huntsman
Member
The two results, relative to each other (FMJ vs JHP) are still relevant.
I not confident that it transfers over to real flesh and blood. Would be convienent but water would'nt reflect clogging like tissue.
The two results, relative to each other (FMJ vs JHP) are still relevant.
It doesn't and I didn't say it did. I said "relative to each other".I not confident that it transfers over to real flesh and blood. Would be convienent but water would'nt reflect clogging like tissue.
Forget about energy. It is a meaningless number...
Energy and velocity are irrelevant.
What the hell is "remote damage"???
I'm trying to enlighten you but you must first set aside your preconceived notions and open your mind. Just entertain the idea that your conclusions might be incorrect.
To be fair "remote damage" is a term typically used in legal cases:
"What the hell is "remote damage"???"
Any damage occurring from a defendant's act that cannot reasonably be anticipated by the defendant, or that is not the natural and ordinary result of such act. A defendant will typically not be held liable for remote damages to a plaintiff's person or property.
To be fair "remote damage" is a term typically used in legal cases:
The only place I found "remote damage" talked about with relation to firearms was the Wikipedia article on Hydro-static Shock:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro..._shock_as_a_factor_in_selection_of_ammunition
Reading the article I think I understand more about where this thread came from.
And it isn't just Craig that is disagreeing with you.
.480Ruger.
Hydrostatic shock is not a factor at 1300fps.
I thought that the thread was about JHP and FMJ bullets, not Hydrostatic Shock.Remote wounding and remote damage are interchangeable. From the studies, they say things like, "remote tissue damage caused by hydrostatic shock" etc. Or "remote wounding effects from hydrostatic shock."
I have read that same wikipedia article and found it well written in general. What parts do you take issue with specifically? Have you even looked at the various studies quoted there or did you just glance at it? I found it a really good place to start from personally, as it turned me on to several papers I would not have found otherwise. People rag on wikipedia a lot, but it can be a good tool if used correctly.
Well... That's off topic for the thread.Look, guys, let's just take a deep breath and come back to some empirical data.
Let's look at one of my favorite calibers, the .357 magnum. It fires the exact same bullet as the .38 Special but is much, much more effective. Since the only difference between these two rounds is velocity clearly velocity plays a part in effectiveness.
Now we must ask ourselves why. How does that extra velocity increase effectiveness?
I'm trying to enlighten you but you must first set aside your preconceived notions and open your mind. Just entertain the idea that your conclusions might be incorrect.
Well... That's off topic for the thread.
This thread was about FMJ bullets and JHP bullets.
The point many of us are trying to make here is that all things being equal (like speed) the JHP does a better job of tissue damage than the FMJ.
Meaningless?It's not meaningless in the least. You can't divorce velocity from bullet design when discussing a bullet's effectiveness. Which is why this thread is flawed from the get-go.
But if water offers the pressure to open the petals but not the substance to clog,would'nt it only provide a false result?It doesn't and I didn't say it did. I said "relative to each other".
Of course not, that represents bullet failure.
Meaningless?
Pick any velocity you want so long as BOTH bullets are tested at the same speed and JHP will perform better than the FMJ.
While I might agree that the premise of the thread is flawed, OP has stated *in the thread* that he is talking about commonly carried handgun calibers.That's not true at all.
Push an expanding design to a certain velocity and it will likely fragment upon impact. Push it too slow and it probably won't expand a bit. Between these two extremes lies a whole world of variables that may favor one design over another, and velocity is definitely a critical factor.
What's worse... a 5.56 HP expanding, or a 5.56 FMJ tumbling? Just one (of many) examples of how things aren't as cut & dried as you're suggesting.
Once again - the premise of this thread is flawed, because making a comparison of one bullet design vs another, without at least considering velocity, is pointless.
I thought that the thread was about JHP and FMJ bullets, not Hydrostatic Shock.
The wiki article is fine, but Hydrostatic Shock isn't really applicable to most commonly carried handgun rounds as Hydrostatic Shock is about speed and lots of it.
On top of that, there are lots of highly qualified people (even mentioned in the Wiki article) who have some interesting things to say against the hydrostatic shock theory.