Shawn Dodson said:
Bone? The FBI windshield glass test has shown to also reasonably represent terminal performance when a bullet hits bone.
I found a review (performed by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) of the FBI windshield glass tests, but not the FBI tests itself. I could find nothing in that review that said anything about how JHP penetration through auto glass compared to JHP penetration through bone. Perhaps you have access to have another source that addresses the "bone" part of your statement, above? I've not found much addressing BONE penetration.
The CHP review (based on and citing FBI study charts) and found in an article called Windshield Glass Penetration, in WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW from the JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION Vol 2, Nr. 4. The CHP study addressed only .40 S&W and .45 ACP rounds -- possibly because that was what the CHP used in duty weapons. The FBI study may have used other calibers as well, including 9mm, but the studies cited here are about 30 years old and 9mm performance has apparently improved considerably since the study was done.
I was surprised to find that the FBI study showed that .45 JHP (using Ranger or similar JHP ammo) had virtually no deflection at most angles, while .40 S&W had varying amounts of deflection at almost any angle. The CHP review, however, didn't address 9mm. Part of the .45 rounds performance seemed to be due to the fact that the larger caliber .45 round had a different effect on the glass, shattering it into smaller particles that had less effect on bullet travel.
Another review, seen in the American Rifleman -- apparently the same study used by the CHP review, above -- addresses windshield glass penetration, and can be found here:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/4/16/throwback-thursday-the-fbi-ammo-tests/
The American Rifleman article has an interesting comment from Dr. Fackler, addressing secondary wound damage (the disruption of tissue caused by bullet travel).
“These studies,” Fackler said, “ranked bullets solely according to the temporary cavity produced in ordnance gelatin. They assumed that incapacitation of the human target by a given bullet is directly proportional to temporary cavity size. No physiologic mechanism was even postulated for this supposed effect—much less proved. Temporary cavity size for a given bullet can be increased very simply by decreasing bullet weight and increasing velocity." But human tissues are quite elastic and suffer little or no permanent damage or bleeding from the temporary cavity formed by a bullet, Dr. Fackler holds. The only way a bullet can produce a significant effect is to directly penetrate the tissue.
Dr. Fackler concluded: “The critical consideration is that the bullet produce its permanent tissue disruption to sufficient depths to insure major vessel disruption from any angle.”
My interpretation of his comment is that the massive disruption of ballistic gel seen in various Ballistic Gel studies will almost never have a similar effect in animal/human tissue.
If anyone has a direct link to the FBI study, please share it with us.