Is 9mm FMJ really that ineffective against bad guys?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I simply haven't the desire to argue against the nonsensical conditions that you wish to adhere to.

You win, not because you are correct, but because you have established an unreasonable position from which you will not move and against which no one can argue without engaging in similar nonsense.

You would do well for yourself to become familiar with the material provided in the links so generously provided by Shawn Dodson, as above in posts #68 and #69.
Well I gave you two well known real world examples that fully support my arguments. All I'm asking is that you in turn find one single after action report that supports your position. How is that unreasonable?

I've also referenced well known studies (that I have linked in past threads), including large scale studies on wound characteristics and hydrostatic shock, and the conclusions are that bigger bullets don't make bigger holes and that pistol cartridges don't have enough energy to produce hydrostatic schock/remote wounds.

Seriously, dude, what more do you need to know?
 
So yea, show me one scenario where a JHP could succeed where an FMJ failed and I'll change my mind. That scenario just doesn't exist in real life.

Or better yet, show me one scenario where a JHP succeeded where it would have failed had it been an FMJ.

The genesis of the Winchester Black Talon bullet design is a shooting in which the aluminum jacket of of an expanded Winchester Silvertip bullet cut open the wall of a major artery as the bullet passed by. The sharp edge of the jacket "ribbon" cut the artery open creating blood loss in sufficient rate and quantity to produce rapid incapacitation.

Expanded JHP bullets, because of their larger diameter and non-hydrodynamic shape, are more likely to produce a "tangential wound" to a major vessel. Whereas a round nose bullet may simply graze the vessel an expanded JHP can cut and crush open the vessel wall.
 
The genesis of the Winchester Black Talon bullet design is a shooting in which the aluminum jacket of of an expanded Winchester Silvertip bullet cut open the wall of a major artery as the bullet passed by. The sharp edge of the jacket "ribbon" cut the artery open creating blood loss in sufficient rate and quantity to produce rapid incapacitation.

Expanded JHP bullets, because of their larger diameter and non-hydrodynamic shape, are more likely to produce a "tangential wound" to a major vessel. Whereas a round nose bullet may simply graze the vessel an expanded JHP can cut and crush open the vessel wall.

Noted. In all fairness though, I did mention earlier that HPs have been improved somewhat by their tendency to open up into petals instead of the traditional mushroom. Even then, there's an area of high pressure in front of the nose that really makes it hard for these petals to do what they're intended. That's why you see HPs making a smaller hole than their diameter, despite the "cutting" effect that's supposed to be achieved by these petals. For a petal to do what you're describing it has to be pretty radically chewed up so that it extends far out from the center. I would be willing to bet that in the case you're referencing that the jacket had at least partially been stripped off the core, leaving a long jagged edge. Did they include a photo of the recovered bullet?

Ideally, a bullet would open up into the equivalent of a broadhead arrow. Some of the new high tech machined copper bullets are getting very close to that, but typical JHPs are still more or less just the same plain old hollow points we've had for decades. It also needs to be said that this particular case is a stroke of good luck no matter how you cut it. By the same token, an FMJ could just as easily have ruptured the artery if it were tumbling at that point. Either way, though, that's not something that can be relied upon, which is why we train to hit the vitals.

Got all I need and certainly not interested in fighting with you over the nonsense that you are pushing. ;)

That's a coward's rebuttal. Either address the evidence or be quiet. The nonsense I'm pushing is simply the conclusions drawn by the relevant studies in these areas. I'm just the messenger. If you're going to call the conclusions of people like Di Maio nonsense then you'd better have something to back it up.
 
Last edited:
That's a coward's rebuttal. Either address the evidence or be quiet. The nonsense I'm pushing is simply the conclusions drawn by the relevant studies in these areas. I'm just the messenger. If you're going to call the conclusions of people like Di Maio nonsense then you'd better have something to back it up.

As usual, you've resorted to name-calling, misattribution and rudeness to make your point much as you did near the end of this thread- https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/self-defense-22rimfires.821231/

At least you are consistent.
 
Last edited:
The belief that these bullets are spinning around like a saw blade inside the body is a pervasive myth. Remember that pistols generally have a relatively slow twist rate--something like 1:14 to 1:16 inches. Even most rifle bullets typically complete one revolution every 10 to 12 inches. If your average frontal chest depth is between 10 and 12 inches, that means your average rifle bullet is completing about one revolution passing through the chest cavity, and a pistol bullet is even less. So yes that fancy JHP you load for home defense expands into nasty looking petals that look great on the packaging, and yes it is spinning, but it's only completing 2/3 to 3/4 of a single revolution passing through the chest cavity. JHPs increase effectiveness by increasing the bullet's frontal area and displacing more tissue. But they still wound primarily by crushing tissue, not by cutting it.
 
As usual, you've resorted to name-calling, misattribution and rudeness to make your point much as you did near the end of this thread- https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/self-defense-22rimfires.821231/

At least you are consistent.
Less whining, more evidence.

ETA: I had forgotten about that one, but thank you for reminding me that I'm arguing with a person who thinks a .22lr NAA is a viable self defense weapon. The very title of that thread is an oxymoron. "Self defense .22lr...":rofl:
 
Last edited:
Why bother? Anyone reading this thread can see your behavior for what it is.

Once again you've taken to your pedestal and started lecturing without facts to support your opinions.
Do you even realize you've not presented a single fact or made any arguments of your own? At least I can explain my position. You don't even have a position, much less one that you can explain.
 
Do you even realize you've not presented a single fact or made any arguments of your own? At least I can explain my position. You don't even have a position, much less one that you can explain.

More whining? Just because I have presented evidence that you don't like doesn't mean that I have not presented evidence.

Your anecdotes are not evidence either. They are just anecdotes.
 
re: bullets pushing aside vessels and structures

So one day years ago my club was playing at using a timer to see how long it took one to draw and place a round through the A zone of the old IPSC target from seven yards. To leave no doubt about the hit and to make it more fun we had cut out the A zone and had a net bag full of inflated toy balloons we would insert one at a time in the hole and shots stopped when the balloon popped.

I went on line with my 1917 S&W loaded with my some what warm 200 grain LSWC in clipped .45 ACP cases and great certainty of coming in on the top tier of shooters. Standing to my left rear watching with interest was Dr. Martin Fackler. He was a member of our club and often spent much more time observing folks shoot than shooting himself.

"Stand By....."

"Honk!"

"Bang!"

"Miss."

I knew with great certainty I had not missed. I knew I was out around three O'clock and maybe extremely so, but insisted the target be examined to see how far as we patched misses when changing the balloons. The Timer, RSO, myself and Dr. Fackler went forward. Right at three O'clock we found a half moon cut out of the card board at the edge of where we had cut out the A zone! Then we noted an inch and a half long smear of bullet lube and silvery lead on the balloon! That 200 grain LSWC chugging along at over 900 fps had just shoved the toy balloon out of the way and neatly cut the card board!

Dr. Fackler retrieved the balloon and was excited about using it as an example of just how it is possible for a pistol bullet to knock aside an artery or vein without cutting it. He said he was considering photographing it for his IWB newsletter which he was still turning out then, but I do not know if he ever did.

Five days later he brought the balloon to a club meeting, still inflated and showing the smear of lube and lead to show to folks that had not been on the range that day. He greatly valued the opinions of some of the engineering professors and such from University of Florida that were club members and really enjoyed watching them scratch their heads over my balloon shot.

I will say that attempts to duplicate the shot in the coming weeks were not successful so scientifically speaking we were not able to achieve repeatability. Still that smeared balloon and cut cardboard were, as they say, "Very Interesting."

This event was one of the things that got him excited about the possibility of ring-foil bullets (such as PMC made later, and may have been used in the WACO raid according to some) which we discussed on several occassions. He was most interested though with a ring foil 12 gauge shotgun slug idea. We tried to get a machinist friend to crank one out to my design in copper with the idea of (don't laugh) dropping it from the three story breeze way out side my office to test it for stability in low speed flight before trying to work up a load for it. Alas the machinist passed suddenly and unexpectedly and the idea sort of died when he found that at the time it appeared that rig foil projectiles were supposedly still covered by US patents.

-kBob
 
More whining? Just because I have presented evidence that you don't like doesn't mean that I have not presented evidence.

Your anecdotes are not evidence either. They are just anecdotes.
Your one contribution to this thread was to claim that gel yields 1-1 results with a human target, which is so far beyond absurd I don't even know where to begin. Besides that, all you've done is arbitrarily poopoo everything.
 
I have reported elsewhere the case of a cavitating liver injury caused by a JHP.
In that case at least, I believe a 9mm FMJ would not have produced as much damage.

In another case I saw an older model Ranger SXT suffer a core-jacket separation on its way through an iliac bone because one of the barbs snagged on the bone.

I have no problem agreeing with those who suggest an expanded JHP might snag something vital or cause damage in circumstances where an FMJ might not.

Lots of variables though!

Something else to consider is the fact that round nosed FMJs frequently end up in a base first presentation in the terminal trajectory. This means the bullet yawed and presented it's whole Z-axis surface to the tissues being penetrated at some point in that trajectory. It's possible therefore that even an intact undeformed FMJ can cause greater than calibre damage, but I don't know how to quantify that in a meaningful way.
 
I think 9mm ball would actually be better than much ‘self-defense’ ammunition that penetrates less than the FBI minimum 12in in ballistics gel. It is not horrible but I think the round nose is going to minimize the size of the hole and also make richochets more of an issue.



I do not agree that overpenetration is a major issue, if you go out in public and consider what a criminal attack might be like there is almost always not someone behind them, and statistically you need to be worried about misses a lot more. Also if you hit a 200lb man sideways dead center in the arm bone, how deep do you expect that JHP that does 11in in gel to really go? That said I would probably not select Buffalo Bore Heavy Outdoorsman 150gr hardcast as my conceal carry load.



In many real world shootings, 9mm ball would reach deeper or go through bones. I was talking to someone on another forum who said a 147gr 9mm +P+ quality JHP didn’t go through a human femur bone. If it were FMJ I think it would have broken the bone or at least cracked it but I don’t have proof obviously. It depends if it tumbles or not as well.
 
I think 9mm ball would actually be better than much ‘self-defense’ ammunition that penetrates less than the FBI minimum 12in in ballistics gel. It is not horrible but I think the round nose is going to minimize the size of the hole and also make richochets more of an issue.



I do not agree that overpenetration is a major issue, if you go out in public and consider what a criminal attack might be like there is almost always not someone behind them, and statistically you need to be worried about misses a lot more. Also if you hit a 200lb man sideways dead center in the arm bone, how deep do you expect that JHP that does 11in in gel to really go? That said I would probably not select Buffalo Bore Heavy Outdoorsman 150gr hardcast as my conceal carry load.



In many real world shootings, 9mm ball would reach deeper or go through bones. I was talking to someone on another forum who said a 147gr 9mm +P+ quality JHP didn’t go through a human femur bone. If it were FMJ I think it would have broken the bone or at least cracked it but I don’t have proof obviously. It depends if it tumbles or not as well.
I'm on the bandwagon calling for the FBI standards to be updated to require more penetration and a narrower window. I would personally advocate 17-19''. When the FBI standards were set, hollow points were much less predictable, and the 12'' minimum had to be accepted to prevent extreme overpenetration. The goal was always to get as close to 18'' as possible without exceeding it. Nowadays we have really good HPs like the HST that fall into a 2'' window. Non expanding HP-like bullets are going to make this even more pertinent, as they are far more predictable since they don't rely on expansion, meaning there's no fear of a non expanded JHP acting like an FMJ and exiting the target. On a side note, these HP-like pills also seem to be better at maximizing what little hydrostatic effect you get with pistol calibers, so that might be something to look forward to.

I wouldn't advocate 9mm ball for domestic carry, though. An HP that penetrates 18'' in gel is unlikely to exit a target, whereas a ball round can easily make it through one target with enough energy left over to be a serious threat to anything on the other side. You have a point, though. HPs that stay in the target tend to not have enough penetration to make it through shoulders and arms.
 
Last edited:
A whole bunch of things. Basically, pistol calibers don't have the energy required to cause remote wounds, so bullet shape is somewhat irrelevant in terms of what kinds of wounds the bullet inflicts on living tissue. Bigger bullets don't really make bigger holes because living tissue acts like water; it gets out of the way, then collapses back in on itself. A number of medically trained researchers have stated that they can't tell the difference between common calibers or bullet types simply from examining a wound channel. This has gotten somewhat better with hollow points that open up into petals, as opposed to the old ones that just "mushroom," but it's still a pretty small gain.

The main thing is that modern hollow points are misunderstood. The purpose is not to inflict larger wounds, but to limit penetration in living tissue, while maximizing penetration through hard materials like bone, window glass, etc. The ideal hollow point would penetrate as far as FMJ in non hydraulic mediums, yet only penetrate 18'' in gel. We're not there yet, but we're close enough. You gotta be careful though. Even the best performing HPs don't always open up in the real world. The HST pretty much passes the FBI protocols 100% of the time, but from what I've seen of actual autopsies, it's maybe 50/50 in real life. So regardless of what your bullet does in testing, always be aware of what's behind the target.

You can see from ballistics gel that FMJ and JHP do pretty much the same thing, except the FMJ penetrates further. That's why I say I would prefer FMJ if in an environment where bystanders weren't a consideration. In that kind of environment, there's no such thing as too much penetration. So, no, I do not believe soldiers were ever at any disadvantage due to not having hollow points. Food for thought: the Germans especially in WWII gave zero regard for the rules of war, and they had the absolute best small arms industry in the world. If they thought hollow points would have made their weapons deadlier, or even lengthened recovery times for wounded soldiers, they absolutely would have issued them without any further thought for what the referees would say about it.

Note that the dye in the first block exaggerates the wound cavity. Essentially, both blocks are showing very similar permanent wound channels. Also notice how both blocks are showing wound channels smaller than the diameter of the bullet; that's what I'm referring to when I say that bullet diameter is kind of irrelevant (as far as wounding is concerned, not in terms of sectional density and whatnot).
You could not be more wrong. You've obviously never shot living tissue with either, or you wouldn't be making these erroneous statements.
 
Your one contribution to this thread was to claim that gel yields 1-1 results with a human target, which is so far beyond absurd I don't even know where to begin.

Since I never made such a claim, I don't think that you have to worry about "knowing where to begin".

Besides that, all you've done is arbitrarily poopoo everything.

Nonsense. I have made other contributions in this thread. If you wish to ignore them, that is fine with me.

If you insist upon making misinformed claims like this -

Bigger bullets don't really make bigger holes because living tissue acts like water; it gets out of the way, then collapses back in on itself.

-and then continue to lecture everyone from your pedestal without recognizing that this is, in fact, an incorrect claim after having been corrected by at least two other members (other than myself), and then make more claims like this-

The main thing is that modern hollow points are misunderstood. The purpose is not to inflict larger wounds, but to limit penetration in living tissue, while maximizing penetration through hard materials like bone, window glass, etc.

- based upon your initial misinformed claim, it is hard to take everything else that you say very seriously. You seem to have entrenched yourself in this erroneous belief that, ''Bigger bullets don't really make bigger holes...'', despite significant research that confirms otherwise.

Are we then to believe (at your relentless insistence) that your opinions and anecdotes outweigh the conclusions of literally dozens of scientific researchers who've actually proven that bigger bullets do indeed make bigger holes and produce more tissue damage?
 
Last edited:
Since I never made such a claim, I don't think that you have to worry about "knowing where to begin".

Testing in ordnance gelatin provides a confirmed, valid, repeatable test medium that represents the average density of the human body which also includes that of bones, tendons, ligaments, allowing for an apples-to-apples comparison of how bullets behave. Bullets taken from ordnance gelatin tests, especially those fired through four layers of 16-ounce denim, look very much like those recovered from real shootings. Anyone including bones (or anything else) in a block of ordnance gelatin demonstrates their ignorance of the model by doing so. Ballistic tests using meat are also worthless as it has been documented that dead tissue, drained of its blood does not accurately reflect performance in living tissue.

- based upon your initial misinformed claim, it is hard to take everything else that you say very seriously. You seem to have entrenched yourself in this erroneous belief that, ''Bigger bullets don't really make bigger holes...'', despite significant research that confirms otherwise.

Are we then to believe (at your relentless insistence) that your opinions and anecdotes outweigh the conclusions of literally dozens of scientific researchers who've actually proven that bigger bullets do indeed make bigger holes and produce more tissue damage?

How many times do I have to keep citing this crap? It's very irritating. YOU are the one arguing with the experts, and I'm the one citing the significant research of which you speak but have apparently never actually read. Or perhaps you have and you just didn't like the conclusions.

Here a few quotes from Di Maio:

"In the 1970s, a major controversy over the use of hollow-point handgun ammunition by police agencies erupted. The arguments against the use of this ammunition were generally emotional, with claims of mutilating wounds and organs reduced to unidentifiable chopped meat. Most of the arguments heard for and against the use of hollow-point handgun ammunition were based on myths, false assumptions, and second-hand stories spread by both opponents and proponents of this type of ammunition."

"There is no objective proof that in real-life situations mushrooming of a bullet plays a significant role in increasing lethality or the stopping power of the bullet. This is because of the other factors that can also influence the amount of tissue destruction and incapacitation, e.g., the organ injured, the state of the organ at the time of impact (distended or collapsed), the stability of the bullet, and the emotional state of the victim, etc."

"What is the origin of these myths? Part of the explanation is the normal exaggeration and distortion that occurs in stories when they are passed from person to person. Second is the fact that many people, with little or no experience with hollow-point handgun ammunition, do not let this inexperience stand in the way of their offering expert testimony on the topic. Third is the fact that some people confuse wounds caused by soft-point and hollow-point centerfire rifle bullets with those caused by handgun bullets. Individuals shot with soft-point or hollow-point rifle bullets show significantly more severe wounds than people wounded by handgun bullets - rifle bullets shed large numbers of fragment in the body. Confusion between handgun and centerfire rifle bullets or statements based on experience only in the military, where centerfire rifle bullets are the rule, may have caused the origin of some of these myths about hollow-point handgun bullets."

"The caliber of a bullet that caused an entrance wound in the skin cannot be determined by the diameter of the entrance."

Vincent Di Maio, THE foremost expert on gunshot wounds

So there you have it straight from the horse's mouth. Furthermore, Di Maio's findings have been backed up by every other medical expert who has weighed in on the topic. I've never seen one single surgeon or pathologist disagree with his findings, but I've seen many who wholeheartedly agree with him. They state emphatically that they as medical professionals cannot tell the difference between handgun calibers or bullet types simply from examining a wound track, and that it's not until they actually recover the bullet itself that they can determine what caliber it was or whether it was a hollow point, FMJ, cast lead, etc. bullet. They state that they can only determine visually whether a wound was caused by a low velocity bullet (handgun) or a high velocity one (rifle).
 
I'm on the bandwagon calling for the FBI standards to be updated to require more penetration and a narrower window. I would personally advocate 17-19''. When the FBI standards were set, hollow points were much less predictable, and the 12'' minimum had to be accepted to prevent extreme overpenetration. The goal was always to get as close to 18'' as possible without exceeding it. Nowadays we have really good HPs like the HST that fall into a 2'' window. Non expanding HP-like bullets are going to make this even more pertinent, as they are far more predictable since they don't rely on expansion, meaning there's no fear of a non expanded JHP acting like an FMJ and exiting the target. On a side note, these HP-like pills also seem to be better at maximizing what little hydrostatic effect you get with pistol calibers, so that might be something to look forward to.

I wouldn't advocate 9mm ball for domestic carry, though. An HP that penetrates 18'' in gel is unlikely to exit a target, whereas a ball round can easily make it through one target with enough energy left over to be a serious threat to anything on the other side. You have a point, though. HPs that stay in the target tend to not have enough penetration to make it through shoulders and arms.

Yeah in my carry I look for ammo that does 17-20in. Currently loading XTP as it seems to go a bit further than other bullets even though it looks ugly after a test. And yes I wouldn't want to carry ball, many other options that penetrate well and also aren't shaped like a round nose that would slide around instead of cutting a bigger hole.
 
How many times do I have to keep citing this crap? It's very irritating.

I agree. It is very irritating. Stop citing crap.

YOU are the one arguing with the experts, and I'm the one citing the significant research of which you speak but have apparently never actually read. Or perhaps you have and you just didn't like the conclusions.

Oh, my. Now you are an expert? Neat! ;)

So there you have it straight from the horse's mouth. Furthermore, Di Maio's findings have been backed up by every other medical expert who has weighed in on the topic. I've never seen one single surgeon or pathologist disagree with his findings, but I've seen many who wholeheartedly agree with him. They state emphatically that they as medical professionals cannot tell the difference between handgun calibers or bullet types simply from examining a wound track, and that it's not until they actually recover the bullet itself that they can determine what caliber it was or whether it was a hollow point, FMJ, cast lead, etc. bullet. They state that they can only determine visually whether a wound was caused by a low velocity bullet (handgun) or a high velocity one (rifle).

You must not read very much on the topic, as I can easily, and very quickly, find one example of where an actual expert with solid credentials (amongst several real experts) in the field that disagrees with your claim.

In Bullet Penetration, Duncan MacPherson, the author of that book, states, on page 56, that:

''The effective cross-sectional area of the permanent wound cavity is nominally equal to the bullet cross-sectional area modified by a shape factor...''

That means that a larger bullet (that is, one having a larger cross-sectional area than another) produces a larger permanent cavity than a bullet having a smaller cross-sectional area.

Is MacPherson (and all of the other authorities in the field) wrong?
 
Last edited:
I agree. It is very irritating. Stop citing crap.

So first you tell me to stop making unfounded claims, and now you're giving me grief over citing my sources?

Oh, my. Now you are an expert? Neat! ;)

Now you're just trolling. You know very well I was referring to the sources as experts, not myself. Like I said before, I'm just the messenger. I have no opinions or conclusions of my own, but am strictly relating the conclusions of the leading experts on these subjects. You keep attacking me instead of addressing the evidence, which isn't productive. You either have to debunk the source or accept its conclusions.

You must not read very much on the topic, as I can easily, and very quickly, find one example of where an actual expert with solid credentials (amongst several real experts) in the field that disagrees with your claim.

In Bullet Penetration, Duncan MacPherson, the author of that book, states, on page 56, that:

That means that a larger bullet (that is, one having a larger cross-sectional area than another) produces a larger permanent cavity than a bullet having a smaller cross-sectional area.

Is MacPherson (and all of the other authorities in the field) wrong?

Duncan MacPherson was an aerospace engineer, not a medical examiner. Vincent Di Maio is the definitive source on bullet wounds. 100% of his data is his own first hand experience with actual gunshot victims.
 
So first you tell me to stop making unfounded claims, and now you're giving me grief over citing my sources?

You said it was crap. I agreed. You're whining again, dude.

Now you're just trolling. You know very well I was referring to the sources as experts, not myself. Like I said before, I'm just the messenger. I have no opinions or conclusions of my own, but am strictly relating the conclusions of the leading experts on these subjects. You keep attacking me instead of addressing the evidence, which isn't productive. You either have to debunk the source or accept its conclusions.

Nope― I am attacking the argument which is based upon faulty premises and assumptions all the way around. You've voiced plenty of opinions in this thread alone. Let's keep it real, yeah?

Duncan MacPherson was an aerospace engineer, not a medical examiner. Vincent Di Maio is the definitive source on bullet wounds. 100% of his data is his own first hand experience with actual gunshot victims.

Nice dodge. I didn't ask you who you thought was the ''definitive source'' in the field and I didn't ask you what MacPherson's occupation was. I already knew that he was an aerospace engineer.

You never answered the question―''Is MacPherson (and all of the other authorities in the field) wrong?''

''The effective cross-sectional area of the permanent wound cavity is nominally equal to the bullet cross-sectional area modified by a shape factor...''

Why are you unable to answer such a simple question? :confused:
 
Last edited:
You said it was crap. I agreed. You're whining again, dude.



Nope― I am attacking the argument which is based upon faulty premises and assumptions all the way around. You've voiced plenty of opinions in this thread alone. Let's keep it real, yeah?



Nice dodge. I didn't ask you who you thought was the ''definitive source'' in the field and I didn't ask you what MacPherson's occupation was. I already knew that he was an aerospace engineer.

You never answered the question―''Is MacPherson (and all of the other authorities in the field) wrong?''



Why are you unable to answer such a simple question? :confused:

Yes, I believe MacPherson is wrong. As far as I know, he's never examined the insides of a gunshot victim, whereas Di Maio has examined I want to say thousands. So yea, if it comes down to those two, then the correct answer is obvious. When I said that Di Maio was THE definitive authority on gunshot wounds I wasn't kidding. He is to gunshot pathology what Michio Kaku is to physics.

Not only that, but Di Maio's findings have been out there for a long time now, and many surgeons and medical examiners have weighed in to support his conclusions. What I'm trying to explain to you here is that this is a long established medical fact.

It's not like in the movies. You cannot determine caliber or bullet type from merely examining a wound channel. That is a myth created by Hollywood.
 
I would say it's a little of both, with a lot of gray area in between.

A 22 is going to make a different wound channel than a 50S&W, but between a 9mm and 45? Not so easy. Velocity too, will play a role as well, further mucking up findings in a semi-fluid and elastic medium.

I love a good mud flinging, but you guys may want to tone down the "I know you are, but what am I" before the thread gets locked.
 
I would say it's a little of both, with a lot of gray area in between.

A 22 is going to make a different wound channel than a 50S&W, but between a 9mm and 45? Not so easy. Velocity too, will play a role as well, further mucking up findings in a semi-fluid and elastic medium.

I love a good mud flinging, but you guys may want to tone down the "I know you are, but what am I" before the thread gets locked.

Yeah, I am out. Just wanted to see if grampajack would answer the question put to him. To his credit, he did and I respect his ability to lay it out there even though I disagree with him on that, and many, points. :thumbup: It takes a lot to go out on limb like that and he did explain himself as well. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top