Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by grampajack, May 9, 2017.
Because sometimes short, fat and slow will do the job.
That's why we listen to what the medical professionals are telling us. They're the ones who actually examine real gunshot wounds. In humans mind you, and with calibers commonly carried by CCW holders.
I would guess that there are such studies, but I bet it's all of rifle rounds.
There was one study from the army that focused partly on handgun ammo, but I don't recall seeing any wound channel diagrams like we get with rifle caliber studies. My supposition is that there wasn't really anything significant to report. Jab a pencil into jello and that pretty much sums up what kind of wounds you will see from handgun cartridges.
One big problem with that is I'm far more concerned with the reaction to being shot and the ME and ER doctors generally have no idea what happened at the scene.
And second I'd point out that I regularly hunt with veterinarians so jump up and down cause my assessment doesn't agree with yours if you want
Sorry but you're not going to arbitrarily dismiss what we have learned from hunting. Flesh is flesh. The difference here is that we have learned directly from hunting. From personal experience, in both shooting the live tissue and examining the wound(s). Not second or third-hand information or flawed studies. Medical professionals are there to save the victim and that is their primary concern. They are not ballisticians. They do not care about the difference between .32's and .45's. I do. In fact, last year 10 of us, one of whom is an ER doctor, traveled to Texas to shoot 1000-2000lb bovines JUST to test bullets. How many critters have you shot with handguns?
All that said, your theory that FMJ is just as effective as a good JHP is completely wrong.
You can trust them. I'll trust my own judgement and experience. Seems to me that you started this thread with your mind made up and are looking to dismiss anything that doesn't support it. You are just flat wrong.
This is total bovine excrement. I can post a picture of a deer's heart that was hit by a cast bullet from a revolver that removed a quarter of it. Not a JHP but a hardcast WFN.
Then you're claiming dramatic remote wounding effects from a lead slug fired from a revolver. I'm just not buying it.
BUT, I don't know about others but I really don't care about convincing you, really just trying to limit the damage to people who have not already made up their minds.
I've made up my mind that anecdotal evidence offered by random people on gun forums isn't evidence.
Which is more effective: a .22 inch diameter arrow or a .45 inch diameter spear?
It appears that the .357 Magnum has twice the effectiveness of the average handgun bullet, and is equal to the generic "rifle" listed in the chart.
A .357 Magnum is the same diameter as a .38 Special so clearly the increase in velocity improves its effectiveness somehow.
I would submit that it is because the increased velocity allows deeper penetration and increases the diameter of the hollow point expansion.
Did I miss your evidence? Do you even have an anecdote?
That is an oversimplification. If you read the article (link in post 9) the .357 Magnum result is based on a sample of 105 subjects. The sample sizes for .38 Special, 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were 199, 456, 188, 209, and 24, respectively. With such small samples the differences are not really as significant as one might think. The smaller the sample size the larger the statistical confidence interval.
At 600 to 800 ft-lbs hydrostatic shock will definitely come into play in my opinion. One Army study found that significant damage to the nervous system could be measured at around 500 ft-lbs. With that said, getting those high velocities requires shooting full power ammo from a relatively long barrel. Such a weapon is difficult to conceal and generates a great deal of recoil. I'm going to be man enough here to admit that I can't control that kind of recoil well enough to get good follow up shots. I could probably just about empty my G19 in the same amount of time it would take me to empty a 5 shot .357 with the same degree of accuracy. So for anything short of bear I think I'm better off with 9mm.
I'm not here to prove or disprove anything. I'm simply asking a question for discussion's sake, and, as stated, maybe putting out a hypothesis. But it's irritating when people start talking about squirrels they shot with .22s or how they went around shooting cows. No photos, no measurements, nothing. Just very nebulous claims about anecdotal things that may or may not have happened in the way they remember. We all know how fish get bigger with each year after they're caught, and I highly suspect we're dealing with the same thing here. Someone may very well remember some massive squirrel wound caused by a .22 HP, but upon seeing it again they might realize it wasn't as remarkable as their memory makes it out to be. In short, I don't want to hear fish stories. I want to see the fish mounted next to a tape measure. Let's keep in mind that anecdotal evidence taken at face value would prove the existence of chupacabra and Elvis would still be alive.
To my credit, I've searched high and low for some credible data on wound profiles from hollow points vs. FMJ. I just can't find them. The only thing I can find to substantiate any increased wounding effect from HPs is gel testing, but that's not an accurate depiction of what happens in real life. Pretty much all the professionals agree that remote tissue damage isn't possible from pistol calibers, and we absolutely see remote damage in gel from pistol rounds. Therefore I'm forced to conclude that the cavities we see in gel aren't what will happen in a living target. I truly believe we are dealing with a myth here, at least to a large extent, and that that myth has been generated by people measuring wound cavities in gel and assuming that's what's going to happen in actual tissue.
They had made spoon bills to get around that. Look it up.
There is a reason for that on the battle field.
CQB I would and do carry hollow points ALL the time.
Not really interested in a pass through. What has been said about dumping
energy is very true.
I strongly believe that reason was largely emotional, as opposed to a reaction to a real problem. I think it was more or less the black talon controversy of its day, born out of emotionally driven sensationalism rather than scientific evidence. I think it makes about as much sense as bans on teflon bullets, just an overreaction by people who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
Well, can't argue with that.
The historical record validates your post. I remember reading a Gun Digest article which documented all the major points, but can't find it on the web. However this does:
The Origins of Dum Dum Bullets
Basically the liberal hysteria of the era was designed to embarrass the British Government. The British were being beastly in using Dum Dum bullets. It was just easier for the Government of the era to trade off dead British Soldiers, than to stand firm and issue them decent ammunition.
Do note, as much as we consider the 303 British a full power round, at the time it was noticeably less lethal than the big, soft lead bullets of the previous black powder rifles.
Your location says New Jersey, isn't HP ammo illegal to carry outside of the home?
If a bigger hole is desired then why not use a bigger bullet? If recoil becomes an issue then decrease power
Heavy, round nose bullets were used at the start of the small-bore, smokeless powder era, and proved less effective at stopping people. The move to lighter spitzer bullets regained effectiveness. Spitzers had more energy down range, and would yaw and often come apart in the target.
Here are a couple of FMJ gelatin tests for you.
Very few tests of FMJs are out there because most folks are disinterested in them as SD fodder.
So you're calling me a liar? "Remote wounding effects"??? No. I'm claiming that a flat nosed cast bullet does a hell of a lot more than a pencil in jello. Even more-so for an expanding jacketed bullet that does what it's supposed to. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about and have based your wrong conclusion on a lack of evidence in your Googling. Please. Some of us have actually studied FIRST HAND this for a couple decades. If FMJ really did work the same as jacketed expanding bullets, we'd all be using them. If a roundnose worked just as well as a SWC or LBT, we'd be using them. They don't. You're wrong and this is basic stuff here. You're foolishly refuting proven fact.
No, you've made up your mind and no amount of facts are going to change it. You're dismissing actual evidence as just "anecdotal evidence from random people on a gun forum" only because it doesn't fit your conclusion.
I converted this pic to black & white so it wasn't quite so graphic. This is the result of a WFN fired into a 200lb fallow deer at 1300fps. The bullet effectively removed 20-25% of the deer's sizable heart. Not exactly a pencil hole. The lungs were jello.
Separate names with a comma.