Bullet weights?

[94045]

One thing about Paul Harrell's videos that make you think (regardless of how credible you believe his meat test) is how often JHP that fail to expand and often penetrate 32" + of gel are stopped by the t-shirt on the back of his meat target just like the expanded jhp.

 

[QED]

One thing about Paul Harrell's videos that make you think (regardless of how credible you believe his meat test) is how often JHP that fail to expand and often penetrate 32" + of gel are stopped by the t-shirt on the back of his meat target just like the expanded jhp.

Yes thinking is a great idea, and it's amazing how many just take terminal ballistics information from various "experts" just on faith....

 

[481]

One thing about Paul Harrell's videos that make you think (regardless of how credible you believe his meat test) is how often JHP that fail to expand and often penetrate 32" + of gel are stopped by the t-shirt on the back of his meat target just like the expanded jhp.

Yes thinking is a great idea, and it's amazing how many just take terminal ballistics information from various "experts" just on faith....

I am not sure that anything meaningful can be taken from Harrell's use of his so-called "meat targets" or that his data "translates" even remotely to what can be expected to happen when a bullet hits a human body.

Harrell's use of oranges to represent/simulate pulmonary tissue is completely without basis and lacks any supportable or documentable equivalence to human lung tissue. It's a ridiculous substitution at best.

Harrell's use of ribs, which have likely been "aged" (a process in which benign bacterial action over the course of several weeks is used to soften and tenderize certain cuts of meat by reducing through enzymatic processes the tensile strength of the muscle fiber composing the meat), are equally meaningless in that the necrotic tissue (ribs) has much less resistance to damage from the passing projectile than living tissue. Additionally, the rib tissue, having been aged and drained of blood are no longer saturated with fluid (blood) that produces the needed hydraulic pressure that drives expansion of JHPs and other expanding projectile designs.

Given a choice between Harrell's "meat target" tests and accepting "just on faith" data obtained from terminal ballistic testing conducted in correctly prepared and validated 10% ordnance gelatin, the best choice is to rely upon the gelatin data.

 

[94045]

I am not sure that anything meaningful can be taken from Harrell's use of his so-called "meat targets" or that his data "translates" even remotely to what can be expected to happen when a bullet hits a human body.

Harrell's use of oranges to represent/simulate pulmonary tissue is completely without basis and lacks any supportable or documentable equivalence to human lung tissue. It's a ridiculous substitution at best.

Harrell's use of ribs, which have likely been "aged" (a process in which benign bacterial action over the course of several weeks is used to soften and tenderize certain cuts of meat by reducing through enzymatic processes the tensile strength of the muscle fiber composing the meat), are equally meaningless in that the necrotic tissue (ribs) has much less resistance to damage from the passing projectile than living tissue. Additionally, the rib tissue, having been aged and drained of blood are no longer saturated with fluid (blood) that produces the needed hydraulic pressure that drives expansion of JHPs and other expanding projectile designs.

Given a choice between Harrell's "meat target" tests and accepting "on faith only" data obtained from terminal ballistic testing conducted in correctly prepared and validated 10% ordnance gelatin, the best choice is to rely upon the gelatin data.

You didn't really comment on what I was hoping for. What I'm curious about is the lack of increased penetration by some unexpanded bullets. The same bullets that penetrate 3x as far when they fail to expand in gel. I'm thinking it's tumbling and wondering if the homogenous nature of gel makes bullets less likely to tumble than his improvised media. I'm also wondering if bullets would be more likely to tumble in an actual body than in gel. Any comment?

 

[481]

You didn't really comment on what I was hoping for. What I'm curious about is the lack of increased penetration by some unexpanded bullets. The same bullets that penetrate 3x as far when they fail to expand in gel. I'm thinking it's tumbling and wondering if the homogenous nature of gel makes bullets less likely to tumble than his improvised media. I'm also wondering if bullets would be more likely to tumble in an actual body than in gel. Any comment?

It is hard to say without knowing exactly what each bullet is hitting in Harrell's tests. Because Harrell has actual bone in his "meat targets" it is likely that they are probably part of the effect (of the reduced penetration) that you are referring to.

Since bodies are composed of various types of tissue with variable densities and strengths, tumbling is probably more likely to occur in bodies than in a homogeneous material where density and strength do not change over the course of a bullet's path.

 

[QED]

You didn't really comment on what I was hoping for. What I'm curious about is the lack of increased penetration by some unexpanded bullets. The same bullets that penetrate 3x as far when they fail to expand in gel. I'm thinking it's tumbling and wondering if the homogenous nature of gel makes bullets less likely to tumble than his improvised media. I'm also wondering if bullets would be more likely to tumble in an actual body than in gel. Any comment?

Kinetic energy loss by penetrating FMJs in various tissues is considerably greater than energy loss in Fackler's gel -- that's the reason why 9mm FMJs not infrequently fail to penetrate and exit 10" or so torsos while penetrating close to 30" in Fackler's gel. It's simple physics, really. And, of course, tumble or not 9mm FMJs will penetrate a lot more than 10" in Fackler's gel. In any event, according to Fackler, 10% ordnance gel also simulates tumbling effects in tissue.
Actually just about all tissues cause significantly greater kinetic energy loss in a penetrating FMJ than the loss in Fackler's gel -- even lungs do not cause less ke loss in penetrating FMJ than in Fackler's gel.

Yeah, it takes a lot of blind faith to believe that penetration in Fackler's gel (aka 10% ordnance gel) is similar to penetration in tissue...

And, incidentally, neither bulk modulus or sonic velocity has anything to do with discrepancy in penetration in 10% ordnance gel and tissue that's patently evident -- contrary to previous persistently erroneous statements by some that those characteristics imply accurate simulation of tissue by 10% ordnance gel.

 

[481]

None of this—

Kinetic energy loss by penetrating FMJs in various tissues is considerably greater than energy loss in Fackler's gel -- that's the reason why 9mm FMJs not infrequently fail to penetrate and exit 10" or so torsos while penetrating close to 30" in Fackler's gel. It's simple physics, really. And, of course, tumble or not 9mm FMJs will penetrate a lot more than 10" in Fackler's gel.
Actually just about all tissues cause significantly greater kinetic energy loss in a penetrating FMJ than the loss in Fackler's gel -- even lungs do not cause less ke loss in penetrating FMJ than in Fackler's gel.

Yeah, it takes a lot of blind faith to believe that penetration in Fackler's gel (aka 10% ordnance gel) is similar to penetration in tissue...

And, incidentally, no, bulk modulus or sonic velocity has got nothing to do with it...

— has anything to do with what 94045 asked in his post (#103).

94045 asked about the difference in penetration depths of some unexpanded bullets that he has seen occurring when compared in 10% gelatin and Harrell's improvised media and if bullets would be more likely to tumble in an actual body than in 10% gelatin. 94045 asked nothing about the correlation of terminal penetration in 10% gelatin and the human body and never inquired about bulk modulus or sonic velocity.

Continuing to inject irrelevant responses just as you've done here—yet again and elsewhere—contributes nothing to the conversation and unnecessarily distracts those interested from learning about the subject.

 

[QED]

None of this—



— has anything to do with what 94045 asked in his post (#103).

94045 asked about the difference in penetration depths of some unexpanded bullets that he has seen occurring when compared in 10% gelatin and Harrell's improvised media and if bullets would be more likely to tumble in an actual body than in 10% gelatin. 94045 asked nothing about the correlation of terminal penetration in 10% gelatin and the human body and never inquired about bulk modulus or sonic velocity.

Continuing to inject irrelevant responses just as you've done here—yet again and elsewhere—contributes nothing to the conversation and unnecessarily distracts those interested from learning about the subject.

Your response to 94045 "to explain" substantial difference in penetration in gel vs. tissue as because bullets are more likely to tumble in body soft tissues than in 10% ordnance gel is your irrelevant conjecture, contradicted by Fackler himself who believed otherwise. In any case, as I pointed out, even if 9mm FMJs tumble in gel they will almost certainly penetrate substantially more than 10" -- the width of typical human torso where some 50% of time they don't exit. The fact that FMJs penetrate far more in 10% ordnance gel than in soft tissues -- has nothing to do with your conjecture that it's because of tumbling, rather it's because of substantially greater bullet energy loss in tissue than in 10% ordnance gel -- your previously persistently and repeatedly expressed erroneous notion that similarity in bulk modulus and sonic velocity in 10% gel and tissues makes gel an accurate tissue simulant notwithstanding.

Your frequently and repeatedly expressed erroneous notions regarding fundamentals of bullet penetration are silly enough to actually be amusing, but really not worth responding to. Carry on!

 

[Kleanbore]

No. There is no specific requirement for expansion, only penetration (hence 9mm is acceptable.)

Oh, yes there is.

 

[QED]

Oh, yes there is.

What's the requirement for expansion, after a JHP penetrates various protocols barriers?

 

[481]

It is hard to say without knowing exactly what each bullet is hitting in Harrell's tests. Because Harrell has actual bone in his "meat targets" it is likely that they are probably part of the effect (of the reduced penetration) that you are referring to.

Since bodies are composed of various types of tissue with variable densities and strengths, tumbling is probably more likely to occur in bodies than in a homogeneous material where density and strength do not change over the course of a bullet's path.

Your response to 94045 "to explain" substantial difference in penetration in gel vs. tissue as because bullets are more likely to tumble in body soft tissues than in 10% ordnance gel is your irrelevant conjecture, contradicted by Fackler himself who believed otherwise. In any case, as I pointed out, even if 9mm FMJs tumble in gel they will almost certainly penetrate substantially more than 10" -- the width of typical human torso where some 50% of time they don't exit. The fact that FMJs penetrate far more in 10% ordnance gel than in soft tissues -- has nothing to do with your conjecture that it's because of tumbling, rather it's because of substantially greater bullet energy loss in tissue than in 10% ordnance gel -- your previously persistently and repeatedly expressed erroneous notion that similarity in bulk modulus and sonic velocity in 10% gel and tissues makes gel an accurate tissue simulant notwithstanding.

Your frequently and repeatedly expressed erroneous notions regarding fundamentals of bullet penetration are silly enough to actually be amusing, but really not worth responding to. Carry on!

If you'd bothered to actually read what I actually wrote, you'd see that I never stated anything even remotely resembling the phrase,"FMJs penetrate far more in 10% ordnance gel than in soft tissues — because of tumbling".

By reacting to a statement that I never made, you have—once again—introduced another "straw man argument" in defense of your irrelevant and misleading claims distracting unnecessarily from the topic.

 

[Kleanbore]

What's the requirement for expansion, after a JHP penetrates various protocols barriers?

Read the OP in the thread in FBI requirements.

 

[QED]

I
Since bodies are composed of various types of tissue with variable densities and strengths, tumbling is probably more likely to occur in bodies than in a homogeneous material where density and strength do not change over the course of a bullet's path.

Wrong, according to Fackler. In any case, tumbling is not an explanation for discrepancy in penetration -- which is what 94045 asked for.

 

[QED]

Read the OP in the thread in FBI requirements.

Actually, after passing through some protocols barriers such as auto glass -- there is no JHP expansion, so how can there be a requirement for expansion?

 

[481]

What's the requirement for expansion, after a JHP penetrates various protocols barriers?

Good Heavens, it's right here—

Ammunition submitted in response to FBI procurement solicitations for duty ammunition must meet or exceed performance requirements of 12-18 inch penetration in the gel in each test, and show uniform repeatable penetration, and 1.5 times caliber expansion, and high bullet weight retention.

—for cryin' out loud.

How could you have missed that?

Oh, wait, anyone familiar with your posts already knows...

 

[QED]

Good Heaven's, it's right here—



—for cryin' out loud.

How could you have missed that?

Well, if JHPs have to expand after penetrating auto glass (one of protocol barriers) - then which JHP can pass that test?

 

[481]

Actually, after passing through some protocols barriers such as auto glass -- there is no JHP expansion, so how can there be a requirement for expansion?

More mis(dis)information.

Here is just one of many examples—shot into validated 10% ordnance gelatin—that shows that JHPs do expand after passing through auto glass: https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Hornady-300BLK-190gr-Sub-X-in-Gel/16-724086/

The ammo used was actually the TAP version of the new Sub-X load. But I called Hornday Customer Service and the fellow I spoke with told me the TAP load is the same as the civilian stuff.

Now before I get too far I want to warn you that my windshield test probably isn't going to be up to FBI standard. I used a windshield from the junk yard and leaned it back at a 45° angle but didn't turn it at 15° as is called for. The windshield was already curved across its face so I just shot it straight on as best as I could. Was I shooting at 15 degrees? I'm not sure.

Also, given the height of the windshield and the little table I had to set my gel on, I wasn't able to chronograph the windshield shots. I did chronograph the shots through clothing however. More on that in just a minute.

I fired two rounds through auto glass at the block that was covered with layer of cotton t-shirt as well as cotton shirt--FBI light clothing. The gel and clothing layer was set 18" back from the target area of the glass. One bullet was recovered without issue and stayed in the block. The other went low and exited out the bottom corner of the block. It was not recovered.

Here is the bullet recovered from the glass test. It mushroomed well but lost about 30 grains of weight. Penetration was 11.75 inches.

Learn anything yet?

 

[481]

Well, if JHPs have to expand after penetrating auto glass (one of protocol barriers) - then which JHP can pass that test?

You should probably "read more" and "post less" until you have become better educated in the subject.

I'd suggest Kleanbore's posts as a good 'starting point'.

 

[QED]

More mis(dis)information.

Here is just one of many examples—shot into validated 10% ordnance gelatin—that shows that JHPs do expand after passing through auto glass: https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Hornady-300BLK-190gr-Sub-X-in-Gel/16-724086/

Learn anything yet?

Overwhelming majority of JHPs that are intended for "duty" that pass through auto glass or sheet metal do not expand -- they do deform to some extent. Of course, if JHPs don't deform it's likely that 18" penetration will be exceeded and thereby not meet penetration requirement. There is a difference between JHP expansion and just deformation. ( example: FMJs can deform, but not expand).
Which JHP expanded after passing through FBI sheet metal protocols test?
Incidentally, if 1.5xcaliber is required expansion/deformation then this limits penetration in gel to about 15" maximum -- but, of course, FBI can and does change its position on ammunition adequacy in an arbitrary and capricious manner. I've learned THAT.

 

[Kleanbore]

Overwhelming majority of JHPs that are intended for "duty" that pass through auto glass or sheet metal do not expand.

I asume that youe have heard or read that ridiculous assertion somewhere.

Which JHP expanded after passing through FBI sheet metal protocols test?

Quite obviously, the three 9mm rounds among which the FBI divided its recent contact, and several others.

FBI can and does change its position on ammunition adequacy in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

I would not characterize the efforts of the FBI Training Academy at Quantico in that manner.

've learned THAT.

I hate to put it quite this way, but it is not at all evident to me that you have yet learned much of anything on this subject

 

[QED]

[

I asume that youe have heard or read that ridiculous assertion somewhere.]

The statement that JHPs generally don't expand after passing through auto glass and sheet metal can be verified by looking at Winchester, Speer, Federal, among other manufacturers, terminal ballistics information. However, as mentioned previously, JHPs do deform to some extent, but generally do not expand, after passing through auto glass and sheet metal.

[Quite obviously, the three 9mm rounds among which the FBI divided its recent contact, and several others.

I am not following FBI's recent contract, so which particular rounds would those be? As mentioned, Federal HST, Speer Gold Dot, and Winchester Ranger JHPs that are shown in their respective terminal ballistics data, almost invariably do not show expansion after passing through sheet metal; instead JHP cavity gets closed due to sheet metal. However, as also mentioned, there is usually some deformation leading to an increase in effective bullet area.

would not characterize the efforts of the FBI Training Academy at Quantico in that manner.

As previously mentioned, if the requirement now is that, after passing through each protocol barrier, a JHP must expand or deform to 1.5 x caliber then that limits penetration in gel to a maximum of about 15" -- while the previous FBI statement was that "penetration up to 18 is better." So, if about 15" penetration is now a maximum (to allow for 1.5xcaliber expansion/deformation), then anything over about 15" penetration will necessitate a smaller expansion/deformation and thus be too small expansion/deformation to meet 1.5x caliber expansion/deformation requirement.

[I hate to put it quite this way, but it is not at all evident to me that you have yet learned much of anything on this subject

If the FBI expansion/deformation requirement is 1.5 x caliber, then that limits penetration to about 15", instead of previous maximum of 18". But, of course, FBI can and does change its requirements regarding ammunition. That's quite clear.

 

[481]

Which JHP expanded after passing through FBI sheet metal protocols test?

Oh, dear. Perhaps someone else can help you out.

The internet is positively replete with all sorts of information (especially of the sort that you are asking me to hunt down for you) and it is just waiting for the picking. Properly chosen keywords, typed into any search engine, should bring it all up in very short order.

The auto glass test that I referenced earlier in this thread (see post #117) took less than a minute's surfing on the 'net.

You can do it, too!

 

[QED]

Oh, dear. Perhaps someone else can help you out.

The internet is positively replete with all sorts of information (especially of the sort that you are asking me to hunt down for you) and it is just waiting for the picking. Properly chosen keywords, typed into any search engine, should bring it all up in very short order.

The auto glass test that I referenced earlier in this thread (see post #117) took less than a minute's surfing on the 'net. You can do it, too!

The "test" you referenced was carried out by an amateur. I suggest, for your edification, to look at the major manufacturers' pictures regarding JHP "expansion" after passing through sheet metal (or auto glass). Hint: almost invariably JHP cavity gets shut by its jacket due to impact with sheet steel. QED.

 

[481]

The "test" you referenced was carried out by an amateur.

If you were a professional, then you'd already have the peer-reviewed ''professional" information (about terminal performance through auto glass) that you seem to be requesting here. Beggars can't be choosers.

I suggest, for your edification, to look at the major manufacturers' pictures regarding JHP "expansion" after passing through sheet metal (or auto glass).

I've already seen it. Nothing new.

Hint: almost invariably JHP cavity gets shut by its jacket due to impact with sheet steel. QED.

If the point of this thread is to state the obvious, you've certainly accomplished that.

 

[QED]

If you were a professional, then you'd already have the information (about terminal performance through auto glass) that you've requested here. Beggars can't be choosers.

I never claimed to have all information about anything and whatever concepts i believe to be valid based on the evidence I am aware of can be immediately invalidated by appropriate and persuasive contrary evidence (basis of scientific method) -- presented by anyone at anytime. Hence, if a claim is made that JHPs not infrequently expand after passing through auto glass and sheet steel, suitable evidence can be persuasive. But, haven't seen any -- yet. Of course, bullets can do "funny" things in a one or two shot test; hence professional testing is helpful as opposed to an amateur's test.

[I've already seen it. Nothing new.

Glad to hear that you have seen pictures of JHPs from major manufacturers after they penetrated auto glass and sheet steel, generally clearly showing lack of expansion; however, you certainly can choose to rely on some amateur's very limited test which is contrary to what those pictures show.

If the point of this thread is to state the obvious, you've certainly accomplished that.

The point of pointing out the obvious is when some make a point to argue against the obvious -- namely that JHPs rarely expand after passing through sheet metal FBI protocol test.