The Rise (and Fall?) of The Hollow Point....
- Thread starter WrongHanded
- Start date
- Status
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,189
Properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin is a realistic soft tissue simulant. Bullet terminal performance and wounding effects observed in gelatin have been verified and validated against living soft tissue.
How could anyone "aim" at the critical internal body parts of a a moving attacker?
What is it that makes people keep making that misleading and incorrect statement?
Standardization is but one aspect.
Thank you! I knew they made claims along those lines at one time... I am glad I am not crazy!
Well, enlighten me. What other aspects are there?
That's ONE aspect that's saying the same thing I said but using nickel words.
If you want to sell a new unproven bullet to the masses one would design the bullet to look really good in gel. A standardized test medium. It's not living tissue and people aren't made of gel.
Gel doesn't replicate living tissue. The skin layer can equal 2-4" of gel penetration. Your skin isn't 2-4" thick.
Calibrated gel allows us to test bullet performance. It in NO way simulates what happens when a bullet hits living tissue.
Why does the FBI want 18" of penetration? Most people aren't near that thick on a full frontal shot.
It's because if you have to shoot through say an arm you will still need the penetration to enter the body cavity.
An arm can easily equal 12" of gel penetration. Two layers of skin, muscle, maybe a bit of bone. Then another layer of skin hitting the body. You've already used up 6-12" of gel penetration just going through skin.
I'll stand by my statement. Gel is nothing more standardized test medium, and like any standardized test medium the results can be gamed.
It's more than what you said..
True fact.
Yes.
What are you trying to say?
Yeah, BUT newsprint could be used as a standardized test medium, and we don't use it for testing defensive ammunition.
Post #53 explains why.
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
@Texas10mm
I understand your skepticism about gel. There's a PDF somewhere (I don't have a link, sorry) of the results of a joint agency pistol ammunition test. They used 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, 10mm, .45acp, and 5.7.
They tested a wide variety of ammo, and not only gel as a test medium, but also some sort of meat (the details escape me). The Lehigh XD bullets in Underwood ammo performed very well across the board. Velocity was key with these bullets. The faster the better. I know I found the link to the PDF on THR somewhere.
I understand your skepticism about gel. There's a PDF somewhere (I don't have a link, sorry) of the results of a joint agency pistol ammunition test. They used 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, 10mm, .45acp, and 5.7.
They tested a wide variety of ammo, and not only gel as a test medium, but also some sort of meat (the details escape me). The Lehigh XD bullets in Underwood ammo performed very well across the board. Velocity was key with these bullets. The faster the better. I know I found the link to the PDF on THR somewhere.
Last edited:
The above debate about gelatin is getting off topic IMO.
The point IN THIS TOPIC is these fluted bullets. They do not expand, but (like many bullets including regular jacketed hollow points) they do cause a cavitation which cracks the gelatin, as seen here filled with red dye:
These cracks in the gelatin do not translate to cracks in living tissue, particularly from a relatively low-powered handgun round. According to Dr. Fackler, these permanent cracks in the gelatin only approximate the size of the temporary cavity in live tissue.
The conventional wisdom is that the small temporary cavities from most handguns are generally unimportant because they will not contribute to effective wounding thanks to the elasticity of most tissues.
I haven't seen compelling evidence that these non-expanding bullets will cause the same permanent cavity as hollow points that expand to significantly larger diameters.
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
I found the link to the joint agency test PDF.
https://viperweapons.us/wound-ballistics-1
Check out the testing they did with the Underwood XD ammo in sections 4 & 5.
Here's the conclusion for the Underwood XD ammo selection:
The Underwood XD uses the Lehigh Defense Xtreme Defense Technology
bullet. They are the same bullet and in some cases Underwood uses slightly
higher pressure which produces more velocity. The radial flutes increase tissue
pressure and direct the tissue outward to increase wound diameter. There is one
main characteristic to XD performance…. Velocity. The faster this round goes
the larger the wound diameter. We tested the 9mm XD, 9 +P, 9+P+ and the 357
SIG in multiple tests in gel and tissue. That’s 4 of the exact same projectiles with
the only difference being velocity. The wound channel size increased exactly in
proportion to increase in velocity. Unlike hollow points which are designed for a
certain impact velocity to best perform as designed, the XD always works better
when faster.
The data sheet shows results from Phase 2/3 with enormous wound diameters.
The radial flutes work perfectly in fluid/gel. Calculated PWCs are the largest
ever recorded in all calibers!
Many of our testers wondered if vectoring real compressed tissue sideways into
tissue would actually destroy that adjacent tissue that is not directly in the path
of the projectile. For those who think this will only work in a non-compressible
fluid like gel as we initially did, we can confirm that this technology works
extremely well in actual animal tissue with or without barriers. Remember that
hollow points expand because tissue which fills the hole in the hollow point is
compressed to such a point that the outward pressure inside the bullet pushes and
tears the metal and forces it outward where friction then takes over to complete
the expansion. If tissue can be compressed to the point of tearing metal (hollow
point) then tissue can certainly be compressed to the point of tearing tissue. The
Phase 4/5 tissue tests confirmed that in over 100 shots the measured wound
channel was not only larger than that of an FMJ but in most cases was the largest
wound channel produced in that caliber compared to all other rounds to include
fully functioning hollow points.
a. Penetration. All rounds in all calibers tested penetrated 15.2 – 20 inches
with and without barriers.
b. Reliability and Consistency. Every single shot did roughly the same thing.
There is a 0% chance of failure to function because there can be no failure
to tumble or expand (because they don’t) and no chance to fragment. This
was the most Reliable and Consistent round tested.
c. Barrier Performance. The XD round, the 5.7 mm rounds and FMJs were
the most barrier blind rounds tested. Not only did barriers not deflect the
round it didn’t change the wound diameter much and only slightly reduced
penetration depth. XD Barrier degradation was approximately 5%.
d. PWC. In the Phase 4/5 realistic tissue tests the XD produced the largest
wound areas and with the incredible penetration depth exhibited in the
Phase 2/3 gel tests the XD recorded the largest overall PWC in all calibers.
As noted the PWC numbers are inflated in the Phase 2/3 gel tests due to
non-compressible gel, but the penetration depths are more realistic to
compare.
Overall: This was by far the most impressive round tested. After over a year
of testing this round became the most requested round to test after some of the
agencies reviewed draft shot data. In continued testing this round became the
most measured and compared round in this test. We had more XD data points
than any other round. Because the XD relies so heavily on velocity the results
showed that the 357 SIG, 10mm and 9mm were the best calibers in this round
followed by the .45 and then the .40, the exact opposite of the hollow point
results.
https://viperweapons.us/wound-ballistics-1
Check out the testing they did with the Underwood XD ammo in sections 4 & 5.
Here's the conclusion for the Underwood XD ammo selection:
The Underwood XD uses the Lehigh Defense Xtreme Defense Technology
bullet. They are the same bullet and in some cases Underwood uses slightly
higher pressure which produces more velocity. The radial flutes increase tissue
pressure and direct the tissue outward to increase wound diameter. There is one
main characteristic to XD performance…. Velocity. The faster this round goes
the larger the wound diameter. We tested the 9mm XD, 9 +P, 9+P+ and the 357
SIG in multiple tests in gel and tissue. That’s 4 of the exact same projectiles with
the only difference being velocity. The wound channel size increased exactly in
proportion to increase in velocity. Unlike hollow points which are designed for a
certain impact velocity to best perform as designed, the XD always works better
when faster.
The data sheet shows results from Phase 2/3 with enormous wound diameters.
The radial flutes work perfectly in fluid/gel. Calculated PWCs are the largest
ever recorded in all calibers!
Many of our testers wondered if vectoring real compressed tissue sideways into
tissue would actually destroy that adjacent tissue that is not directly in the path
of the projectile. For those who think this will only work in a non-compressible
fluid like gel as we initially did, we can confirm that this technology works
extremely well in actual animal tissue with or without barriers. Remember that
hollow points expand because tissue which fills the hole in the hollow point is
compressed to such a point that the outward pressure inside the bullet pushes and
tears the metal and forces it outward where friction then takes over to complete
the expansion. If tissue can be compressed to the point of tearing metal (hollow
point) then tissue can certainly be compressed to the point of tearing tissue. The
Phase 4/5 tissue tests confirmed that in over 100 shots the measured wound
channel was not only larger than that of an FMJ but in most cases was the largest
wound channel produced in that caliber compared to all other rounds to include
fully functioning hollow points.
a. Penetration. All rounds in all calibers tested penetrated 15.2 – 20 inches
with and without barriers.
b. Reliability and Consistency. Every single shot did roughly the same thing.
There is a 0% chance of failure to function because there can be no failure
to tumble or expand (because they don’t) and no chance to fragment. This
was the most Reliable and Consistent round tested.
c. Barrier Performance. The XD round, the 5.7 mm rounds and FMJs were
the most barrier blind rounds tested. Not only did barriers not deflect the
round it didn’t change the wound diameter much and only slightly reduced
penetration depth. XD Barrier degradation was approximately 5%.
d. PWC. In the Phase 4/5 realistic tissue tests the XD produced the largest
wound areas and with the incredible penetration depth exhibited in the
Phase 2/3 gel tests the XD recorded the largest overall PWC in all calibers.
As noted the PWC numbers are inflated in the Phase 2/3 gel tests due to
non-compressible gel, but the penetration depths are more realistic to
compare.
Overall: This was by far the most impressive round tested. After over a year
of testing this round became the most requested round to test after some of the
agencies reviewed draft shot data. In continued testing this round became the
most measured and compared round in this test. We had more XD data points
than any other round. Because the XD relies so heavily on velocity the results
showed that the 357 SIG, 10mm and 9mm were the best calibers in this round
followed by the .45 and then the .40, the exact opposite of the hollow point
results.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,189
This "report" has zero credibility.
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
If you say so. I'd prefer to assume they just did some legitimate testing, and reported their findings.
But perhaps you know something specifically about the source of the test data that I don't?
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,189
Texas10mm writes:
Properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin depicts a reasonable representation of soft tissue wounding effects and bullet terminal performance as verified and validated by comparison with actual shootings. For an example, I refer you to pages 12-19 of the following link - http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1994-Vol1No4.pdf
Skin can present as much as 4" of penetration resistance (skin of the back) when a bullet EXITS. Unshored skin stretches. Shored skin (entry wound) is simply crushed by the penetrating bullet and presents no additional resistance.
Your belief is untrue. Please provide a source for your misinformation. There's a reason why properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin is the gold standard soft tissue simulant. It has been verified and validated by comparison with actual shootings. See pages 42-43 of this link - http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1996-Vol2No3.pdf
Why does the FBI want up to 18" of penetration? You are correct that a bullet that has to negotiate an outstretched arm holding a weapon will encounter several inches of muscle tissue. In the FBI-Miami shootout one bullet that was headed toward Platt's heart entered his upper arm just above the elbow crease. It transited through the biceps muscle and exited the arm in the armpit area then penetrated the thoracic cavity. The Winchester 115gr Silvertip JHP bullet performed as designed and as a result its effective penetration depth was approximately 10". It stopped about an inch short of the heart.
Note that the FBI is more concerned about a bullet reliably achieving a minimum penetration depth of 12-inches based on informed medical opinion.
Well-designed expanding handgun bullets, in common combat handgun calibers, penetrate about 14-16 inches. The physics of handgun bullet velocity, weight, post-expansion sectional density, and tissue resistance to bullet penetration constrains expanding bullet penetration depth to the 14-16 inch range. This is the range of penetration achieved when a bullet is designed to reliably expand and penetrate a minimum of 12-inches.
Properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin accurately replicates the inertial and shear forces of human soft tissues. Calibration ensures it cannot be "gamed". See pages 21-23 of this link - http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1997-Vol3No1.pdf
Properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin depicts a reasonable representation of soft tissue wounding effects and bullet terminal performance as verified and validated by comparison with actual shootings. For an example, I refer you to pages 12-19 of the following link - http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1994-Vol1No4.pdf
Skin can present as much as 4" of penetration resistance (skin of the back) when a bullet EXITS. Unshored skin stretches. Shored skin (entry wound) is simply crushed by the penetrating bullet and presents no additional resistance.
Your belief is untrue. Please provide a source for your misinformation. There's a reason why properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin is the gold standard soft tissue simulant. It has been verified and validated by comparison with actual shootings. See pages 42-43 of this link - http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1996-Vol2No3.pdf
Why does the FBI want up to 18" of penetration? You are correct that a bullet that has to negotiate an outstretched arm holding a weapon will encounter several inches of muscle tissue. In the FBI-Miami shootout one bullet that was headed toward Platt's heart entered his upper arm just above the elbow crease. It transited through the biceps muscle and exited the arm in the armpit area then penetrated the thoracic cavity. The Winchester 115gr Silvertip JHP bullet performed as designed and as a result its effective penetration depth was approximately 10". It stopped about an inch short of the heart.
Note that the FBI is more concerned about a bullet reliably achieving a minimum penetration depth of 12-inches based on informed medical opinion.
Well-designed expanding handgun bullets, in common combat handgun calibers, penetrate about 14-16 inches. The physics of handgun bullet velocity, weight, post-expansion sectional density, and tissue resistance to bullet penetration constrains expanding bullet penetration depth to the 14-16 inch range. This is the range of penetration achieved when a bullet is designed to reliably expand and penetrate a minimum of 12-inches.
Properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin accurately replicates the inertial and shear forces of human soft tissues. Calibration ensures it cannot be "gamed". See pages 21-23 of this link - http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1997-Vol3No1.pdf
Last edited:
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,189
WHO are the agencies and individuals involved with this alleged "study". It has all the credibility of the anonymous "Strasbourg Tests" report of the early 1990s.
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
So, should we assume the data provided is false? How about other testing such as by Lucky Gunner? Should we assume that data is falsified for the benefit of sales? How about testing on YouTube? All fake for profit? Testing submitted by long time members of this forum?
I understand being skeptical. But such a simple opinion as
.......seems a lot like a straight up dismissal of even the potential that the results could be valid. And I don't understand why anyone would choose to so easily dismiss data, unless they just didn't like the results.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,189
It isn't a serious report of testing conducted and reported by any reputable entity. It's similar to the "Strasbourg Tests". See pages 10-11 of the following link for a critique of the "Strasbourg Tests" and determine for yourself if the same criticisms apply - http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1994-Vol1No4.pdf
The Lucky Gunner tests weren't performed by unnamed agencies and is a report of simple test results obtained from clear gelatin. Anyone can easily replicate the tests and verify the results for themselves. No kooky secret squirrel stuff.
Statements in the report such as this reveal its lack of credibility -
"Media Problems: IWBA Calibrated FBI 10% ordnance gelatin- Gel was originally used because it is consistent and easy to use/measure. It allowed a comparative study to take place with replicable results. Never advertised or designed to be a simulation of any human or animal tissue."
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,976
They are an interesting design, but they don't have much real world use, unlike hollow points. While I prefer a non-expanding bullet in .380 and smaller calibers, stuff that's 9mm and up have proven to work with hollow points and when the price of the ammo is a lot more reasonable (and available) I'm not switching... yet.
FFGColorado
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 1,129
Some snipped. I think part of the JHP issue is their poor performance out of shorter barrels(like a TON of 'modern' CCW pistols) and through barriers, like lots of clothes that can clog the hollow point where it then acts a FMJ..JHP work well, except when they don't.
I use the Lehigh/Underwood XD in my Glock 42, cuz it's small and 380 and in my G26, cuz the barrel is short.
Last edited:
bassjam
Member
I'm in agreement with those of you that think the Lehigh bullets were specifically designed to look good in gel, and we all know humans are attracted to things that look good on the outside.
Maybe they're the real deal, or maybe they've found a loophole in gelatin testing. And Texas10mm is correct at least when he says ballistic gelatin is a standardized test medium. That standardization is the exact reason why it's used, it's repeatable. But that gelatin is a test medium used to simulate human tissue. The key word here is "simulate", not "replicate". That's why the FBI standard is to penetrate to between 12"-18" in ballistic gelatin. That DOES NOT equate to 12"-18" of penetration in human flesh. That alone should be enough to tell you that gelatin tests don't tell you the entire story, and you should at least have a healthy skepticism of something that appears to be tailor made to look pretty in gelatin testing.
So I'm skeptical, but I'm not going to write it off. If anything, I'm considering picking up some of their extreme perpetrator rounds in .357mag to see how they do on deer. Hunting is going to be the easiest way to get real world results.
Maybe they're the real deal, or maybe they've found a loophole in gelatin testing. And Texas10mm is correct at least when he says ballistic gelatin is a standardized test medium. That standardization is the exact reason why it's used, it's repeatable. But that gelatin is a test medium used to simulate human tissue. The key word here is "simulate", not "replicate". That's why the FBI standard is to penetrate to between 12"-18" in ballistic gelatin. That DOES NOT equate to 12"-18" of penetration in human flesh. That alone should be enough to tell you that gelatin tests don't tell you the entire story, and you should at least have a healthy skepticism of something that appears to be tailor made to look pretty in gelatin testing.
So I'm skeptical, but I'm not going to write it off. If anything, I'm considering picking up some of their extreme perpetrator rounds in .357mag to see how they do on deer. Hunting is going to be the easiest way to get real world results.
Phaedrus/69
Member
I think all modern duty ammo is designed around gelatin testing. It's the norm nowadays.
thanks for the link. i downloaded the pdf and have been reading it. this is perfect timing as i have lehigh bullets coming in the mail. my lcpII needs something other than lead round nose bullets and this, hopefully, is the ticket. i'll be doing some serious testing as soon as the state opens up for shooting again.
murf
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
