Matter must be moved out of the path of the bullet to allow it to pass. Matter can be accelerated only by the application of force and since the medium is fluid, that can only be in the form of pressure. Since the fluid is not contained in a resistant container, the pressure effect must be dynamic rather than static. Static pressure is constant throughout the container, apart from gravitational effects with depth, but dynamic pressure can be created only by a moving body within the fluid and the pressure must fall with distance from the source of pressure. Since, by Newton's first law, action and reaction must be equal and opposite, the force that pushes the fluid out of the way of must be equal and opposite to the force that slows the bullet from the drag of its movement.

Given a variable pressure within a fluid, the fluid will tend to flow from higher to lower pressure zones, and since it will tend to optimise this flow it will move with an acceleration which is perpendicular to the surfaces of the same pressure or iso-pressure surfaces - think of the 3D equivalent of contours on a map and something sliding down hill. Doing other than this would require an acceleration at an angle to those surfaces which would increase the distance moved and so would require a higher speed to achieve the same total displacement. That woud take more energy. In other words, that cannot happen.

So, the pressure produced by the bullet must come from the front of the bullet. If we consider a flat fronted bullet, it must produce an effect where the iso-pressure surfaces immediately in front of the bullet are parallel to the front of the bullet but become more and more like the shape of the cap of a mushroom with increasing distance in front of the bullet. So the fluid directly in front of the axis of the bullet will be accelerated forwards but fluid to the side of the axis will have a greater and greater sideways component away from the axis. Incidentally, this is why the maximum diameter of the cavity to be seen in gel is always a few inches in front of the entry - the sideways component occurs at a distance in front of the bullet and the direction of movement angles forwards rather than directly to the side! It is worth noting that since mass cannot be accelerated in zero time, the main movement to clear the path of the bullet starts some considerable distance in front of the bullet apart from the very light layer first contacted at the entry point.

If we consider a round nosed bullet, then the iso-pressure surfaces at the front of the bullet will approximate to the shape of the bullet nose and so the sideways component of acceleration will occur much closer to the front of the bullet. Because of this, fluid a little less than the radius of the bullet will have only a short distance to move out of the way of the bullet. The same principle applies, with less and less effect, as that radius is reduced. That reduces the total force resisting the bullet becausepart of the fluid, the outer cylinders, are slid asid more easily and because the increase in pressure caused by the "log jam" of fluid built up in front of the bullet is reduced. This reduces the energy needed to overcome the resistance and does two simple things. Itt increases the penetration depth of the bullet, other things being equal, and it reduces the damage done to the side of track by reducing the speed at which fluid is pushed to the side.

We can see from this is that the wider and flatter the bullet, the greater the pressure it will produce in front of it. Also, as the bullet speed is increased, the time available to move fluid out of its way decreases as the inverse of the speed. Double the speed and halve the time! In short, this means that the drag increases with the square of the bullet speed. As drag is the retarding force on the bullet and as it is created by pressure on the front of the bullet the pressure of the pressure wave at any particular point in front of the bullet, other things being equal, is proportional to the product of the equivalent frontal area of the bullet and the square of the bullet speed. That is, if the bullet expands but the petals fold back into a wide but more streamlined shape, the actual frontal area must be reduced to give the equivalent flat plate resistance figure.

I hope that this establishes the fact that all bullets must create a hydrodynamic pressure wave, but there is a little more to consider. When I mentioned hydrostatic pressure I said that it must be contained within a restraining vessel. Hydrodynamic pressure is also contained, to an extent, by the mass of surrounding fluid which forms a resistance to the acceleration of the fluid from the source of pressure. Thus a bullet fired just below and parallel to the surface of a fluid, such as a flat lake or not far below the skin and along the length of a thigh, will still produce a pressure wave, but the pressure in the direction of the surface will be reduced and even some of the inward presure will divert to raise and push aside the surface. If anyone would care to do the experiment with a rig to fire horizontally under the surface of a calm lake (preferably with a silencer to minimse the gas effect) I think they should see the bullet rise out of the water at a slight angle.

What this come down to is that if there are pressure wave effects which produce collapse, and if they depend on the pressure being high enough, and if they are dependent on pumping blood under high pressure to the brain by compressing a large volume of blood vessel containing tissue, then the bullet creating that effect must have reasonable penetration with a speed remaining at a depth which creates a high enough hydrodynamic pressure. A shot in an arm or leg will not produce such an effect because of the distance from the brain and the lack of containment. A very light high speed expanding bullet will not work either as the pressure it creates will blow tissue back in the direction of the entry - that is, the containment will be too poor.

So, the question that remains is what kinds of loads are most likely to produce this effect which, at the begining I pointed out were well attested to from anecdotal evidence by competent individuals. The answer is loads that produce good expansion at relatively high velocities and produce their maximum temporary cavity at about 3 to 7 inches penetration. This means of course that their total penetration would be some 13 inches. With too much penetration, the rate of release of kinetic energy is too low to create a high enough pressure. With too little penetration, the pressure is dissipated by insufficient containment.

All of this quite simple theory fits with the data gathered by the Courtney experiments on deer. One of the experimental criteria was that only loads giving at least 12 inches penetration in gel would be tested and so there was always sufficient penetration. The deer, of course were not obese and did not have jail house weight lifter chest muscles, so might not be an ideal model for some criminals. Apart from that, the data were consistent with the hypothesis that the probability of rapid collapse increased monotonically with the peak pressure of the hydrodynamic pressure wave or, in Courtney's terminology, the ballistic pressure wave. What their data showed without doubt was that the right loads in service size handguns will produce this efect on a significant proportion of occasions provided that the peak pressure is above a particular lower limit. This depended on kinetic energy, velocity and bullet construction. Only a few 9mm loads exceeded this limit, typically 115gn +p of +p+ loads. The .40S&Ws had a higher proportion of loads exceeding the level, once again in the lighter and faster loads. The .45ACPs were much the same but with some very much better. The 357SIGs were better still on average, in as much as most were good. The hot 10mms were best of all with incapacitation probabilities up above 75%. The data from these experiments make a nonsense of the assertion that only rifle rounds can produce rapid incapacitation. But those assertions had no experimental foundation in the first place.

English

PghJim
10-21-2012, 16:12
Thanks English. I did not read the article close at all, because I was getting the information from the DVD. Looking at the article it could use some review.

M 7
10-21-2012, 16:31
Unfortunately that evidence has been denied by a group of influential people who claim that incapacitation can be achieved only by direct damage to the nervous system or by sufficient loss of blood.

So, if "sufficient loss of blood" and "direct damage to the nervous system" aren't the only means of achieving incapacitation, what are the other means of achieving incapacitation? :headscratch:

Angry Fist
10-21-2012, 17:05
I'll stick with my 180 Gold Dot @ ~1300 fps. 15 of them should ruin anyone's day.

unit1069
10-21-2012, 17:24
All of this quite simple theory fits with the data gathered by the Courtney experiments on deer. One of the experimental criteria was that only loads giving at least 12 inches penetration in gel would be tested and so there was always sufficient penetration. The deer, of course were not obese and did not have jail house weight lifter chest muscles, so might not be an ideal model for some criminals. Apart from that, the data were consistent with the hypothesis that the probability of rapid collapse increased monotonically with the peak pressure of the hydrodynamic pressure wave or, in Courtney's terminology, the ballistic pressure wave. What their data showed without doubt was that the right loads in service size handguns will produce this efect on a significant proportion of occasions provided that the peak pressure is above a particular lower limit. This depended on kinetic energy, velocity and bullet construction. Only a few 9mm loads exceeded this limit, typically 115gn +p of +p+ loads. The .40S&Ws had a higher proportion of loads exceeding the level, once again in the lighter and faster loads. The .45ACPs were much the same but with some very much better. The 357SIGs were better still on average, in as much as most were good. The hot 10mms were best of all with incapacitation probabilities up above 75%. The data from these experiments make a nonsense of the assertion that only rifle rounds can produce rapid incapacitation. But those assertions had no experimental foundation in the first place.



It seems to me that both sides of the argument stipulate that high velocity projectiles create a ballistic pressure wave. The divergence is where one camp says the needed velocity can only occur in rifle velocities and the other camp contends it's possible in handgun calibers when specific factors come into play.

Speaking only for myself I've never seen any of the anti-BPW advocates provide a scientific velocity cut-off point for the BPW effect. So to advance the discussion would someone please confirm a distinct velocity point for specific calibers that is a bright line?

Add to this that eyewitness LEO and others have testified that some one-shot stops dropped a felon immediately. My intuitive thinking is that in an adrenalin-fueled combat situation only a dead-center CNS hit would produce this collapse, as the felon would require at least a few seconds to understand his plight before giving up. The anecdotal LEO testimony in non-CNS instant collapse hits point towards more than just white lab coat guy statistics that may or may not be present in these incidents.

unit1069
10-21-2012, 17:30
I'll stick with my 180 Gold Dot @ ~1300 fps. 15 of them should ruin anyone's day.

That's a pretty robust 180-grain round, for sure. I suspect even one round would create a bad hair day for the recipient, much less fifteen.

Tiro Fijo
10-21-2012, 17:34
...what are the other means of achieving incapacitation? :headscratch:


Kung Fu or Marriage. :supergrin:


:rofl: :animlol:

uz2bUSMC
10-21-2012, 17:41
It seems to me that both sides of the argument stipulate that high velocity projectiles create a ballistic pressure wave. The divergence is where one camp says the needed velocity can only occur in rifle velocities and the other camp contends it's possible in handgun calibers when specific factors come into play.

Speaking only for myself I've never seen any of the anti-BPW advocates provide a scientific velocity cut-off point for the BPW effect. So to advance the discussion would someone please confirm a distinct velocity point for specific calibers that is a bright line?

Add to this that eyewitness LEO and others have testified that some one-shot stops dropped a felon immediately. My intuitive thinking is that in an adrenalin-fueled combat situation only a dead-center CNS hit would produce this collapse, as the felon would require at least a few seconds to understand his plight before giving up. The anecdotal LEO testimony in non-CNS instant collapse hits point towards more than just white lab coat guy statistics that may or may not be present in these incidents.

The Fackler crowd will never admit to BPW, at least in those terms. The only thing they tote is temp cavitation coming into useful effect at about 2000fps. However, this actually was never said the way the Facklerites portray it. In actuality, 2000fps was the supposed threshold in which fragments become useful in causing sufficient damage, exploiting the effects of temp cavitation. The velocity alone is not really relevant since rate of transfer of energy is the control for peak BPW.

What the Fackler crowd will never answer is simply why game animals can fall instantly without a CNS hit. Rifle or otherwise, the phenomena exists but the koolaid kingdom must convince everyone that it does not... pistol, rifle or otherwise.

Angry Fist
10-21-2012, 18:21
That's a pretty robust 180-grain round, for sure. I suspect even one round would create a bad hair day for the recipient, much less fifteen.
Underwood 10MM! :cheers:

cowboy1964
10-21-2012, 18:44
Speaking only for myself I've never seen any of the anti-BPW advocates provide a scientific velocity cut-off point for the BPW effect. So to advance the discussion would someone please confirm a distinct velocity point for specific calibers that is a bright line?

Anecdotal evidence suggests the .357 Magnum/Sig does create a lightning bolt effect. So IMO around 500 ft lbs of energy is when it's *possible* that BPW may start coming into play (and it is energy, not velocity).

uz2bUSMC
10-21-2012, 18:53
Anecdotal evidence suggests the .357 Magnum/Sig does create a lightning bolt effect. So IMO around 500 ft lbs of energy is when it's *possible* that BPW may start coming into play (and it is energy, not velocity).

:dunno: You are a confusing individual.

chasbo00
10-21-2012, 19:14
This BPW stuff ain't nothing. Did you know that if you wear a leather coat and get shot, the bullet will actually explode inside you? Article and video proves this - see below!

http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.kr/2012/10/mildly-explosive-terminal-test-results.html

English
10-22-2012, 04:27
So, if "sufficient loss of blood" and "direct damage to the nervous system" aren't the only means of achieving incapacitation, what are the other means of achieving incapacitation? :headscratch:

Indirect damage to the CNS by remote trauma!

Blood loss produces a slow and progressive degradation of function leading to incapacitation. Rapid collapse can only be caused by damage to the CNS and the brain in particular. That is, the signals from the brain to the body must be interfered with so that the body can no longer function under conscious control. We can argue about how the remote trauma might cause brain damage of varying degrees, but we cannot sensibly argue about the existence of the phenomenon which can come from only one source.

English

English
10-22-2012, 04:45
Anecdotal evidence suggests the .357 Magnum/Sig does create a lightning bolt effect. So IMO around 500 ft lbs of energy is when it's *possible* that BPW may start coming into play (and it is energy, not velocity).

That is a not unreasonable estimate based on anecdotal evidence but it is not the complete story. 500ft lbs in a heavy bullet with low expansion will not create a large enough pressure wave. Equally, I believe without evidence, 500 ft lbs with too light and fast a bullet might create a pressure wave of too short a duration.

500ft lbs is probably the minimum to produce a strong enough and long enough duration pressure wave to produce rapid collapse reasonably often. More than 500ft lbs will do so, given appropriate bullet mass and expansion with greater frequency. Beyond 750ft lbs we are probably into the region where diminishing returns have become too great to make it worth going further. It is worth noting that a .44 Magnum with over 1300ft lbs and heavy solid hunting bullet will not produce a good pressure wave of this kind.

English

M 7
10-22-2012, 07:20
Unfortunately that evidence has been denied by a group of influential people who claim that incapacitation can be achieved only by direct damage to the nervous system or by sufficient loss of blood.

So, if "sufficient loss of blood" and "direct damage to the nervous system" aren't the only means of achieving incapacitation, what are the other means of achieving incapacitation? :headscratch:

Indirect damage to the CNS by remote trauma!

Blood loss produces a slow and progressive degradation of function leading to incapacitation. Rapid collapse can only be caused by damage to the CNS and the brain in particular. That is, the signals from the brain to the body must be interfered with so that the body can no longer function under conscious control. We can argue about how the remote trauma might cause brain damage of varying degrees, but we cannot sensibly argue about the existence of the phenomenon which can come from only one source.

English

Huh? :headscratch:

This is really confusing.

What is the difference between "indirect damage to the CNS" and "direct damage to the CNS" ? :dunno:

In either case, the CNS is damaged meaning that there is no other mechanism for incapacitation. Regardless of how the damage occurs, the only two ways that incapacitation can be achieved is through damage to the CNS or through blood loss.

Above, you said-

"Unfortunately that evidence has been denied by a group of influential people
who claim that incapacitation can be achieved only by direct damage to the
nervous system or by sufficient loss of blood."

which implies that there is some other way that incapacitation can be achieved besides CNS damage or blood loss.

What you are describing is another (possible but not proven) cause for CNS damage, not another mechanism for incapacitation- those being CNS damage and blood loss.

When asked to explain why "a group of influential people who claim that incapacitation can be achieved only by direct damage to the nervous system or by sufficient loss of blood" is wrong by your account, you have not explained your claim, but rather gone on to describe how one of the two mechanisms that cause incapacitation is produced.


:dunno:

PghJim
10-22-2012, 08:30
Huh? :headscratch:

This is really confusing.

What you are describing is another (possible but not proven) cause for CNS damage, not another mechanism for incapacitation- those being CNS damage and blood loss.


:dunno:

I would be another mechanism. Damage to the CNS caused by a bullet tearing through it, is much different than the damage that would be caused by an energy wave. The energy wave is the result of high energy rounds in the body fluid. Just because the same organ is damaged, does not mean it is the same mechanism. :tongueout:

SCmasterblaster
10-22-2012, 10:18
Well than my 155 gr 10mm should ok :)

I'd say that it is. The bullet expansion and penetration with fast-flying 155gr 10mm bullet is fantastic. :cool:

fastbolt
10-22-2012, 11:31
Figured the BPW enthusiasts would jump on this thread at some point. :tongueout:

Why not? It's a "hydrostatic shock" thread, right? Might as well toss in the vintage term "stopping power", too. :)

Folks, delivery of pressure - (sheering, cutting, stretching, pushing, etc, through whatever medium the "force" is delivered) - to the tissues of the CNS can create damage and wounding effect. It doesn't take much to damage nerve tissue, at times, does it?

The amount of that wounding effect, and its immediate effect upon the wounded person's actions, and their ability to continue to engage in volitional activities, has been debated and argued virtually to no end.

Whether that "force" is delivered via blood vessels (pressure spike), or propagated through the body's fluid medium outside the blood vessels (but within the fluid medium in which the various tissues & organs are suspended, to some degree), meaning some sort of "shock wave", doesn't seem to have been definitively demonstrated.

Doesn't mean it won't be, at some point, and both methods may receive support as time passes and medical science progresses.

Whether the level of "force" required to produce that type of wounding effect can be consistently produced by a handgun, though, let alone a handgun chambered in one of the commonly used service-type calibers, is also a subject open to conjecture, speculation and seemingly no end of debate.

The BPW theory has been promoted (sometimes to the point of seeming proselytizing) to explain some of the effects observed when people (and deer) have been shot with bullets.

Notwithstanding the subject of this thread topic being an interesting trip down memory lane, containing many of the things that have been discussed since the late 60's & early 70's, I'm still not swayed in my selection of defensive handgun calibers & ammunition. Yet. (I used to think about such things when I was a young man and carried a .44 Magnum loaded with 180gr JHP/SJHP's, though ... but that was then, and this is now).

M 7
10-22-2012, 11:50
I would be another mechanism. Damage to the CNS caused by a bullet tearing through it, is much different than the damage that would be caused by an energy wave. The energy wave is the result of high energy rounds in the body fluid. Just because the same organ is damaged, does not mean it is the same mechanism. :tongueout:

Oh geez, another attempt at humor? :headscratch:

Blood loss is blood loss and tissue damage is tissue damage. :winkie:

It's the same thing no matter how you get there. :whistling:

English
10-22-2012, 14:46
M7, The Fackler set denied the existence of rapid incapacitation by a single shot and as you can see by threads with titles such as "The Myth of the One Shot Stop", this idea persists. They denied it in spite of multiple sources of evidence, mainly from LEOs.

What they meant by direct damage to the CNS was a penetratin of some part of the CNS by a bullet. What those who claimed to have experienced one shot stops were talking about were rapid collapses from hits to the thorax which had not hit the spine. Unless you are being purposefully obtuse, this is a major difference. There the issue stayed until the first Marshal and Sanow book and then the Strasburg Tests, if they existed.

Marshal and Sanow attempted to gather statistics from LEOs about the frequency of one shot stops with different rounds. Unfortunately the methodology was seriously flawed. The Strasburg Tests, which got into gun magazines via a leak and without attribution, claimed to have tested numerous different cartridges and loads on Alpine Goats of about 150lbs weight in the belief that they were a reasonable comparison to humans in their probable reactions to gunshot trauma. In retospect these tests were very believable as they did not at all match the expectations of the great majority of gun writers but no one ever claimed responsibility for them and they were easy for the antis to discredit by disparagement.

And then we had the Courtney experiments in which deer of consistent size were shot with pistol bullets at pistol velocities. These experiments looked at the frequency, as an indication of the probability, of rapid incapacitation and related it to the calculated peak pressure of the balistic pressure wave created by the passage of the bullet. The deer were shot precisely in the thorax so that the heart and spine in particular were not hit. The data show without any resonable doubt that the results matched the model. Contrary to the claims of many detractors this was not about magic bullets and actually showed that there are no magic bullets. What it did show is that some bullets and loadings effectively never showed this phenomenon - 9mm and .45ACP ball are perfect examples. It also showed which bullets and loadings showed this phenomenon in ranges from occasionally to frequently and that no bullet and loading tested or feasible in a handgun of service size achieved certainty of rapid collapse.

Why any of this should be so surprising and so unacceptable to so many is something I don't understand. Why they should be prepared to lie about the findings and traduce and abuse the experimenters is even more strange.

English

M 7
10-22-2012, 15:23
What they meant by direct damage to the CNS was a penetratin of some part of the CNS by a bullet. What those who claimed to have experienced one shot stops were talking about were rapid collapses from hits to the thorax which had not hit the spine. Unless you are being purposefully obtuse, this is a major difference.

Nope. Not bein' obtuse.

I still hold that damaged tissue (CNS and otherwise) is damaged tissue regardless of "how" it becomes damaged. As I've said a few times now, there seems to be two mechanisms for achieving incapacitation- tissue damage and blood loss.

I believe that you are confusing the cause of the mechanism (that is, how the tissue becomes damaged and blood loss occurs) with the manifestation of the mechanism (the tissue damage and/or blood loss itself).

SCmasterblaster
10-22-2012, 15:33
Here is a link to some stopping power data:

http://www.handloads.org/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0

English
10-23-2012, 05:43
Nope. Not bein' obtuse.

I still hold that damaged tissue (CNS and otherwise) is damaged tissue regardless of "how" it becomes damaged. As I've said a few times now, there seems to be two mechanisms for achieving incapacitation- tissue damage and blood loss.

I believe that you are confusing the cause of the mechanism (that is, how the tissue becomes damaged and blood loss occurs) with the manifestation of the mechanism (the tissue damage and/or blood loss itself).

It is good to see that you are accepting that the brain can be damaged by bullet trauma that does not touch the skull or spine.

I have made it very clear, as have others, in numerous posts in numerous threads that brain damage is the only way in which rapid incapacitation can occur. Within the history of this long running argument on GT, that has never been disputed. All that has been disputed is whether remote trauma can damage the brain before blood loss could do so.

What has not been established, and what the Courtney experiments did not seek to establish, was the mechanism by which kinetic energy delivered to the thorax caused brain damage. It was, for instance, possible that some kind of large scale neural impulse coming from a large volume of tissue at effectively the same time could cause some kind of overload which caused unconsciousness. There were some reasonable arguments against that. More likely was that the compression of the tissue pumped a large volume of blood through blood vessels to the brain and that the resulting pressure spike in the brain caused the damage.

The latter hypothesis is supported by evidence from gun shot suicide brain autopsies done in the Czech Republic. This showed characteristic damage to the brain stem at a microscopic level from some shots to the chest. This was not, of course, a controlled experiment such as that done by the Courtneys but simply evidence that gun shots to the chest could produce specific and microscopically observable damage to cells of the brain.

English

M 7
10-23-2012, 07:44
It is good to see that you are accepting that the brain can be damaged by bullet trauma that does not touch the skull or spine.

I never said that I did. Please do not attribute to me things that I've never said. You've inferred that I am stupid, or at least intentionally so, and have now begun to put words in my mouth. I was willing to ask questions and to listen to you. Now I am not.

:wavey:

OctoberRust
10-23-2012, 07:55
I never said that I did. Please do not attribute to me things that I've never said. You've inferred that I am stupid, or at least intentionally so, and have now begun to put words in my mouth. I was willing to ask questions and to listen to you. Now I am not.

:wavey:


I don't know, seeing this debate go on, it looks like you thought you were the big boy on the block until English came around. After that, it started going downhill for your and your feelings got hurt; consequently you're taking your ball now and going home.

M 7
10-23-2012, 08:21
I don't know, seeing this debate go on, it looks like you thought you were the big boy on the block until English came around. After that, it started going downhill for your and your feelings got hurt; consequently you're taking your ball now and going home.

Call it whatever you want, but this is simply not important enough to me to act like a jerk in order to debate some obscure theory. :wavey:

uz2bUSMC
10-23-2012, 08:38
Figured the BPW enthusiasts would jump on this thread at some point. :tongueout:


We're around.:cool:

English
10-23-2012, 10:16
I never said that I did. Please do not attribute to me things that I've never said. You've inferred that I am stupid, or at least intentionally so, and have now begun to put words in my mouth. I was willing to ask questions and to listen to you. Now I am not.

:wavey:

You said, damaged tissue (CNS and otherwise) is damaged tissue regardless of "how" it becomes damaged in your previous post. Since the only way to produce a rapid collapse is to interfere with the control of the body by the brain, and rapid collapse was what we were taling about, that that measns that rapid collapse when the CNS has not suffered a direct hit implies some form of brain trauma caused by a non direct hit. Since I did not think you were stupid I assumed that this was your implication. Clearly I was wrong.

English

fastbolt
10-23-2012, 10:18
We're around.:cool:

Didn't doubt it for minute. ;) :wavey:

As I mentioned in my early post, I remember being a proponent of HS back in the days (late 60's & throughout the 70's). Caliber and MV/ME were my primary interests when selecting handgun calibers and ammunition.

I started being a little more open-minded in the 80's, particularly toward the end of the 80's. Becoming a firearms instructor in '90, and being handed fresh copies of some of the early FBI studies and writings, gave me some things to consider. Sure, I was eagerly reading everything released by other working cops (such as Marshall & Sanow), too. It was a time of come contradictory opinions and no small amount of discussion and debate.

After enough years of learning what happened to folks when they were shot with different firearms & calibers, I shifted my focus more heavily toward the mindset & tactics areas. Predictability & consistency were all over the place when it came to how people might react when suffering gunshot wounds.

I haven't been a one-size-fits-all guy for many years, and I look at firearm, caliber and ammunition selection as something best done from the perspective of anticipated tasks and situational context. It's also something over which many working cops have no control, being issued both weapons and ammunition.

I leave my .44's and 6-shot .357's in the safe nowadays, which is opposite of my early days as a young cop, when I carried .357's loaded with 125/140/145gr Magnum loads and my .44's loaded with 180gr loads. They get some range time now and again (for skills maintenance, and a bit of nostalgic range enjoyment), but not much in the way of carry usage.

None of this stuff is important enough to get people rankled with each other, though. See 'ya around the forums. :wavey:

SCmasterblaster
10-23-2012, 10:49
I have been deer hunting twice with a S&W 629 6-inch revolver. I didn't feel at all under-gunned here in VT.

M 7
10-23-2012, 11:01
You said, in your previous post. Since the only way to produce a rapid collapse is to interfere with the control of the body by the brain, and rapid collapse was what we were taling about, that that measns that rapid collapse when the CNS has not suffered a direct hit implies some form of brain trauma caused by a non direct hit. Since I did not think you were stupid I assumed that this was your implication. Clearly I was wrong.

English

Correct. That was not my implication. Thank you for being civil about it and correcting the record.

It's a minor concern in the grand scheme of things and not worth quibbling over.

Have a good one. :)

SCmasterblaster
10-23-2012, 11:12
Correct. That was not my implication. Thank you for being civil about it and correcting the record.

It's a minor concern in the grand scheme of things and not worth quibbling over.

Have a good one. :)

Would that everyone in GT be this courteous! :cool:

M 7
10-23-2012, 13:45
Would that everyone in GT be this courteous! :cool:

Should be easy- just gotta drop the emotional attachment to minutae (found in any topic).*






*Before anyone thinks that I am directing this at them, I am not. I am speaking in general terms, so chill out, OK? :cool:

cowboy1964
10-23-2012, 19:13
Just an added data point:

5.56mm NATO XM193: Drywall & Ballistic Gel Test - YouTube

This "shock wave" damage does not occur in his handgun testing. There is a hint of it in some of his .357 Sig testing but it is extremely minor compared to what a rifle does.

This doesn't surprise anyone, does it??

uz2bUSMC
10-24-2012, 06:35
Would love to see this with a 6" bbl. Anyway, .357 sig isn't the only kid on the block with damage peripheral to the bullet track.

10mm Underwood Ammo Gold Dot 180 gr Ammo Test - YouTube

SCmasterblaster
10-25-2012, 17:44
[QUOTE=Trigger Finger;19538863]The link in the initial post is interesting but I tended to loose interest when they are talking about a "58 grain 38 caliber" bullet as the first caliber to be fired at the watermelon. Never heard of a 38 caliber 58 grain bullet. This is either a mistake or something I have never heard of!!
QUOTE]

Since English commented on the rest, I will look at this. I would assume someone in law enforcement would know those are typo's and that he means 158gr bullet and 38 Special. Both of which he correctly states later.

They probably meant 158gr bullet. Typical leftist typo.

smitret
10-25-2012, 23:44
Water can only be compressed a few percent tops and that's under extreme pressure. For ballistic purposes it can be considered incompressible.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/compressibility.html

I agree.

If liquids could compress hydraulics wouldn't work very well.

SCmasterblaster
10-26-2012, 09:06
I leave my .44's and 6-shot .357's in the safe nowadays, which is opposite of my early days as a young cop, when I carried .357's loaded with 125/140/145gr Magnum loads and my .44's loaded with 180gr loads. They get some range time now and again (for skills maintenance, and a bit of nostalgic range enjoyment), but not much in the way of carry usage.

None of this stuff is important enough to get people rankled with each other, though. See 'ya around the forums. :wavey:

Funny, I leave my .44 mag and .357 mags in the safe also. Times do change things. I carry a Glock 17 loaded with 115gr +p+ JHPs. :cool:

fastbolt
10-26-2012, 11:27
Funny, I leave my .44 mag and .357 mags in the safe also. Times do change things. I carry a Glock 17 loaded with 115gr +p+ JHPs. :cool:

Yep, funny about changing times (and how we usually change with them, at least to some degree ;) ) ...

The last couple of times I took a couple of my DA .44's to the range, it brought smiles to the faces of some older cops (my age group). One of them lamented he'd not had his 4" M29 - (which he used to carry as a motor cop many years ago) - at the range for longer than he could remember.

After we were all done shooting the .44's (with loads ranging from mild to wild, using 240/250/315gr bullets), we left carrying an assortment of 9's, .40's & .45's. :) I might've had one of my .38 J-frames in my pocket, too.

Brian Lee
10-26-2012, 21:26
Well than my 155 gr 10mm should ok :)

Should be...

I'm a firm believer in the extra effects of a supersonic shock wave traveling through the flesh of a sub-human biped, because it blows a momentary crater ten times wider than the bullet diameter is. That's exactly what hydrodynamic shock waves do if the bullet is fast enough, although you can only see it happen on slow motion video.

155 & 165 grain are my absolute favorite bullet weights for 10MM SD ammo just for this reason, because I think that the heavier ones go too slow to make enough of a shock wave. They just over-penetrate in bipeds, carrying most of their energy out his backside and wasting it, because those heavy bullets were really intended for big game with thick bodies, and not skinny bipeds.

If I gotta shoot some scum, I want ALL of the energy to be dissipated INTO the BG, and not into the wall behind him. Why waste killing power on slower moving bowling balls that over-penetration? Internal bleeding bleeds faster than two small holes with a lot less internal damage.

PEC-Memphis
10-28-2012, 13:16
I agree.

If liquids could compress hydraulics wouldn't work very well.

Fluids do compress, and it is a well known consideration in engineering hydraulic controls. I am responsible for a hydraulic system 17.5 miles in length (each hydraulic circuit is 4-6 miles in length) - oil compressibility is a factor in this system.


The OPs reference states that water is incompressible "no matter how much pressure is applied", which is blatantly untrue. We must assume that the website is referring to liquid water, as water can exist in at least three states.

I'm not even sure that fluids could be considered incompressible in a RIGOROUS analysis of terminal ballistics - such as with computer modeling. Of course it is true that liquids are much much less compressible than gasses.

SCmasterblaster
10-28-2012, 13:24
Yep, funny about changing times (and how we usually change with them, at least to some degree ;) ) ...

The last couple of times I took a couple of my DA .44's to the range, it brought smiles to the faces of some older cops (my age group). One of them lamented he'd not had his 4" M29 - (which he used to carry as a motor cop many years ago) - at the range for longer than he could remember.

After we were all done shooting the .44's (with loads ranging from mild to wild, using 240/250/315gr bullets), we left carrying an assortment of 9's, .40's & .45's. :) I might've had one of my .38 J-frames in my pocket, too.

Maybe some ranges should have an old-timer's event. :cool:

MAC702
10-28-2012, 14:12
...the ammo that causes the greatest hydrostatic shock (pressure) will be the most effect in neutralizing the threat,...

I suppose I can agree with that, but it is not the only factor to consider for self-defense ammo.

For civilian self-defense, stopping power is overrated. Having a firearm stops most threats, what few remain, when hit with ANYTHING, will reevaluate their life's choices. Only a very, very few determined threats, are going to advance.

Carry what you can shoot the best; after that, look at the stopping power issue.

But another issue is over-penetration. For civilian self-defense, this is more important. The .357 Magnum and .357 Sig are fantastic rounds for stopping power, but also have higher risks of over-penetration.

I'm not saying there is a magic round for defense; there never will be.

But my personal choice is the .45 ACP because I find the bigger, slower bullet to be a very adequate choice for stopping power, with less risk of over-penetration, and in many ways, it's easier to shoot than high-velocity, higher-pressure cartridges.

But yes, they can improve your stopping power number, if that's the only thing you are concerned with.

SCmasterblaster
10-28-2012, 14:44
I suppose I can agree with that, but it is not the only factor to consider for self-defense ammo.

For civilian self-defense, stopping power is overrated. Having a firearm stops most threats, what few remain, when hit with ANYTHING, will reevaluate their life's choices. Only a very, very few determined threats, are going to advance.

Carry what you can shoot the best; after that, look at the stopping power issue.

But another issue is over-penetration. For civilian self-defense, this is more important. The .357 Magnum and .357 Sig are fantastic rounds for stopping power, but also have higher risks of over-penetration.

I'm not saying there is a magic round for defense; there never will be.

But my personal choice is the .45 ACP because I find the bigger, slower bullet to be a very adequate choice for stopping power, with less risk of over-penetration, and in many ways, it's easier to shoot than high-velocity, higher-pressure cartridges.

But yes, they can improve your stopping power number, if that's the only thing you are concerned with.

That is a thoughtful choice you have there in the .45 ACP. I carry it here in the VT wintertime.

PghJim
10-28-2012, 15:37
Fluids do compress, and it is a well known consideration in engineering hydraulic controls. I am responsible for a hydraulic system 17.5 miles in length (each hydraulic circuit is 4-6 miles in length) - oil compressibility is a factor in this system.


The OPs reference states that water is incompressible "no matter how much pressure is applied", which is blatantly untrue. We must assume that the website is referring to liquid water, as water can exist in at least three states.

I'm not even sure that fluids could be considered incompressible in a RIGOROUS analysis of terminal ballistics - such as with computer modeling. Of course it is true that liquids are much much less compressible than gasses.

For our purpose we do not need to consider the compressibility of water. In theory, everything can compress some. I was refering to the webpage that made that statement, "no matter how much pressure is applied". Actually in fluid dynamics compressibility is considered when modeling hydrostatic pressure uses. However, I believe the author is just saying that a fast moving high energy bullet will cause a pressure wave that could cause damage to nearby tissue and organs.

Deputydave
10-28-2012, 15:42
I agree. What a bunch of hokum. :animlol:

I thought that such misconceptions (significant/meaningful hydrodynamic effect at handgun velocities- less than 1600fps) had gone the way of terms like "stopping power", "knockdown", and "energy dump".

S'pose not. :dunno:

Unfortunately, terms such as 'stopping power', 'knock down power', 'energy dump', 'hydrostatic shock' and 'ballistic wound pressure' are still around. We've been discussing these terms since the inception of this board. Here is the bottom line, they're just gun rag terminology designed to sell a product. Nothing more. A handgun round, in any of the standard service calibers only needs a few qualities;

1. Needs to function in the firearm.

2. Shot placement.

3. Needs to have the ability to penetrate deep enough, through barriers if need be, to strike a vital organ/CNS.

Anything else is just fodder for gun rags and discussion board. As an example; velocity. A bullet needs only enough velocity to travel to the target, expand as designed (if designed to expand) and penetrate deep enough to strike vitals/CNS. That is ALL! Anything in excess of this only affects your follow up shots which ultimately affects the accuracy of your shots on target. Since penetration is a function of weight-to-cross sectional density, velocity has little to do with it. Again, anything in excess only affects your follow up shots and accuracy. Remember, you'll be under duress so this is a critical point to keep in mind.

It really is that simple. It isn't glamorous. It doesn't push magazine subscriptions. But it works.

Take it for what its worth to you. If anyone is really interested in this topic and the realities of shooting a bad guy, please see the second link in my sig line. I've been doing this a looooong time.

PghJim
10-28-2012, 15:55
Unfortunately, terms such as 'stopping power', 'knock down power', 'energy dump', 'hydrostatic shock' and 'ballistic wound pressure' are still around. We've been discussing these terms since the inception of this board. Here is the bottom line, they're just gun rag terminology designed to sell a product. Nothing more. A handgun round, in any of the standard service calibers only needs a few qualities;

1. Needs to function in the firearm.

2. Shot placement.

3. Needs to have the ability to penetrate deep enough, through barriers if need be, to strike a vital organ/CNS.

Anything else is just fodder for gun rags and discussion board. As an example; velocity. A bullet needs only enough velocity to travel to the target, expand as designed (if designed to expand) and penetrate deep enough to strike vitals/CNS. That is ALL! Anything in excess of this only affects your follow up shots which ultimately affects the accuracy of your shots on target. Since penetration is a function of weight-to-cross sectional density, velocity has little to do with it. Again, anything in excess only affects your follow up shots and accuracy. Remember, you'll be under duress so this is a critical point to keep in mind.

It really is that simple. It isn't glamorous. It doesn't push magazine subscriptions. But it works.

Take it for what its worth to you. If anyone is really interested in this topic and the realities of shooting a bad guy, please see the second link in my sig line. I've been doing this a looooong time.

I do not agree with you. Most gun magazines stay away from the issue, or basically give points similar to yours. As per board discussions, you are right. Looking at your three points, I cannot see why a 380 fmj would not be a great round, or maybe a solid nose 22 long rifle. I do not disagree with the three, but there could be more to it. If there wasn't there would not be a Caliber Corner.

In any event, it is good to see you back DD.

Also, tell me why people shot with handguns collapse or become unconsious when the bullet did not hit the CNS, or any other organ that would explain it. In your way of thinking an arrow should be just as effective as a gun.

Also, if it just is SD and velocity does not matter, than the 357 magnum would have no advantage over the 38 special. They both use the same bullet.

SCmasterblaster
10-28-2012, 16:57
Unfortunately, terms such as 'stopping power', 'knock down power', 'energy dump', 'hydrostatic shock' and 'ballistic wound pressure' are still around. We've been discussing these terms since the inception of this board. Here is the bottom line, they're just gun rag terminology designed to sell a product. Nothing more. A handgun round, in any of the standard service calibers only needs a few qualities;

1. Needs to function in the firearm.

2. Shot placement.

3. Needs to have the ability to penetrate deep enough, through barriers if need be, to strike a vital organ/CNS.

Anything else is just fodder for gun rags and discussion board. As an example; velocity. A bullet needs only enough velocity to travel to the target, expand as designed (if designed to expand) and penetrate deep enough to strike vitals/CNS. That is ALL! Anything in excess of this only affects your follow up shots which ultimately affects the accuracy of your shots on target. Since penetration is a function of weight-to-cross sectional density, velocity has little to do with it. Again, anything in excess only affects your follow up shots and accuracy. Remember, you'll be under duress so this is a critical point to keep in mind.

It really is that simple. It isn't glamorous. It doesn't push magazine subscriptions. But it works.

Take it for what its worth to you. If anyone is really interested in this topic and the realities of shooting a bad guy, please see the second link in my sig line. I've been doing this a looooong time.

What a great post!

uz2bUSMC
10-28-2012, 17:32
Unfortunately, terms such as 'stopping power', 'knock down power', 'energy dump', 'hydrostatic shock' and 'ballistic wound pressure' are still around. We've been discussing these terms since the inception of this board. Here is the bottom line, they're just gun rag terminology designed to sell a product. Nothing more. A handgun round, in any of the standard service calibers only needs a few qualities;

Ballistic Wound Pressure? Or do yo mean Ballistic Pressure Wave? In any event, I haven't seen BPW in gun rags. Point me there if you can. Also, talking specifically of BPW and it's creator specific to this terminology, I have not seen him use this as an endorsement in any way towards a brand of ammo.

1. Needs to function in the firearm.

2. Shot placement.

3. Needs to have the ability to penetrate deep enough, through barriers if need be, to strike a vital organ/CNS.

Many calibers in many different configurations possess this ability combined with the shooters ability to place shots correctly. WWB 9mm for example, but it there is more to it...that's why we don't use FMJ on the cheap for defensive ammo.

The reason the subject of "hydrodynamic whatever" has been kicked around and will continue to be kicked around is because there is clearly something more than just punching holes. The Facklerites and all other Koolaid enthusiasts never answer what creates the phenomenon of a BG dropping like a sack-o-**** on the spot without a CNS hit. When an assailant drops before cognizant understanding has taken place and a choice to stop can be made... there is simply more to understanding what all encompasses the world of terminal ballistics.

Anything else is just fodder for gun rags and discussion board. As an example; velocity. A bullet needs only enough velocity to travel to the target, expand as designed (if designed to expand) and penetrate deep enough to strike vitals/CNS. That is ALL! Anything in excess of this only affects your follow up shots which ultimately affects the accuracy of your shots on target. Since penetration is a function of weight-to-cross sectional density, velocity has little to do with it. Again, anything in excess only affects your follow up shots and accuracy. Remember, you'll be under duress so this is a critical point to keep in mind.

Velocity is not simplified in the way you state it. There are many bullets that expand nicely in a denim and gel test at low velocities but may not do so on the street. That velocity increase that you speak of could be the difference between expanding and not expanding, or penetrating a barrier at an angle or not on the street in actual use.

It really is that simple. It isn't glamorous. It doesn't push magazine subscriptions. But it works.

Take it for what its worth to you. If anyone is really interested in this topic and the realities of shooting a bad guy, please see the second link in my sig line. I've been doing this a looooong time.

When you can answer what makes a person drop on the spot without a CNS hit maybe some will listen. But just simply doing this a looong time isn't enough for me. Some people have 30yrs experience some have 1yrs experience repeated thirty times.

SCmasterblaster
10-28-2012, 17:52
When you can answer what makes a person drop on the spot without a CNS hit maybe some will listen. But just simply doing this a looong time isn't enough for me. Some people have 30yrs experience some have 1yrs experience repeated thirty times.


I don't think that anyone CAN answer that question. Some people drop with peripheral wounds, while some heart-shot criminals manage to kill cops. Who knows?

uz2bUSMC
10-28-2012, 18:00
I don't think that anyone CAN answer that question. Some people drop with peripheral wounds, while some heart-shot criminals manage to kill cops. Who knows?

The thing to keep in perspective is time. Sure some may drop after being grazed and some have quit when believing they have been shot when in reality, they have not. It's the ones who are terminally shot and drop before they have time to realize or make a decision to quit (without CNS). It happens on the street and it happens with game animals. The point is that there is a phenomenon that takes place which creates instant incapacitation irrespective of time til death.. This simply means that there is no two-ways about it, there is something more than any given cartridge solely relying on hole-punching and blood loss to obtain incapacitation.:wavey:

SCmasterblaster
10-28-2012, 18:17
The thing to keep in perspective is time. Sure some may drop after being grazed and some have quit when believing they have been shot when in reality, they have not. It's the ones who are terminally shot and drop before they have time to realize or make a decision to quit (without CNS). It happens on the street and it happens with game animals. The point is that there is a phenomenon that takes place which creates instant incapacitation irrespective of time til death.. This simply means that there is no two-ways about it, there is something more than any given cartridge solely relying on hole-punching and blood loss to obtain incapacitation.:wavey:

It is a strange, hard-to-fathom science, isn't it?

M 7
10-28-2012, 18:25
The Facklerites and all other Koolaid enthusiasts never answer what creates the phenomenon of a BG dropping like a sack-o-**** on the spot without a CNS hit. When an assailant drops before cognizant understanding has taken place and a choice to stop can be made... there is simply more to understanding what all encompasses the world of terminal ballistics.

Both camps are simply drinking different flavors of Kool-Aid. If you start chasing trivial effects to the exclusion of all else, you risk losing sight of the big picture.

cowboy1964
10-28-2012, 18:48
But another issue is over-penetration. For civilian self-defense, this is more important. The .357 Magnum and .357 Sig are fantastic rounds for stopping power, but also have higher risks of over-penetration.

A miss is going to penetrate multiple walls, etc, so what difference does it make? If the shot connects with the bad guy it won't overpenetrate unless it's FMJ or it completely clogs and caliber doesn't matter in those cases anyway. In fact, a lower sectional density would probably help.

uz2bUSMC
10-28-2012, 19:00
Both camps are simply drinking different flavors of Kool-Aid. If you start chasing trivial effects to the exclusion of all else, you risk losing sight of the big picture.

I don't chase trivial effects to the exclusion of all else. I'll take the Facklerite denim and gel give or take a few inches as a base, not a problem. What the Koolaid sipsters on Fackler side accept as an end, I do not.

uz2bUSMC
10-28-2012, 19:03
It is a strange, hard-to-fathom science, isn't it?

Yep. Although, some state they have the definitive answer. That's the wool over the eyes, they say but offer no proof. Saying a million times does not prove anything.

Deputydave
10-29-2012, 09:16
Rifle rounds produce quite a bit more kinetic energy than a handgun round in service calibers. If hydro-static shock or shock power or knock down power or whatever industry buzz term were actually a factor, you'd see rifle rounds putting people down consistently. But they don't. We have more documentation than you can shake a stick at of people being struck by rifle rounds, including multiple rounds that don't fall down, are not rendered unconscious and a certainly not stopped. Including a fellow Deputy in my agency.

Thus, if HS is a factor, it isn't much of a factor and is certainly way down on the list. I'm not trying to put anyone down for their opinion. But a lot of people choose their ammunition based upon the wrong premise. The factors...THE factors in handgun ammunition selection is as I listed above; reliability, shot placement and adequate penetration. Anything and everything else is pretty far down on the list and some don't even make the list.

If you're choosing a 9mm +P+ because you think it is going to have some form of greater stopping power...well, you're going to be in for a rude shock when that extra velocity contributes to reduced penetration (it absolutely reduces penetration) and it fails to penetrate into a vital/CNS after going through a limb. You can hope for an unobstructed, upper torso shot but the odds statistically aren't in your favor.

I would only choose a 9mm +P+ if I had no other viable choice and only if the bullet was bonded. Only then will you have a chance of adequate penetration through a limb. And again, added velocity WILL affect your follow up shots under duress. That is a fact. I'd rather have 3 shots on target at standard velocities than 1 shot that has 200fps extra velocity which the BG isn't going to notice.

As for credentials, the old timers here already know. But for the newer members, I've been in uniform since 1985, been involved in five deadly use of force situations with a firearm, two instructor certifications in firearms and have been testing ammo at and for our agency for nearly 20 years in addition to personal/professional research to include being in the operating room taking custody of rounds taken out of BG's and speaking directly with the surgeon.

That is why I hold the opinion that I hold. With respect. :wavey:

uz2bUSMC
10-29-2012, 09:54
Rifle rounds produce quite a bit more kinetic energy than a handgun round in service calibers. If hydro-static shock or shock power or knock down power or whatever industry buzz term were actually a factor, you'd see rifle rounds putting people down consistently. But they don't. We have more documentation than you can shake a stick at of people being struck by rifle rounds, including multiple rounds that don't fall down, are not rendered unconscious and a certainly not stopped. Including a fellow Deputy in my agency.

vy:

Yea, It's not that simple.

SCmasterblaster
10-29-2012, 10:58
Unfortunately, terms such as 'stopping power', 'knock down power', 'energy dump', 'hydrostatic shock' and 'ballistic wound pressure' are still around. We've been discussing these terms since the inception of this board. Here is the bottom line, they're just gun rag terminology designed to sell a product. Nothing more. A handgun round, in any of the standard service calibers only needs a few qualities;

1. Needs to function in the firearm.

2. Shot placement.

3. Needs to have the ability to penetrate deep enough, through barriers if need be, to strike a vital organ/CNS.

Anything else is just fodder for gun rags and discussion board. As an example; velocity. A bullet needs only enough velocity to travel to the target, expand as designed (if designed to expand) and penetrate deep enough to strike vitals/CNS. That is ALL! Anything in excess of this only affects your follow up shots which ultimately affects the accuracy of your shots on target. Since penetration is a function of weight-to-cross sectional density, velocity has little to do with it. Again, anything in excess only affects your follow up shots and accuracy. Remember, you'll be under duress so this is a critical point to keep in mind.

It really is that simple. It isn't glamorous. It doesn't push magazine subscriptions. But it works.

Take it for what its worth to you. If anyone is really interested in this topic and the realities of shooting a bad guy, please see the second link in my sig line. I've been doing this a looooong time.

This is a very nice and thoughtful post. :cool:

M 7
10-29-2012, 11:41
Rifle rounds produce quite a bit more kinetic energy than a handgun round in service calibers. If hydro-static shock or shock power or knock down power or whatever industry buzz term were actually a factor, you'd see rifle rounds putting people down consistently. But they don't. We have more documentation than you can shake a stick at of people being struck by rifle rounds, including multiple rounds that don't fall down, are not rendered unconscious and a certainly not stopped. Including a fellow Deputy in my agency.

Thus, if HS is a factor, it isn't much of a factor and is certainly way down on the list. I'm not trying to put anyone down for their opinion. But a lot of people choose their ammunition based upon the wrong premise. The factors...THE factors in handgun ammunition selection is as I listed above; reliability, shot placement and adequate penetration. Anything and everything else is pretty far down on the list and some don't even make the list.

If you're choosing a 9mm +P+ because you think it is going to have some form of greater stopping power...well, you're going to be in for a rude shock when that extra velocity contributes to reduced penetration (it absolutely reduces penetration) and it fails to penetrate into a vital/CNS after going through a limb. You can hope for an unobstructed, upper torso shot but the odds statistically aren't in your favor.

I would only choose a 9mm +P+ if I had no other viable choice and only if the bullet was bonded. Only then will you have a chance of adequate penetration through a limb. And again, added velocity WILL affect your follow up shots under duress. That is a fact. I'd rather have 3 shots on target at standard velocities than 1 shot that has 200fps extra velocity which the BG isn't going to notice.

As for credentials, the old timers here already know. But for the newer members, I've been in uniform since 1985, been involved in five deadly use of force situations with a firearm, two instructor certifications in firearms and have been testing ammo at and for our agency for nearly 20 years in addition to personal/professional research to include being in the operating room taking custody of rounds taken out of BG's and speaking directly with the surgeon.

That is why I hold the opinion that I hold. With respect. :wavey:

Well said.

After the "big stuff" (placement, penetration, expansion, and tissue damage), it's all "little stuff" (hydrostatic shock, BPW, "energy dump", etc.)

Don't sweat the "little stuff".

:)

SCmasterblaster
10-29-2012, 11:53
I do not agree with you. Most gun magazines stay away from the issue, or basically give points similar to yours. As per board discussions, you are right. Looking at your three points, I cannot see why a 380 fmj would not be a great round, or maybe a solid nose 22 long rifle. I do not disagree with the three, but there could be more to it. If there wasn't there would not be a Caliber Corner.

In any event, it is good to see you back DD.

Also, tell me why people shot with handguns collapse or become unconsious when the bullet did not hit the CNS, or any other organ that would explain it. In your way of thinking an arrow should be just as effective as a gun.

Also, if it just is SD and velocity does not matter, than the 357 magnum would have no advantage over the 38 special. They both use the same bullet.

There are indeed some mysteries in wound ballistics. We have hear of felons dropping with arm wounds, and heart-shot felons killing people. :wow:

English
10-29-2012, 12:29
Rifle rounds produce quite a bit more kinetic energy than a handgun round in service calibers. If hydro-static shock or shock power or knock down power or whatever industry buzz term were actually a factor, you'd see rifle rounds putting people down consistently. But they don't. We have more documentation than you can shake a stick at of people being struck by rifle rounds, including multiple rounds that don't fall down, are not rendered unconscious and a certainly not stopped. Including a fellow Deputy in my agency.

If you had bothered to read and think about the stuff about the whatever buzz term you can't remember the name for, you would know that it is entirtely possible to have a rifle round that does not produce the necessary hydrodynamic pressure to have a good chance of producing a rapid stop. Even when that pressure is exceeded, there is then only a probability of a rapid stop. So such examples without very specific knowledge of the round, the bullet, the remaining velocity, clothing, whether the bullet expanded, tumbled or broke up and so on tell us very little. Of course many shots will fail. How many succeed?

Thus, if HS is a factor, it isn't much of a factor and is certainly way down on the list. I'm not trying to put anyone down for their opinion. But a lot of people choose their ammunition based upon the wrong premise. The factors...THE factors in handgun ammunition selection is as I listed above; reliability, shot placement and adequate penetration. Anything and everything else is pretty far down on the list and some don't even make the list.

No one is likely to dispute the importance of your three factors though reliability is virtually a given these days, depending on which kind of reliability we are talking about. Shot placement is often limited by practical considerations to not too close to the edges of the COM and adequate penetration means not too much as well as not too little.

If you're choosing a 9mm +P+ because you think it is going to have some form of greater stopping power...well, you're going to be in for a rude shock when that extra velocity contributes to reduced penetration (it absolutely reduces penetration) and it fails to penetrate into a vital/CNS after going through a limb. You can hope for an unobstructed, upper torso shot but the odds statistically aren't in your favor.

I would only choose a 9mm +P+ if I had no other viable choice and only if the bullet was bonded. Only then will you have a chance of adequate penetration through a limb. And again, added velocity WILL affect your follow up shots under duress. That is a fact. I'd rather have 3 shots on target at standard velocities than 1 shot that has 200fps extra velocity which the BG isn't going to notice.

Once again, we all know that hitting an arm first is not ideal, but, since the arm that is usually hit is the one holding the gun, it does stop the BG shooting at you for some number of seconds and not every shot hits an arm. You should be in a position to know that the 9BPLE round with, I believe, 115gn and +p or +p+ had a very good statistical performance, in contrast to the 147gn which did not. Since the effect achieved is affected by so many factors, essentially beyond the shooter's control, the best he can do when choosing cartridge and loading is to go for the one with the best performance on average. By the nature of averages, that means that sometimes that choice will be less good than some other choice but for most of the time it will be better than other choices. We can't ask for more than that. If you obsess over the possibility of having to shoot through a car door and passing at an oblique angle through the pelvic bones before reaching the heart, then the far more frequent shots will be poorly served by your choice.

As for credentials, the old timers here already know. But for the newer members, I've been in uniform since 1985, been involved in five deadly use of force situations with a firearm, two instructor certifications in firearms and have been testing ammo at and for our agency for nearly 20 years in addition to personal/professional research to include being in the operating room taking custody of rounds taken out of BG's and speaking directly with the surgeon.

That is why I hold the opinion that I hold. With respect. :wavey:

In all these occasions, what proportion have been every day standard .380, 9mm .40S&W or .45ACP rounds which can be predicted, by those with a knowledge of the nature of what is needed for a moderate probability of rapid incapacitation, to almost never produce such an effect. The simple truth is that you have been looking at the wrong evidence if you wished to form any kind of reliable conclusion about rapid incapacitation, other than its almost complete absence when using the majority of loads.

You always talk about penetrating to the vitals without saying which vitals you are talking about. Short of the CNS, the heart is the most vital and that can take some 20 seconds to stop someone fighting on. The lungs and liver are the next most vital but in many cases the individual will live for over an hour after being shot. Wthin the time frame of most gunfights, none of these hits will prevent a determined individual shooting you several time after you have shot him. If your purpose is to make sure that your opponent dies, this isn't oo bad apart from the fact that most lung shot inividuals get to hospital and live. Livers are more difficut. If your purpose is to end the fight quickly and reduce the chance of being shot yourself as a consequence, penetrating the vitals is not a good strategy.

English

Deputydave
10-29-2012, 13:05
English,

Just to be right up front with you, I no longer read your posts. They have proven to be a complete waste of time in the past and I've seen no evidence that this has changed. Regurgitating junk science still equals junk science. And when you don't get your way, or when people (a LOT of people) have shown you where and why your wrong...you pout and take the thread off topic. You've even had threads closed in the past (and I mean a LOT of threads) when the thread isn't going your way. I don't believe in feeding trolls.

So have a nice day.

Edited to add: As I posted the above, I couldn't help but see the last sentence in your post...

If your purpose is to end the fight quickly and reduce the chance of being shot yourself as a consequence, penetrating the vitals is not a good strategy.

Thanks for proving my point.

SCmasterblaster
10-29-2012, 13:19
If you had bothered to read and think about the stuff about the whatever buzz term you can't remember the name for, you would know that it is entirtely possible to have a rifle round that does not produce the necessary hydrodynamic pressure to have a good chance of producing a rapid stop. Even when that pressure is exceeded, there is then only a probability of a rapid stop. So such examples without very specific knowledge of the round, the bullet, the remaining velocity, clothing, whether the bullet expanded, tumbled or broke up and so on tell us very little. Of course many shots will fail. How many succeed?

No one is likely to dispute the importance of your three factors though reliability is virtually a given these days, depending on which kind of reliability we are talking about. Shot placement is often limited by practical considerations to not too close to the edges of the COM and adequate penetration means not too much as well as not too little.

Once again, we all know that hitting an arm first is not ideal, but, since the arm that is usually hit is the one holding the gun, it does stop the BG shooting at you for some number of seconds and not every shot hits an arm. You should be in a position to know that the 9BPLE round with, I believe, 115gn and +p or +p+ had a very good statistical performance, in contrast to the 147gn which did not. Since the effect achieved is affected by so many factors, essentially beyond the shooter's control, the best he can do when choosing cartridge and loading is to go for the one with the best performance on average. By the nature of averages, that means that sometimes that choice will be less good than some other choice but for most of the time it will be better than other choices. We can't ask for more than that. If you obsess over the possibility of having to shoot through a car door and passing at an oblique angle through the pelvic bones before reaching the heart, then the far more frequent shots will be poorly served by your choice.

In all these occasions, what proportion have been every day standard .380, 9mm .40S&W or .45ACP rounds which can be predicted, by those with a knowledge of the nature of what is needed for a moderate probability of rapid incapacitation, to almost never produce such an effect. The simple truth is that you have been looking at the wrong evidence if you wished to form any kind of reliable conclusion about rapid incapacitation, other than its almost complete absence when using the majority of loads.

You always talk about penetrating to the vitals without saying which vitals you are talking about. Short of the CNS, the heart is the most vital and that can take some 20 seconds to stop someone fighting on. The lungs and liver are the next most vital but in many cases the individual will live for over an hour after being shot. Wthin the time frame of most gunfights, none of these hits will prevent a determined individual shooting you several time after you have shot him. If your purpose is to make sure that your opponent dies, this isn't oo bad apart from the fact that most lung shot inividuals get to hospital and live. Livers are more difficut. If your purpose is to end the fight quickly and reduce the chance of being shot yourself as a consequence, penetrating the vitals is not a good strategy.

English

Only hits through the CNS will reliably and quickly drop someone.

English
10-29-2012, 13:55
English,

Just to be right up front with you, I no longer read your posts. They have proven to be a complete waste of time in the past and I've seen no evidence that this has changed. Regurgitating junk science still equals junk science. And when you don't get your way, or when people (a LOT of people) have shown you where and why your wrong...you pout and take the thread off topic. You've even had threads closed in the past (and I mean a LOT of threads) when the thread isn't going your way. I don't believe in feeding trolls.

So have a nice day.

Edited to add: As I posted the above, I couldn't help but see the last sentence in your post...



Thanks for proving my point.

How was it that you managed to read my post without reading my post? Is that something you are taught as a LEO?

As usual, your comment about my last sentence is taken out of context. I am still not sure whether you do this as a conscious tactic or as a consequence of poor reading comprehension, but then, if you are practicing the esoteric skill of reading without reading it must make comprehension difficult.

One last thought, have you ever wondered whether it was your science which was junk? I have explained why it is several times. Your LOT of people have numbered about 7 and at least one of those has appeared under more than one name. Not one of them has ever come up with a cogent argument or substantial information to refute what I have said.

Thank you for your kind wishes. I am sure they are as sincere as when you say, "I'm not trying to put anyone down for their opinion."

English

PghJim
10-29-2012, 14:19
English,

Just to be right up front with you, I no longer read your posts. They have proven to be a complete waste of time in the past and I've seen no evidence that this has changed. Regurgitating junk science still equals junk science. And when you don't get your way, or when people (a LOT of people) have shown you where and why your wrong...you pout and take the thread off topic. You've even had threads closed in the past (and I mean a LOT of threads) when the thread isn't going your way. I don't believe in feeding trolls.

So have a nice day.

Edited to add: As I posted the above, I couldn't help but see the last sentence in your post...



Thanks for proving my point.

I think that is very rude. This is a discussion board and it is my experience that English has a very solid grasp of the mechanisms involved in shootings. If you believe you are right, please argue your point with solid information. Man-made Gobal Warming is junk science, English's points are not. I am sorry you are taking the, "I am taking my ball and going home" attitude. Your experience is valuable, but it does not make you infallible. You take some anecdotal examples and try to postulate the same thing will happen in all cases.

PghJim
10-29-2012, 14:25
Only hits through the CNS will reliably and quickly drop someone.

A good hit the left ventricle of the heart will also stop quickly due to blood pressure drop.

cowboy1964
10-29-2012, 14:36
A good hit the left ventricle of the heart will also stop quickly due to blood pressure drop.

It won't be an instant stop though. 10-15 seconds is still an eternity if someone is trying to kill you.

PghJim
10-29-2012, 14:50
It won't be an instant stop though. 10-15 seconds is still an eternity if someone is trying to kill you.

Cowboy, you may be right, but I was told that it would be less than 5 seconds. Not my area of expertise. If you are right, yes 15 seconds is an eternity.

uz2bUSMC
10-29-2012, 16:06
I think that is very rude. This is a discussion board and it is my experience that English has a very solid grasp of the mechanisms involved in shootings. If you believe you are right, please argue your point with solid information. Man-made Gobal Warming is junk science, English's points are not. I am sorry you are taking the, "I am taking my ball and going home" attitude. Your experience is valuable, but it does not make you infallible. You take some anecdotal examples and try to postulate the same thing will happen in all cases.

Well, that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Deputydave
10-29-2012, 16:12
I think that is very rude. This is a discussion board and it is my experience that English has a very solid grasp of the mechanisms involved in shootings. If you believe you are right, please argue your point with solid information. Man-made Gobal Warming is junk science, English's points are not. I am sorry you are taking the, "I am taking my ball and going home" attitude. Your experience is valuable, but it does not make you infallible. You take some anecdotal examples and try to postulate the same thing will happen in all cases.

No, it isn't rude, it is honest. You may want to do a little research into him and the plethora of threads where he's been corrected on numerous points, by numerous members. He refuses to see it and continues to argue regardless. That's fine and he can argue all he likes. But his points aren't valid and they aren't accepted by the majority that actually use firearms. And see, here is the point; when I was a rookie with no experience (back in the 80's) I too was a velocity junkie. If I had a round that did 1400 fps I wanted one that did 1450 fps. But as I became more experienced, used a firearm in defense of myself and others, worked with those that did the same, spoke with surgeons in the operating room while they were taking out the rounds, did research by those in the field, compared and tested more ammo than I can remember, spoke with gun shot 'victims' at length...I realized I was wrong and changed my view. Some aren't capable of doing so. Maybe its pride, I dunno. But I do know that you can have all the velocity in the world, if it stops short after passing a barrier/limb and doesn't hit something vital then I just don't like your chances of survival.

Real professionals, that use firearms for real, on real BG's are concerned with reliability, shot placement (to include putting as many shots on target as possible in accordance with the situation) and penetration. Velocity, as I've stated is only useful to make the actual bullet to operate as designed. Excess velocity will retard the penetration depth (due to premature expansion and/or fragmentation) which could affect terminal performance if it falls short of vitals/CNS and will to a degree (that isn't acceptable) accurate follow up shots while under duress.

That is why the majority of agencies use either a mid-weight or a heavy bullet design, usually with a bonded bullet. There is also a reason that the majority of agencies reject some of the...'stuff' that non-professionals tout on gun boards.

Carry whatever you wish. Choose whom you wish to believe. But you may want to consider their credentials in the equation. I do.

And may none of you have to ever find out first-hand.

Stay safe. :wavey:

M 7
10-29-2012, 16:25
English,

Just to be right up front with you, I no longer read your posts. They have proven to be a complete waste of time in the past and I've seen no evidence that this has changed. Regurgitating junk science still equals junk science. And when you don't get your way, or when people (a LOT of people) have shown you where and why your wrong...you pout and take the thread off topic. You've even had threads closed in the past (and I mean a LOT of threads) when the thread isn't going your way. I don't believe in feeding trolls.

So have a nice day.

Edited to add: As I posted the above, I couldn't help but see the last sentence in your post...

Thanks for proving my point.

Dave,

The small stuff is not worth arguing over.

There will always be folks who are willing to waste time (yours, if you let them) chasing their tails over such trivial and unprovable effects.

If these things (BPW, "energy dump", etc.) were really that important, the ammo manufacturers would have found a way to exploit them. Instead, we have ammo (in many weights and speeds) that expands reliably, crushes tissue, and penetrates to an established standard (even after barriers)- the FBI protocols.

Anything else is a distraction.

Deputydave
10-29-2012, 17:24
dave,

the small stuff is not worth arguing over.

There will always be folks who are willing to waste time (yours, if you let them) chasing their tails over such trivial and unprovable effects.

If these things (bpw, "energy dump", etc.) were really that important, the ammo manufacturers would have found a way to exploit them. Instead, we have ammo (in many weights and speeds) that expands reliably, crushes tissue, and penetrates to an established standard (even after barriers)- the fbi protocols.

Anything else is a distraction.

+1 :)

PghJim
10-29-2012, 19:08
No, it isn't rude, it is honest. You may want to do a little research into him and the plethora of threads where he's been corrected on numerous points, by numerous members. He refuses to see it and continues to argue regardless. That's fine and he can argue all he likes. But his points aren't valid and they aren't accepted by the majority that actually use firearms. And see, here is the point; when I was a rookie with no experience (back in the 80's) I too was a velocity junkie. If I had a round that did 1400 fps I wanted one that did 1450 fps. But as I became more experienced, used a firearm in defense of myself and others, worked with those that did the same, spoke with surgeons in the operating room while they were taking out the rounds, did research by those in the field, compared and tested more ammo than I can remember, spoke with gun shot 'victims' at length...I realized I was wrong and changed my view. Some aren't capable of doing so. Maybe its pride, I dunno. But I do know that you can have all the velocity in the world, if it stops short after passing a barrier/limb and doesn't hit something vital then I just don't like your chances of survival.

Real professionals, that use firearms for real, on real BG's are concerned with reliability, shot placement (to include putting as many shots on target as possible in accordance with the situation) and penetration. Velocity, as I've stated is only useful to make the actual bullet to operate as designed. Excess velocity will retard the penetration depth (due to premature expansion and/or fragmentation) which could affect terminal performance if it falls short of vitals/CNS and will to a degree (that isn't acceptable) accurate follow up shots while under duress.

That is why the majority of agencies use either a mid-weight or a heavy bullet design, usually with a bonded bullet. There is also a reason that the majority of agencies reject some of the...'stuff' that non-professionals tout on gun boards.

Carry whatever you wish. Choose whom you wish to believe. But you may want to consider their credentials in the equation. I do.

And may none of you have to ever find out first-hand.

Stay safe. :wavey:

Even if it were honesty, it was rude. I have been on this board since 2005 and have more often than not agreed with English's assessment. Also, I have researched this quite a bit and as far as I am concerned it is unsettled science. Although you have started to explain yourself, you did not respons to English's points regarding how your beliefs as to how a bullet will cause incapacitation because it hit vitals that English did not mention. There are two sides to this issue and your side does not explain everything. I do not have a dog in this fight but I have shot enough things to know that energy matters. I wish the Silver Tip had gone another inch and the FBI might place the blame where it belongs on tactics, training and equipment. Instead penetration was the problem and new protocols had to be established and the ammo makers knew if they did not play the game they would not be playing at all. Do not get me wrong, good bullets have been developed, however different agency did not agree on how to apply the protocol results. The Secret Service was satisfied with 10" of penetration and wanted energy. The Border Patrol actually set up 9" at one time and had great success with a 357 mag. in 110gr JHP. But these were probably internet non-professionals that tout non-truths on gun boards. This section was develoded to discuss all aspects of calibers. This is not the first time you came on and said, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", shot placement and penetration is all you have to worry about.

Much of what we see being used was initially politically driven. The initial FBI protocol scoring was so bad that being shot in the head with a 22 LR would score "0". Not what I would use, but not zero.

The 357 Sig can be considered a high energy round and I am not aware of one agency or department that switched to it having any complaints.

Remember, we are not talking about what is most fatal, but rather what stops the agression the fastest. Bill Jordan who favored the Model 19 357 mag believed you needed enough energy to make the man stagger and leave no doubt in his mind that he had been shot. If you like, I will list at least 10 prominate LEO's who believe in the energy principle. To make a statement like, "you will get less penetration", is really thinking inside the box. Penetration can be what you want it to be with bullet design. However, even if you did get less penetration, you would dump more energy.

You picked an example of Carlos's sniper shot's to say rifle bullets will not ever do it. Well I read the book too and other than your example and the lady that was cutting hair at 1,000 yards away that got shot in the neck, I can not think of another that was not a quick one shot kill.

I do not care who you are outside this board, but you are just another poster inside the board no matter how much self proclaimed expertise you claim to have.

digilo
10-29-2012, 19:27
Is there a way to predict, or model, hydrostatic shock?

uz2bUSMC
10-29-2012, 19:43
Is there a way to predict, or model, hydrostatic shock?

Yes. I can PM you some info if you would like. It will be tomorrow since I don't have time to sift and find what you may be interested in at the moment.

cowboy1964
10-29-2012, 19:43
Is there a way to predict, or model, hydrostatic shock?

Sure. It can be simulated. You know the velocity, mass, and size of the bullet, you can model what it does after it hits tissue, and you know the tissue composition. But it's all theory and no actual shooting would replicate it. There are too many variables (shot placement issues mostly) to generalize results.

Look at how people poo-poo gel results when the wound track is right there staring them in the face.

digilo
10-29-2012, 19:47
Yes. I can PM you some info if you would like. It will be tomorrow since I don't have time to sift and find what you may be interested in at the moment.


:D

thank you

uz2bUSMC
10-29-2012, 19:58
Sure. It can be simulated. You know the velocity, mass, and size of the bullet, you can model what it does after it hits tissue, and you know the tissue composition. But it's all theory and no actual shooting would replicate it. There are too many variables (shot placement issues mostly) to generalize results.

Look at how people poo-poo gel results when the wound track is right there staring them in the face.

You're right, but at least it will give you a generalized idea just as gel does.It is what it is.

digilo
10-29-2012, 20:09
Sure. It can be simulated. You know the velocity, mass, and size of the bullet, you can model what it does after it hits tissue, and you know the tissue composition. But it's all theory and no actual shooting would replicate it. There are too many variables (shot placement issues mostly) to generalize results.

Look at how people poo-poo gel results when the wound track is right there staring them in the face.


Thanks.

So much to consider. I was all set to buy some FBI load .38s based on what I'd read, and then I read about bullet jump, and I am trying to get used to a 442, so I canceled that idea. I guess I'll stay with the PDX1s I have now. I picked some 130 FMJ to practice with- I'm told it's known as the Air Force load. {I can't believe someone made a gun with an aluminum cylinder, lol.}

The first gun I owned, it was simple. It was a 686 .357 I bought in 1994, and I bought the recommended 125 gr SJHP. Now there's so much more to read and think about.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 07:25
A good hit the left ventricle of the heart will also stop quickly due to blood pressure drop.

That is a small target, compared to the brain and upper CNS.

PghJim
10-30-2012, 07:44
That is a small target, compared to the brain and upper CNS.

I think it is a true statement, but I said it to only show that there are few places that can cause fast incapacitation. I do not recommend aiming specifically for it.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 09:07
I think it is a true statement, but I said it to only show that there are few places that can cause fast incapacitation. I do not recommend aiming specifically for it.

That's true. I'd be aiming center mass, hoping for a CNS hit. :cool:

Deputydave
10-30-2012, 10:02
Thanks.

So much to consider. I was all set to buy some FBI load .38s based on what I'd read, and then I read about bullet jump, and I am trying to get used to a 442, so I canceled that idea. I guess I'll stay with the PDX1s I have now. I picked some 130 FMJ to practice with- I'm told it's known as the Air Force load. {I can't believe someone made a gun with an aluminum cylinder, lol.}

The first gun I owned, it was simple. It was a 686 .357 I bought in 1994, and I bought the recommended 125 gr SJHP. Now there's so much more to read and think about.

The PDX1 round is a very good round. It is bonded, so it will achieve good penetration even though it is a mid-weight round. If I still carried a .38 I would have no issue with this as my carry round. As it is, I use PDX1 in both my 9mm and .40 S&W.

Good choice.

Deputydave
10-30-2012, 10:07
That's true. I'd be aiming center mass, hoping for a CNS hit. :cool:

Exactly. And with as many controlled, accurate follow up shots as can be placed on target to stop the threat.

I would urge those that haven't been in a gun fight to realize it is quite different than shooting at the range, even in a competition. Under duress such as in a gun fight many factors come into play that will retard your proficiency. This is why I stress over and over reliability, shot placement (to include fast, accurate follow up shots) and penetration.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 10:24
Exactly. And with as many controlled, accurate follow up shots as can be placed on target to stop the threat.

I would urge those that haven't been in a gun fight to realize it is quite different than shooting at the range, even in a competition. Under duress such as in a gun fight many factors come into play that will retard your proficiency. This is why I stress over and over reliability, shot placement (to include fast, accurate follow up shots) and penetration.

So true! When shooting in matches, I have no concern for the targets actually shooting back at me. I don't worry about lawyers suing me.

uz2bUSMC
10-30-2012, 16:28
:D

thank you

PM sent.

unit1069
10-30-2012, 18:09
I was all set to buy some FBI load .38s based on what I'd read, and then I read about bullet jump, and I am trying to get used to a 442, so I canceled that idea. I guess I'll stay with the PDX1s I have now. I picked some 130 FMJ to practice with- I'm told it's known as the Air Force load.

I've read that the 135-grain +P in .38 Special is at the top of that caliber's JHP self-defense ammo list. Don't know for sure but think it may be Speer Gold Dot.

Speer Gold Dot .38 Special +P 135 gr Ammo Test - YouTube

cowboy1964
10-30-2012, 19:09
You should be in a position to know that the 9BPLE round with, I believe, 115gn and +p or +p+ had a very good statistical performance, in contrast to the 147gn which did not.

I believe modern 147s are doing a fine job with the departments that use it. If you have data to the contrary we would love to see it.

Deputydave
10-31-2012, 06:06
I believe modern 147s are doing a fine job with the departments that use it. If you have data to the contrary we would love to see it.

True. 9mm 115 +P+ does have a pretty good record...on unobstructed, frontal torso shots. Having to pass through a barrier or limb can be the issue. What needs to be taken into account, but never is when reading anedocal stories is the frame of mind of the person being shot, drugs (if any) present in the system, angle of shot(s), size of the subject and a plethora of other data that varies from shooting to shooting. Many times these rounds expand violently due to the velocity, but depending on the make of the bullet can lead to under-penetration or fragmentation. Bonded bullets such as the GD 115 +P+ have demonstrated adequate penetration as the bonded design prevents the bullet from fragmenting and allows it to retain its full weight. So shooting a 98lbs crack-addict from the side or through a limb is going to differ from shooting a 200lbs man from the same angle. Shooting someone who is a trusty of modern chemistry can and does differ from Joe Normal Public.

147 grain 9mm's have done an excellent job in more shootings than I can list using good ammunition such as Ranger, Gold Dot etc. Our agency used the GD for years in 124 with excellent results. The only reason we changed to .45 ACP was the 9mm weapons were over 15-20 years old and Glock gave us a deal that fiscally couldn't be passed up.

Personally, I'd be happy with any modern 147, 124 or 115 (if it was bonded) in 9mm. Currently I use either 124 in GD or PDX1. I like this weight as it is what I shot for many years so I have the most experience with it. I would only use a non-bonded 115 if I had no other choice available.

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 08:54
True. 9mm 115 +P+ does have a pretty good record...on unobstructed, frontal torso shots. Having to pass through a barrier or limb can be the issue. What needs to be taken into account, but never is when reading anedocal stories is the frame of mind of the person being shot, drugs (if any) present in the system, angle of shot(s), size of the subject and a plethora of other data that varies from shooting to shooting. Many times these rounds expand violently due to the velocity, but depending on the make of the bullet can lead to under-penetration or fragmentation. Bonded bullets such as the GD 115 +P+ have demonstrated adequate penetration as the bonded design prevents the bullet from fragmenting and allows it to retain its full weight. So shooting a 98lbs crack-addict from the side or through a limb is going to differ from shooting a 200lbs man from the same angle. Shooting someone who is a trusty of modern chemistry can and does differ from Joe Normal Public.

147 grain 9mm's have done an excellent job in more shootings than I can list using good ammunition such as Ranger, Gold Dot etc. Our agency used the GD for years in 124 with excellent results. The only reason we changed to .45 ACP was the 9mm weapons were over 15-20 years old and Glock gave us a deal that fiscally couldn't be passed up.

Personally, I'd be happy with any modern 147, 124 or 115 (if it was bonded) in 9mm. Currently I use either 124 in GD or PDX1. I like this weight as it is what I shot for many years so I have the most experience with it. I would only use a non-bonded 115 if I had no other choice available.

You're good to go with that 9mm 124gr GD loading. :cool: