Bullet penetration...."Eight inches, which isn't good."

[Orion8472]

mouseguns.com . . . . . . . . . "blah blah blah. . . 9mm sucks. 45acp is better. The end."

 

[DAP90]

Not to rain on your parade but did you see those expansion numbers for the 90gr hydroshocks? That does not inspire much confidence. But hey at leased it did penatrate some, and had (slightly) better expansion then the FMJs. I think I'll stick to my 9mm thanks. 14.5" penatration and 1.5x expansion even through several layers of denim.

Not my parade either way, I don’t own a .380, but the hydroshocks met the penetration standard and had some (admittedly minimal) expansion. It’s not at 9mm levels but I’m not claiming it is.

If the standard can be met with a .380 is that not sufficient? If it’s not sufficient then what is the actual standard? Because what I see over and over is people quoting the FBI’s study and then arbitrarily disregarding it if a caliber they don’t like meets it.

Your own 9mm isn’t immune to the same criticisms from those who carry larger calibers.

I don’t disagree about just using fmj’s actually, I was just pointing out that there are some .380 HP loads can get penetration and some expansion.

 

[spm]

Ya know this common thread throughout; journalism, analysis, investigation... whatever, that we will concentrate more on what something isn't than what it is is getting very, very boring.

IT'S A 380 FER CRIPES SAKE! They should get off its back for not performing like a 9mm, .357, etc...

8 inches? In the relative real world where I live I'll take it and often do as a viable alternative given pertinent conditions and for this I say... "8 inches was good."

380? well it's better than a .32 but not as good as a 9mm so let's write it off but then let's write off the 9 'cause it's not as good as a .40 - as a 9x23 - as a .357 - as a .45 - as a... (individuals "pet" cartridge here).

I see this continually throughout the firearms, motorcycle, automotive, hardware environments. It seems no one can take a "thing" as and for itself anymore but rather feel compelled to couch their expertise in exposing what an item is not in relation to a stated, alluded to or hinted at other option.

If any given day, one has picked up the .380 for any reason over any other option, needed to use it, operated it well, struck what was aimed at and survived to tell the tale then the .380 was good. I'm sure that in the cold post event analysis one could state that another cartridge might have performed better but if "another cartridge" was not an option, what's the point?

Between my wife and I we have 3 scenarios in which our Sig 230SL is the only viable option and that being the case - what it is not is not a consideration.

Well said.

 

[GunnerShotz]

It's the situation that puts those "eight inches" (vs any other depth of penetration) "which isn't good".

Generally speaking, I find the subject of ballistics fascinating. I will also say that, given the choice, I'll use a round that penetrates the most in equal proportion to the target I am forced to shoot at. The trouble with that is: I don't always know for sure what that target is going to be.

By all means, Please post the results you've seen from ballistic gelatin tests. It's useful information! Just keep in mind that those tests are a "when" something is made to happen scenario vs a real life "if".

I decided a long time ago that if eight inches of penetration was what I had available or made available to myself (given the circumstance), then I would certainly do my best to make that eight inches good.

 

[spm]

This is not meant in any way as an insult to anyone who has posted here -- but -- here is a bunch of information from someone who actually knows.

This autopsy technician has actually worked or observed thousands of autopsies of gunshot victims. He has observations about which cartridges and rounds most often produced one-shot kills, and how and why, and which required multiple shots, and why.

I am convinced by what he has said, but I will leave it to others who wish to, to read the (long) article themselves. I won't post his conclusion for him, as I think it makes more sense after reading his entire report, and I don't want to start a big fight here on this thread, among folks, some of whom maybe haven't read the report.

It's here:
http://www.mouseguns.com/deadmeat.htm

Oh, and by the way, the post can get confusing at times because it's from a blog, and it's not always clear when the blogger is writing, or when others are responding or asking questions. Also, apparently some responses were deleted, but answers to them have been included.

But for the most part it is very clear.

Wow! That was probably the most informative and enlightening post I have ever read, anywhere. It answered a lot of questions. Thank you for posting the link, AntiSpin.

 

[RBid]

The autopsy link was ok, but it was still too 'catch all'. Rounds were generalized by caliber, without clarifying type (FMJ, JHP) for almost all of the blog.

I have no problem continuing to trust 9mm JHPs. If I have to use FMJ, I want a .45. The 9mm's bad reputation as a threat-stopper mostly stems from ball ammo use in the military. As we have all heard, .45 ball is actually respectable.

 

[TennJed]

This is not meant in any way as an insult to anyone who has posted here -- but -- here is a bunch of information from someone who actually knows.

This autopsy technician has actually worked or observed thousands of autopsies of gunshot victims. He has observations about which cartridges and rounds most often produced one-shot kills, and how and why, and which required multiple shots, and why.

I am convinced by what he has said, but I will leave it to others who wish to, to read the (long) article themselves. I won't post his conclusion for him, as I think it makes more sense after reading his entire report, and I don't want to start a big fight here on this thread, among folks, some of whom maybe haven't read the report.

It's here:
http://www.mouseguns.com/deadmeat.htm

Oh, and by the way, the post can get confusing at times because it's from a blog, and it's not always clear when the blogger is writing, or when others are responding or asking questions. Also, apparently some responses were deleted, but answers to them have been included.

But for the most part it is very clear.

I may be wrong but I think that article has been called into question. The author claims to witness almost 3000 autopsies a year (8.2 x 365). That seems like a heck of a lot to me. How long does an autopsie take. If it takes any longer than an hour then this guy is putting in some OT at over 8 a day.

Again I may be wrong, but it doesn't pass the smell test with me.

 

[psyopspec]

And that's if he didn't take a single day off. No holidays, no weekends, no sick days, etc.

Additionally, ATL had 90 murders in 2005. Let's be generous and assume the author attended every single autopsy. Not all of those homicides would have been carried out by firearms. That leaves a sample size much smaller than what he implies (365*8.2=2993). That means 3% of the autopsies are homicides, and again we don't know how many of those were committed with firearms. BTW, am I the only one wondering about the other 2093 deaths that occurred under enough suspicion to warrant an autopsy? Anyway, you might say, "yeah, but what about suicides?" Good point. While I might be interested in reading informed and creditable anecdotes absent gory details about ballistics under those circumstances, I generally wouldn't let information about a bullet's effects on a stationary skull at point blank range inform my carry choices.

ETA: Found a previous THR thread raises a lot of serious questions about the article, as well as the author's credibility. If you're going to read the bulk of the original article, I'd recommend a little counterbalancing here.

 

[Texan Scott]

i see 2 practical options:

load 6 or 7 FMJs, shoot threat 6 or 7 times; hope for the best.

OR

load 6 or 7 HPs, shoot threat 6 or 7 times; hope for the best.

 

[TennJed]

And that's if he didn't take a single day off. No holidays, no weekends, no sick days, etc.

Additionally, ATL had 90 murders in 2005. Let's be generous and assume the author attended every single autopsy. Not all of those homicides would have been carried out by firearms. That leaves a sample size much smaller than what he implies (365*8.2=2993). That means 3% of the autopsies are homicides, and again we don't know how many of those were committed with firearms. BTW, am I the only one wondering about the other 2093 deaths that occurred under enough suspicion to warrant an autopsy? Anyway, you might say, "yeah, but what about suicides?" Good point. While I might be interested in reading informed and creditable anecdotes absent gory details about ballistics under those circumstances, I generally wouldn't let information about a bullet's effects on a stationary skull at point blank range inform my carry choices.

ETA: Found a previous THR thread raises a lot of serious questions about the article, as well as the author's credibility. If you're going to read the bulk of the original article, I'd recommend a little counterbalancing here.

Thanks. I thought I had seen it posted here before, but couldn't find it. I appriciate the link

 

[brickeyee]

am I the only one wondering about the other 2093 deaths that occurred under enough suspicion to warrant an autopsy?

In many places if the deceased's doctor will not sign the death certificate an autopsy is ordered.

 

[M7]

There is no practical difference between the resistance of various soft tissues to bullet penetration in the human body. See - Extract from “Wound Ballistics Misconceptions.” (Duncan MacPherson, Wound Ballistics Review, 2(3): 1996; 42-43) at http://firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm (Scroll about 2/3 down the page).

10% ordnance gelatin is a realistic soft tissue simulant that represents "typical" soft tissues, not just muscle tissue.

Why 12" of penetration? Because if the bullet first penetrates an arm it can loose as much as 30% of it's TOTAL penetration potential. Thus a bullet that normally penetrates 8" may penetrate less than 6". If 4" of the bullet's penetration potential is used up in passing through the arm then there's less than 2" of penetration potential remaining for the bullet to penetrate the torso.

You may not have an unobstructed frontal shot in which 8" would be adequate.

"A gunfight is more like a fistfight than a tactical nuclear exchange." - Keith Jones

I think this is a pretty realistic perspective. As a rule, I want more, rather than less, penetration if I am shooting to defend myself. There is no guarantee that I'll be given an unobstructed shot and with my luck that almost guaranteed not to happen.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Just think of it as an 8" Bowie.. that reaches out to fifty plus yards.

 

[wacki]

It's not an approximation for human or animal tissue.

????

From wikipedia:

Ballistic Gelatin is a testing medium scientifically correlated to swine muscle tissue (which in turn is comparable to human muscle tissue),

 

[Certaindeaf]

. As we have all heard, .45 ball is actually respectable.

Where do you get that information? I wouldn't shoot a dog or a deer with RN FMJ out of any handgun.

 

[wacki]

A much more concise and data driven article on gun calibers:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

 

[Harvey]

Ya know this common thread throughout; journalism, analysis, investigation... whatever, that we will concentrate more on what something isn't than what it is is getting very, very boring.

IT'S A 380 FER CRIPES SAKE! They should get off its back for not performing like a 9mm, .357, etc...

8 inches? In the relative real world where I live I'll take it and often do as a viable alternative given pertinent conditions and for this I say... "8 inches was good."

380? well it's better than a .32 but not as good as a 9mm so let's write it off but then let's write off the 9 'cause it's not as good as a .40 - as a 9x23 - as a .357 - as a .45 - as a... (individuals "pet" cartridge here).

I see this continually throughout the firearms, motorcycle, automotive, hardware environments. It seems no one can take a "thing" as and for itself anymore but rather feel compelled to couch their expertise in exposing what an item is not in relation to a stated, alluded to or hinted at other option.

If any given day, one has picked up the .380 for any reason over any other option, needed to use it, operated it well, struck what was aimed at and survived to tell the tale then the .380 was good. I'm sure that in the cold post event analysis one could state that another cartridge might have performed better but if "another cartridge" was not an option, what's the point?

Between my wife and I we have 3 scenarios in which our Sig 230SL is the only viable option and that being the case - what it is not is not a consideration.

If we concede that the High Road is the finest of all guntalk sites, then every other gun blog on the web goes thru the same debate, day after day after day. Is the .380 enough? Does the .380 have what it takes? So thanks to ApacheCoTodd for bringing some perspective to the same old discussion.

If you live anywhere south of the Mason/Dixon line the .380 is just about the largest pocket pistol you will be able to carry comfortably and concealed. So as an admitted educated shooter, it would be incumbent upon you to see the the puny little .380 works. And the puny little .380 is fully capable of working with the proper practice and proficiency.

If you ask me, 8" of penetration is plenty. If you ask my wife or girlfriend, you may get a different answer. But for the faculty lounge to go on and on about terminal ballistics, gel comparisons, 9mm, .40 cal, .45 cal, shot placement, blah, blah blah 'tis a pointless waste of the zither.

My little Colt Mustang .380 is plenty of gun carried concealed - and plenty of bullet - short of the invasion of the zombies.

 

[huntsman]

Just think of it as an 8" Bowie.. that reaches out to fifty plus yards.

why bother with a bowie when you can use a sword

 

[Certaindeaf]

^
I understand. But an 8" bowie stuck in your craw would do you no good.