CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That's exactly why. No reason to prove what we (most of us) already know.Very few tests of FMJs are out there because must folks are disinterested in them as SD fodder.
That's exactly why. No reason to prove what we (most of us) already know.Very few tests of FMJs are out there because must folks are disinterested in them as SD fodder.
If a bigger hole is desired then why not use a bigger bullet? If recoil becomes an issue then decrease power
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.
Exactly.
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.
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.
Exactly.
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.
I seem to remember an old bullet design called a BAT round (ballistic action trauma) that proclaimed to do this. The bullet was pure copper and a curved cone of metal on the tip, sometimes referred to as a "reverse ogive".
Shoot a water jug/piece of fruit/ballistics gelitan ect...with a fmj. Then shoot one with a hollow point. Your question will answer itself.I've been doing a lot of reading lately on the wounding effects of various ammunition, such as military studies, medical studies, etc. and what I'm finding out seems to contradict a lot of the conventional wisdom we hear from a lot of different sources, such as gun shop salesmen, ammo manufacturers, etc. Namely I'm more and more drawing the conclusion that hollow points aren't as great as we've been led to believe.
Essentially what I've been told is that hollow points dump more energy into the target, and thus are more devastating. However, that doesn't seem to pan out in the real world, especially when it comes to handgun calibers, which is my primary interest as a CCW holder. Primarily what I'm hearing over and over again in these studies is that hollow points don't really make larger wound cavities in human targets, lacking the velocity necessary to cause hydrolic tearing of actual living flesh. So this idea of an "energy dump" doesn't seem to generate larger permanent wounds. Even in terms of rifle calibers, I think we're all pretty well aware that any properly engineered FMJ will tumble, resulting in hydrolic tearing just as a hollow point would. Even in rifle velocities I've not really seen any evidence that hollow points in and of themselves make a bullet deadlier, as I've seen many mean little FMJs and just as many hollow points that don't seem to do their job very well. It seems both can work equally well, and it's really just a matter of the bullet in question.
That leaves us with hydrostatic shock as the only benefit of this supposed energy dump, but I'm not sure that really pans out either. The peak hydrostatic effect takes place when the bullet is at its maximum velocity, and this is dying down by the time the bullet is expanding. I can't really find any testing specifically for this hypothesis, but reading between the lines I'm starting to wonder if there's really any difference in the pressure wave generated by hollow points vs. FMJ. To put it another way, I'm beginning to doubt that there is any difference in the magnitude of the pressure waves generated by hollow points and FMJs of the same mass travelling at the same velocity.
Now I'm not suggesting in any way that we start carrying FMJs, or that they themselves are better or "deadlier" or anything else. I also understand that there are other reasons to carry hollow points, such as limiting penetration, barrier blindness, etc. But there is absolutely a common belief in the shooting community that hollow points are somehow deadlier, and I'm not sure that this isn't largely a misconception based on assumptions that don't really pan out in the real world. People are always saying things like, "oh, if only the military could have hollow points that would fix all the problems with 9mm and 5.56." Well, if what I suspect is true, I think hollow points would largely be detrimental to most military applications as they would be sacrificing penetration for nothing in return.
Again, I'm not suggesting that we stop using hollow points. I'm only suggesting that the majority of us might be perpetuating a myth in thinking that hollow points are inherently deadlier or produce more devastating wounds in and of themselves. I would also suggest that hollow point bans are not only deeply flawed in their intent, but also that they seek to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.
.480Ruger.
Hydrostatic shock is not a factor at 1300fps.
Shoot a water jug/piece of fruit/ballistics gelitan ect...with a fmj. Then shoot one with a hollow point. Your question will answer itself.
Ballistic wounding effects are a fluid world and you can't draw lines in the sand, there are no absolutes.So in a bullet without enough energy to cause remote wounds (i.e. 200-500 ft-lbs), this energy transfer is meaningless. You're not going to get remote wounding effects, and you've already gotten all the hydrostatic shock you're going to get. So the energy is then dissipated in a stretch cavity that causes no appreciable wounding effect.
And arguing with clueless people with heavily flawed logic who so arrogantly cling to an ignorant opinion are what irritate me. The fact that you think my points are irrelevant is exactly MY point. If you don't understand how this is relevant, you need to be reading/listening, not posting.This is EXACTLY why anecdotal evidence irritates me so much.
Jab a pencil into jello and that pretty much sums up what kind of wounds you will see from handgun cartridges.
Says the guy constantly muddying the water with rhetoric about rifle cartridges??? All you're doing is finding ways of dismissing anything contrary to your ignorant opinion.Your story should have started out, "I shot this deer with a cannon..." Unless you go around carrying a Desert Eagle I don't see how this is even relevant to this discussion.
Shoot a water jug/piece of fruit/ballistics gelitan ect...with a fmj. Then shoot one with a hollow point. Your question will answer itself.
The two results, relative to each other (FMJ vs JHP) are still relevant.^ but fruit and water ain't flesh and blood, not to mention bone.
And arguing with clueless people with heavily flawed logic who so arrogantly cling to an ignorant opinion are what irritate me. The fact that you think my points are irrelevant is exactly MY point. If you don't understand how this is relevant, you need to be reading/listening, not posting.
Says the guy constantly muddying the water with rhetoric about rifle cartridges??? All you're doing is finding ways of dismissing anything contrary to your ignorant opinion.
If you had a clue, you'd know that I would've had the same result with a 250gr .44 at 1200fps.
The two results, relative to each other (FMJ vs JHP) are still relevant.
Shoot a water jug/piece of fruit/ballistics gelitan ect...with a fmj. Then shoot one with a hollow point. Your question will answer itself.
This is correct. because you are comparing the two against one another in the same test.The two results, relative to each other (FMJ vs JHP) are still relevant.
The two results, relative to each other (FMJ vs JHP) are still relevant.
This is correct. because you are comparing the two against one another in the same test.
When setting up science experiments you only change one thing at a time to test your hypothesis.
In the case of shooting the same targets and only changing the bullet type you are getting relevant performance data. Comparing one against another in the same test is key.
I think that hunting results or shooting dead animals is an excellent way to test bullets.
In fact, to disregard what has been discovered trying to find a better hunting bullet would be a mistake, in my opinion. Bullet design has come so far for so many years in part because of the hunting industry.
When we are looking at "performance" of a cartridge it is important to set apart tissue damage and the achievement of intended results.
If I shoot something with a FMJ and the intended result is achieved (say, the critter dies), that doesn't necessarily mean that it "performed" better than a JHP at maximizing tissue damage.
There are two ways to kill a critter: Disrupting the central nervous system and blood pressure loss.
JHP are intended to increase in diameter through expansion, therefore increasing tissue damage, and at that task they are better suited than FMJ.
More tissue damage *typically* means greater/faster blood loss.
So, if a shoot a critter in the head, it won't matter if the bullet is FMJ or JHP.
But if I shoot a critter in a place like the stomach (for the sake of argument lets say that no vital organs are struck), the JHP will make more tissue damage (ie more blood loss) than the FMJ.
The JHP will more reliably cause more tissue damage than the FMJ.
I will take every edge I can get.
Thanks,
Have you done it? I have. Many times. You are clueless and yet you are telling me that what you 'think' is more accurate/relevant than what I 'know'. They have a name for "willful ignorance" and it's not a good one.No you would not have.
Forget about energy. It is a meaningless number and only serves to signal to everyone who has hunted with a handgun how clueless you really are. In the real world, the .480 only produces a slightly greater effect due to the larger bullet's larger meplat. Energy and velocity are irrelevant. This is fact based on experience, not uninformed opinion.Such a round would produce in the ballpark of 800 ft-lbs of energy (your .480 is pushing over 50% more).
Completely irrelevant, particularly considering your "Jab a pencil into jello and that pretty much sums up what kind of wounds you will see from handgun cartridges" comment.But it's still a pointless argument because maybe one out of a thousand people are carrying anything that powerful.
What the hell is "remote damage"???BTW, the 500 ft-lbs cutoff as someone put it is not my own arbitrary creation. It was established by three separate research teams as the low end of where measurable remote damage could be detected.
Newsflash, as if it were not obvious, a hollowpoint is going to produce MORE damage than the flat nosed solid. Which completely blows your nonsensical conclusion out of the water. You haven't been right yet.Again, though, I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Your anecdote doesn't involve hollow points...
Of course I have, because I KNOW. I don't think you're wrong. I know you're wrong. You have a silly theory that is not based in reality and are arbitrarily dismissing anything that contradicts it.You sir are the one who has made up your mind.
I have not. Name-calling is contrary to the rules of THR....except to call me names.
No, I'm trying to educate you and you're fighting me every step of the way.You're not even looking for a debate. You're looking for a pissing contest.
That's all it's for. Many incorrectly assume that gel testing is supposed to tell us what any given load would do in live tissue. That the results translate directly from gel to flesh. They do not. The value of gel testing is to have results to compare to each other, with as many variables eliminated as possible, which is to be compared to known values.IAll ballistics gel does is provide a consistent medium that's as close to human tissue as possible, for the purpose of comparing one bullet to another.
IMHO, the results of any testing in water jugs has limited application. However, in this instance, it is relevant and tells you point blank that you're wrong.I don't see any way water jugs, and especially fruit, could be used to draw any conclusions about how a bullet might perform in the real world. Like someone else said, it's just a gimmick, not a real test of anything.
Google "absence of evidence" and ponder on that for a while.It's because they know that measuring the wound cavities of pistol rounds in gel is a pointless exercise.
First off: My guess on why the FBI throws out wound cavity is because no matter what bullet you are shooting the wound cavity isn't really a guarantee of anything. Not because they don't thing that a larger wound cavity isn't going to help with incapacitating the target.It's not enough that the test medium be the same for both rounds. The test medium must be an accurate representation of a human target. Even ballistics gel falls short in that category. All ballistics gel does is provide a consistent medium that's as close to human tissue as possible, for the purpose of comparing one bullet to another. So if you find that 12-18'' of penetration in gel translates to enough in the real world, then the medium is consistent enough to say that any round that gets 12-18'' in gel is likely to penetrate deep enough to kill a human.
I don't see any way water jugs, and especially fruit, could be used to draw any conclusions about how a bullet might perform in the real world. Like someone else said, it's just a gimmick, not a real test of anything.
BTW, why do you guys think the FBI test disregards the "wound cavity" in ballistics testing? They only look at penetration. It's because they know that measuring the wound cavities of pistol rounds in gel is a pointless exercise. And IMHO, looking at how high a water melon jumps is way more meaningless than measuring the wound tracks in ballistics gel.