Frangible ammo for self defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've never seen the slightest evidence that any cutting or other wounding mechanism is the slightest bit effective
I truly believe the venturi effect from the fluted projectile (fluid displacement) plays an enormus role in tissue disruption. Look at what happened with Paul Harrell's simulated lung tissue...massive devastation. There has been other accounts of headshots on hogs with horrific damage to brain tissue.

The expansion of a hollow point causes fluid displacement. That same effect is rendered from a fluted non-expanding projectile such as the ARX round.
 
I truly believe the venturi effect from the fluted projectile (fluid displacement) plays an enormus role in tissue disruption
At handgun velocities, cavitation is a matter of temporary disruption., not permanent wounding.

By the way, the seller's use of the term "venturi effect" does not seem applicable. Venturi effect has to do with a reduction in static pressure when the velocity of a fluid is increased when it passes through a constricted space. as in a carburetor or pitot tube or with a shaped airfoil.

The expansion of a hollow point causes fluid displacement.
the expansion caused a larger permanent wound channel, and very importantly, it limits penetration. The solid projectile design does neither.

We recently had a discussion of another type of handgun ammunition with fluted projectile noses, this one with traditional solid metal bullets.. Tests in gel showed a larger temporary wound cavity but no increase in tissue destruction.
 
I once had a box of frangibles that were made as hollow points and were very shiny, unlike the coarse surface of a Sinterfire. Sorry, I don't recall the brand but it was on closeout anyhow.
In the good old water jug test, they blew to smithereens. Not much penetration but certainly not FMJ-like.
 
Back to the subject of the OP, I have difficulty believing that there are any loads that can penetrate adequately for defensive use that would not pose a danger to persons on the other side of drywall or plywood.

That is not based on my personal testing or on an engineering analysis. It is just that every defensive load I have seen fired at boards, etc, personally or on YouTube, goes through the stuff. Some loads pose les sof a risk than others.

There are no magic bullets. There are minimum and maximum penetration specifications and expansion goals. Beyond that, effectiveness depends on placement.

It seems that YouTube videos of penetration tests are bustin' out all over. Maybe some people find it fun. Not for me. I'll take real results from tests performed under controlled conditions in professional laboratories.

My preference is for premium ammunition that meets FBI protocols, though I will forgo some of the tougher barrier tests. And I accept that my .380 backup pistol falls short.

No gimmick or boutique rounds for me.

And I'll avoid anything with a tip that looks like a Philips screwdriver, which could be harped upon for days in court should there be enough pieces missing from the evidentiary puzzle to put me at risk at trial.

I can have confidence in the premium loads, and every expert witness can defend their appropriateness,
 
I'm now confused and guess I'm going to have to retract my opinions on the ARX ammunition. Little did I realize that there was a resident expert on ammo matters. I guess the tremendous turbulence (called erroneously I'm told, the Venturi Effect by the manufacturer's engineers) caused by the rotational forces of the fluted bullet that leaves pig brains and Paul Harrel's simulated lung tissue a muddled mass has surprisingly no effect on human tissue. I guess in a testing medium such as clear gel that has been used by numerous YouTube demonstrators and most ammo manufacturers, the same medium by the way, that puts all projectile tests on an equal footing, shows the wound track of the ARX that is equal or superior to heavier JHP is quite negligible when it comes down to real world use. So until it's tested by the FBI or a otherwise recognized reputable testing facility all bets are off for using this projectile as a defensive round. I'm going to go ahead and remove this ammo from all my firearms and probably burn it up as expensive range ammo. The fact that this ammo design has been embraced by multiple ammo manufacturers and touted as a viable defensive option has no bearing on it being a suitable as a personal defensive round for many. To each their own I guess.
 
If bad guys were actually made out of ballistics gel or oranges there might be some merit to that.
 
I'm now confused and guess I'm going to have to retract my opinions on the ARX ammunition. Little did I realize that there was a resident expert on ammo matters. I guess the tremendous turbulence (called erroneously I'm told, the Venturi Effect by the manufacturer's engineers) caused by the rotational forces of the fluted bullet that leaves pig brains and Paul Harrel's simulated lung tissue a muddled mass has surprisingly no effect on human tissue. I guess in a testing medium such as clear gel that has been used by numerous YouTube demonstrators and most ammo manufacturers, the same medium by the way, that puts all projectile tests on an equal footing, shows the wound track of the ARX that is equal or superior to heavier JHP is quite negligible when it comes down to real world use. So until it's tested by the FBI or a otherwise recognized reputable testing facility all bets are off for using this projectile as a defensive round. I'm going to go ahead and remove this ammo from all my firearms and probably burn it up as expensive range ammo. The fact that this ammo design has been embraced by multiple ammo manufacturers and touted as a viable defensive option has no bearing on it being a suitable as a personal defensive round for many. To each their own I guess.

Can you please link the videos showing the ARX or similar ammunition showing a superior permanent wound track to a hollow point?
 
I'm now confused and guess I'm going to have to retract my opinions on the ARX ammunition. Little did I realize that there was a resident expert on ammo matters. I guess the tremendous turbulence (called erroneously I'm told, the Venturi Effect by the manufacturer's engineers) caused by the rotational forces of the fluted bullet that leaves pig brains and Paul Harrel's simulated lung tissue a muddled mass has surprisingly no effect on human tissue. I guess in a testing medium such as clear gel that has been used by numerous YouTube demonstrators and most ammo manufacturers, the same medium by the way, that puts all projectile tests on an equal footing, shows the wound track of the ARX that is equal or superior to heavier JHP is quite negligible when it comes down to real world use. So until it's tested by the FBI or a otherwise recognized reputable testing facility all bets are off for using this projectile as a defensive round. I'm going to go ahead and remove this ammo from all my firearms and probably burn it up as expensive range ammo. The fact that this ammo design has been embraced by multiple ammo manufacturers and touted as a viable defensive option has no bearing on it being a suitable as a personal defensive round for many. To each their own I guess.

Apparently, we are unfamiliar with the scientific method....
 
Little did I realize that there was a resident expert on ammo matters
News to me. Urey Patrick or Jason Vanderbrink and his endineers may log in here, but it they do I am not ware of it.

I guess the tremendous turbulence ...caused by the rotational forces of the fluted bullet...
Consider that the bullet rotates once in 10 to 15 inches while it is on the way to the target, and much less as it slows down in the target. It is not a high speed drill.
I'm going to go ahead and remove this ammo from all my firearms
Do what you like.[/QUOTE]
 
Can you please link the videos showing the ARX or similar ammunition showing a superior permanent wound track to a hollow point?
There are many YouTube video gel tests that shows consistent 180° rotation of the ARX round offering a permanent wound cavity from base on its overall length. However, it does not take into account the damage caused by its designed rotational cavitation caused by the flutes of the projectile.

Here's some interesting commentary about the ARX round...
https://inceptorammo.com/faq/
 
If bad guys were actually made out of ballistics gel or oranges there might be some merit to that.
Well it's very hard to get volunteers who want to be shot .. so that type of medium will have to do. It has minimal to do with real world circumstances. It merely levels the playing field so all ammo is tested in the same medium for comparison. Draw your own conclusions.
 
Well it's very hard to get volunteers who want to be shot .. so that type of medium will have to do. It has minimal to do with real world circumstances. It merely levels the playing field so all ammo is tested in the same medium for comparison. Draw your own conclusions.

Ive seen a lot of gunshot wounds. My experience mirrors what the ballisticians say. Duty caliber handguns dont produce a violent enough temporary cavitation to cause severe damage outside of the actual bullet wound track. You are very right that ballistics gel is used as a testing medium. It's not a 1:1 analog for human tissue. Ive seen plenty of guys dig bullets out of the gel with their fingers. Ive yet to see someone be able to do that through actual human skin and muscle.

Interceptor's own media says that the ARX produces a large temporary cavity but says nothing about permanent cavities caused by the projectile. Again I havent seen anyone test this ammo to show it produces a measured permanent wound channel that competes with or exceeds a conventional hollow point round. Or even more than a regular FMJ for that matter.
 
Also, according to their FAQ, this round will fragment when hitting hard bones. That's definitely not something I want in my defensive rounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top