When considering different types of ammunition I'd look at those charts showing penetration and expansion, like I suspect many people do, with more expansion being better all other factors being equal.
However I was reading on article on the 357 SIG that had the attached picture of a Cor-Bon round, and it struck me just how much of a pancake that thing had turned into. When I'd thought about expansion, I imagined a wider bullet front, with jagged spinning petal blades pulverizing a jagged hole through a target.
However with such a pancaked bullet I could easily imagine it turning sideways. If it oreignted to present the least forward surface area, what would that be? For that example I'd guess less than the area of the unexpanded bullet.
So is that happening? That made me think of the other attached pic, which I believe I actually got from this forum. The thing to note is that you're looking in from the side, but you can count the petals on a number of those rounds. They have indeed turned sideways.
So are these modern expanding rounds dumping all their energy at shallow depths, and then getting their penetration numbers by going on a low speed sideways glide out past the desired twelve inch mark? What affect would that have? Are companies designing less effective rounds so they can look more impresive when reviewers fire a few rounds into gelatin and post the results?
However I was reading on article on the 357 SIG that had the attached picture of a Cor-Bon round, and it struck me just how much of a pancake that thing had turned into. When I'd thought about expansion, I imagined a wider bullet front, with jagged spinning petal blades pulverizing a jagged hole through a target.
However with such a pancaked bullet I could easily imagine it turning sideways. If it oreignted to present the least forward surface area, what would that be? For that example I'd guess less than the area of the unexpanded bullet.
So is that happening? That made me think of the other attached pic, which I believe I actually got from this forum. The thing to note is that you're looking in from the side, but you can count the petals on a number of those rounds. They have indeed turned sideways.
So are these modern expanding rounds dumping all their energy at shallow depths, and then getting their penetration numbers by going on a low speed sideways glide out past the desired twelve inch mark? What affect would that have? Are companies designing less effective rounds so they can look more impresive when reviewers fire a few rounds into gelatin and post the results?