Gelatin Testing and Caliber Similarities

[bradvanhorn]

I was surfing through various websites, checking out some of the gelatin test numbers, and my curiousity is now duly aroused.

It seems based on what I saw, the best modern hollowpoints, can get the same general results from nearly any "fighting" caliber (such as 9mm, 40S&W, 45acp). I realize this defies common wisdom, but bear with me for a second. I looked back and forth at some charts (Winchester Ranger bullets) at AmmoLab.com, and the penetration and expansion numbers for one 9mm, one 40S&W, and one 45acp were similar. The 9mm averaged around 14.9" and .65" respectively, the 40S&W averaged around 13.7" and .62" respectively, and the only listed 45acp was 14.5" and .67" repectively (you can go see for yourself at AmmoLab.com). This is not a broad statistical survey, so I understand I am generalizing quite a bit here using just these numbers.

We know we have to penetrate our target to reach the vital tissues. We know expansion makes a smaller bullet into a larger bullet, and hopefully increases our chance of striking those vital tissues. So, first let's assume (a bad idea, but this is just food for thought) our shot placement is good. If we consider penetration and expansion as indicators of how likely we are to inflict lethal or incapacitating damage, then wouldn't these three loads, whose penetration and expansion numbers are similar, offer you the same basic chance to inflict said damage?

Why am I bothering to ask this silly question? While exceptions always exist, it is generally easier to shoot 9mm than 40S&W or 45acp, plus you usually get a couple extra rounds or more with 9mm. And, in this particular example, the 9mm beat both larger rounds in penetration, and was in the middle on expansion. So, why not take the caliber that is easier to shoot, gives you more ammo, and is usually cheaper as well?

Just realize, I'm trying to inspire some thoughtful commentary, not create a hostile controversy (although that's probably what I've done)

I now stand by for all the pundits to blast me full of holes

 

[OF]

So, why not take the caliber that is easier to shoot, gives you more ammo, and is usually cheaper as well?

The only reason I can think of is that the hole is going to be larger w/ .45 vs. a 9mm, even given identical penetration performance. As well, if expansion fails, you are better of with an unexpanded .45 than you are with a 9mm. But I think it's going to be a very insignificant difference, all said. I also put a little faith in the fact that staring down the pipe of a .45 automatic is like staring into the abyss.

Might be worth something some day...maybe not.

- Gabe

 

[happyguy]

If you buy the argument that 12" to 14" is enough penetration then I suppose that it really doesn't matter much.

But there are a few of us that think that penetration is more important than expansion.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[Rich357]

bradvanhorn
"If we consider penetration and expansion as indicators of how likely we are to inflict lethal or incapacitating damage, then wouldn't these three loads, whose penetration and expansion numbers are similar, offer you the same basic chance to inflict said damage? "

That is the conclusion by many "experts". Penetration and expansion are easy to measure numbers.

Bullet design has much to do with penetration and expansion.

The problem is all the variables when shooting an animal (human?). The tissue is not all the same density. Some tissue can be easily damaged by the hydrostatic shock wave as the bullet passes through. What if the bullet hits bone? What if the bad guy is wearing a heavy jacket and and weights 350 lbs? Or a bad gal in a summer dress and weighing 110 lbs? What if he is high on drugs? Or, just one really mean S.O.B. with a lot of fight in him?

Some labs feel it is worth looking into the temporary flash cavity created as the bullet passes through the tissue. But, many "experts" on forums will dismiss the effects of the flash cavity. Little interest is given to how much energy is dumped into the tissue. They say the velocity and energy levels are too low to matter. IMHO, a round with 50% more energy has to make a difference. Most of the people who go by only penetration and expansion still buy +P or ++P ammo rather than the standard velocity (and standard energy) rounds.

Do a search on the SIG Forum. You will find pages and pages of discussion on the subject.

Rich

 

[fastbolt]

Was this one of the recent forum threads you saw elsewhere? Interesting comparison , don't you think?
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000581.html

 

[bradvanhorn]

Hey rich, I hear you on the many variables thing... I tried mentioning that myself in another thread last week and [to paraphrase] I was told it was more fiction than fact. Of course I went back and re-read the FBI report that mentioned these same physiological and psychological variables as things that certainly exist which you can't control in a fight, so I just chuckled and moved on... I also re-read some report by Dr. Fackler which indicated that hitting bone is likely to cause some deflection and deformation, and would have about a 10% loss in penetration and/or expansion, or something like that. (Where's Shawn Dodson? He probably knows the report I'm talking about, and can cite it better than I can).

I picked up my train of thought on this subject at Warrior Talk Forums, and particularly because of some comments by David DiFabio of AmmoLab.com among others. David (Dave?) has basically been kind enough to say that I've essentially repeated some of what he's said based on his testing at AmmoLab.com. That being - testing of the top quality hollowpoints in 9mm/40S&W/45acp/etc. have shown nearly the same penetration, expansion, permanent cavity, etc., give or take here and there.

fastbolt, that's a cool photo... I hadn't seen that one, but it seems to add up with what I was trying to suggest.

happyguy, I'm just curious as to how much penetration you are looking for? I've read several opinions, and it seems like 15" is the common thread. I know one FBI report said never less than 12", a better minimum is 15", and up to 18" might be better still.

Thanks for the comments

 

[Boats]

But some calibers are seriously more equal and flexible than others:

Winchester Partition Gold in .357 Magnum--1000fps + 180gr out of a 4" Ruger GP-100. Expansion was .692

That's enough penetration and expansion for my purposes.

 

[happyguy]

happyguy, I'm just curious as to how much penetration you are looking for? I've read several opinions, and it seems like 15" is the common thread. I know one FBI report said never less than 12", a better minimum is 15", and up to 18" might be better still.

I don't put a lot of creedence in gelatin testing (I think it's more of a hyped up gimmick than anything) but I would agree with the 18" minimum. I have carried 230 grain +p Gold Dots by Proload when I was required to carry hollow points because they seemed to offer pretty good penetration. In my personal carry weapons I use .230 grain FMJ and am looking into a +p version of the same.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Numbers. It is all mathematical.

With good shot placement, all will do the job.

Everything else is preference and/or bias.

Personally, I would like to have .44 mag ballistics in an auto with low recoil and high capacity

 

[cratz2]

It's all a percentage thing. Gelatin testing is a measurable, quantifiable way to test things that really need to be tested in soft-tissued human beings. As we don't seem to have enough volunteers, ballastic gelatin is one of the best substitutes.

Here's my personal take: I've been a 1911/45ACP guy my whole life. The primary shooter I grew up with/around was a 1911 fanatic long before it was fashionable and he knew from personal experience that they worked. He was a WWII vet and though he didn't talk about real world people shootings much, he assured me that ball ammo from a 1911 will do a very decent job at killing a man at relatively short distance.

Before and after the war, he was a game warden and carried a 357 magnum that he used on several animals and he had a lot of faith in it as well... Not sure what load he used or at what velocity but this was the late 1930s through the early 1960s so I assume 158 gr soft points or LSWCs.

With the modern major cartridges - 9mm, 38 Super, 357 SIG, 9x23, 40S&W, 10mm, 45ACP, 357 Magnum, assuming velocities are where they should be (ie barrels no shorter than 4", 5" even better) I believe any well-built bullet will have roughly a 95% chance of doing what it is supposed to do. If you double the number of rounds fired to two, you'll get about a 99% chance so firing two shots EVERY TIME is a good idea in my book.

In my personal opinion, during a warm summer, when people tend to not wear leather and denim, I think two shots from any 4" or 5" barreled gun firing Gold Dots or Rangers will be roughly equally effective whether it's fired from a 9mm, 40S&W or 45ACP. If you prefer one platform over another, then that helps make your decision. If I like the 1911, I'm most likely going to be carrying a 45ACP as I don't relish 9mm or 40S&W from the 1911. If I'm carrying a Glock, it will likely be a 9mm or a 40S&W as I don't like the feel of the G20 and G21.

Also, I know people (one springs to mind) that can shoot a 9mm CZ with much authority but when shooting a 44 Special Charter Arms, literally can't consistantly hit a torso target consistantly from 7 yards. I don't know if it's the big boom or the pushy recoil, but some folks can just shoot better with one cartridge than another. Or with a pistol better than a revolver or vice versa. For civilians, I don't see a big need to force them to 'the best' choice if they are very comfortable with a very decent choice.

In rifle terms, it's like the guys that think that a 300 Win Mag or 300 Ultra Mag will drop a deer right where it stands (or better yet... think it will somehow 'knock the animal clean off it's feet' ) but a 270, 30-06 or 308 with identical shot placement will somehow leave the animal wondering if a bee just stung it because no way in hell will a 270, 30-06 or 308 kill a deer as effectively as a 300 Mag.

What makes the difference between the calibers is when a couple layers of denim are encountered or maybe a couple larger bones are encountered. I have full faith in the 9mm cartridge and that is what I daily carry. At the same time, I have very little doubt in my own mind that a full powered 10mm will do a much better job at getting through two layers of denim and still doing what needs to be done. I think from some oblique angle, the 10mm is more likely to go through some ribs then down through the pelvis and through one of the leg bones. If I were limited to pelvis or collar bone shots, I'd rather have a 10mm than a 9mm.

In rifle terms, if you have a rear shot or a very quartered shot, a 300 Mag with solid bullets is more likely to make it to the heart or lungs than a 270 from the same angle.

It's always good to prepare for the worst. If I were a police officer, I'd rather have something larger than a 9mm... I really would. And if I was on a multiple thousand dollar elk hunt several states away, I'd rather have something more robust than a 270. But as a civilian, wanting to carry a lightweight, very easily concealable weapon, a 9mm with decent bullets is fairly comforting. And comfortable.

 

[BluesBear]

Some tissue can be easily damaged by the hydrostatic shock wave as the bullet passes through.

Would someone PLEASE define for me Hydrostatic Shock?

Hydrostatic refers to a fluid at REST not in motion. Hydrostatic pressure is a factor in the design of submersible watercraft. It's also very important to divers.

Are you referring to something along the lines of a hydrokinetic pressure? Hydrokinetic refers to fluids in motion. Hydrokinetic pressure or hydrokinetic shock could cause tissue damage due to fluids displaced by a bullet in motion.

Of course someone somewhere might actually have a fact base definition of Hydrostatic Shock. If so I'd love to be educated.

 

[racenutz]

Hydrostatic shock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Hydrostatic shock is the effect commonly believed to be caused by a high velocity object entering a body, such as a bullet fired from a weapon.

The shock is described in the following way—the object will cause ordinary damage by the actual penetration, but also pass a shock-wave in the surrounding tissue due to the energy of the slowing object being passed into the largely liquid material of the body (65%+). The shockwave, or sometimes competing shockwaves from multiple impacts, are believed to cause greater damage than the object itself, sometimes enough to rupture internal organs and fracture bone. Especially large objects are believed to cause hydrostatic shock by the closure of the cavity created by the object's passage.

There is a body of opinion, however, that believes hydrostatic shock is arrant nonsense. The argument is based around how energy is transferred and the effects of such a transfer. Issues raised include kinetic energy vs. momentum, the rate of energy transfer, thermodynamics (the energy transfer would be into heat), the speed of sound in tissue, hydrodynamic effects, 'wound tracks', and the nature of a body.

That the effect exists is possible—explosions in water will damage nearby solid items by the transit of shock waves—but this is not in the same category of effect as a bullet strike. However it can be said that a lot of people do believe in the effect, which others would claim makes it merely "well-established superstition".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

 

[BluesBear]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well I don't think that an open source wannabe encyclopedia is hardly the definative source.

My point is that Hydrostatic Shock is an oxymoron. How can you induce a shockwave from a non-moving fluid?

Hydrokinetic Shock is a term I'd accept.
I'd even be alright with a term like Hydrodynamic Shock.

Just not Hyrdostatic Shock.



But then I don't have a hot water heater. My water heater heats cold water.

My ATM card also doesn't have a PIN Number. PIN = Personal Identification Number. PIN Number = Personal Identification Number Number.

 

[racenutz]

BluesBear, you asked for a definition, I gave you a definition. Weather this it's right, wrong or whatever I really don't care.