One of the deadliest ammo's on the planet?? Or not so much . . .?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aqeous

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
27
Now don't get me wrong (and I am going out on a limb here a little bit so be gentle :rolleyes:) but frangible ammunitions in wheel gun magnums seems like they would be pretty darn lethal to me.


Frangible ammunition in service calibers (I feel) go way beyond inadequate. We've all seen extreme shocks "exploding pants add" gave it maybe a moments consideration and moved on. Well . . . most of us at least.

I've got to thinking that maybe, starting with the .44 magnum as the minimum, the grain weight of the frangible bullet might be high enough to create the desired effect advertised on the extreme shocks web sight. Nothing less then a .44 magnum in terms of weight and velocity (In my opinion) would suffice. But . . . it would remove the over penetration issues and at least in theory could lead to next to immediate incapacitation in living beings in the range of 100 to 250 pounds, provided the shot was placed in the vicinity of the lungs and heart.

Down sides:

1.) You'd have to be lined up for an almost perfect shot broad side or center of mass in order for it to be effective.

2.) Potential legal issues. (which does not by any means that it wouldn't be effective)




This is only my humble opinion, and I am egger to here others . . .

Be gentle . . . :p
 
I ran some extreme shock and another brand of frangible through my 44 magnum. The recoil on the extreme shock fang face was punishing and it was like shooting a flame thrower. Shooting into the mud after a rain yielded an impressive and violent reaction. I posted about it here and the old timers had a hoot and basically said if I was ever attacked by dangerous mud I'd be in good shape.

I've since moved on. My guess is that it would do massive damage unless they had on a leather jacket or something. On hard targets it simply disintegrates into an unimpressive cloud of dust.

One plus it that it's lighter to carry than regular bullets.

Here come the obligatory ninja pictures:neener:
 
I'm sort of confused as well - Aqeous, are you asking if a round such as you describe would be more lethal than that of a different type or density, or? We're not quite understanding you on this one so far.
 
If I understand correctly, he's a revolver guy who can't understand why semiautos are so popular for self defense. Truthfully, neither can I.

I mean, I understand the actual and perceived benefits of the semiauto: thinner (thus easier to conceal), higher capacity, faster reloads, but those benefits don't necessarily mean that it's better...just different. And I'm ok with that, because I like 'em both!
 
I think (and I'm feeling that limb he's out on) he's saying that we all know frangible bullets are less than desirable for defensible purposes in standard calibers, but they may be more effective at larger calibers. Something on the order .44, .454, .500 is what he seems to be implying.

Might be wrong though.

If that is what you're asking...sorry, I have no clue.
 
I think (and I'm feeling that limb he's out on) he's saying that we all know frangible bullets are less than desirable for defensible purposes in standard calibers, but they may be more effective at larger calibers. Something on the order .44, .454, .500 is what he seems to be implying.
Click to expand...
Thats my take too. I think he's stating that in .44 mag or larger/powerful rounds, frangible ammo may work more like it is intended (or in the case of Extreme Shock, advertised/hyped), in that the risk of overpenetration is nil, but the wounding effects more massive than with hollowpoints and the like. As opposed to the general reality in the "smaller" rounds, which is, overpenetration ius still nil, but then so is penetration thats needed, as is massive wounding capacity. He's just saying that when you make the frangible round big enough and fats enough, it may actualy not just work as intended/advertised, but actuall be better at stopping/wounding than "regular" SD bullet typs like HP's.


but, maybe I'm misunderstang the op too. either way, there may be something to this I think.
 
O.K . . . to clarify.

(No offense to the THR guys but the boys on the Firingline picked this up pretty quickly . . . :D)


Yes, I feel like frangible bullets are for the most part crap, unless you are using them for target practice at steel plates. And yes, I am questioning whether or not others would feel that, perhaps, when you push 200+ grains at .44 magnum velocities, that may be the advertised "Extreme shock" might become more of a reality.

Frangible bullets are made of powdered metal. When they impact a target the result in a massive "Explosion" for lack of a better term being that 100% of the bullets energy is dispersed into the target. With service calibers the lesser velocities and grain weights makes for (In my opinion) "extremely" crappy ammo. But, at magnum velocities a heavier bullet will impart the hydrostatic shock of a much larger bullet. One rivaling or exceeding the hydrostatic shock of some rifle rounds. The result is a block of ballistics gel that literally tears itself apart. And yet has no exit . . .

The hypothesis that I am proposing is that "blast" for lack of a better term, may be substantial enough to damage the heart of a living being with out actually having to permeate it directly. Not to mention the tremendous "explosive-like" blunt force trauma it would impart upon living flesh, which, could generate a very high percentile of instantaneous incapacitation never before seen in handgun rounds (revolvers or service pistols alike.)

Thats the question I am posing fella's . . . .
 
Why not just shoot your target with a 'regular' .44mag JHP? That seems to work well enough already.
 
Not all frangibles are made out of powdered metal. The ones that are, are intended for range use only. The powdered metal rounds act like FMJ against soft targets, but disentegrate when hitting a hard target. The rounds such as MagSafe and Glaser are made from lead shot with epoxy as a filler. There are reasons I'd use these rounds, but certainly not for self-defense. If I was planning on using frangibles for self-defense, I'd rather have something along the lines of the old Triton Quick Shock, which was a pre-stressed lead bullet designed to break into three pieces when it started expanding.
 
If the bullet can't penetrate, its worthless. The energy it will impart on the target is no greater than the recoil absorbed by the shooter. Thus, if the round cannot reliably get through a leather jacket, heavy clothing, or what have you, its not going to do any considerable damage.
 
The leather jacket thing is an excellent argument against my hypothesis. It also came up on the Firingline and pretty much changed my mind . . .


So . . . I will change the content of this thread to:

Why is extreme shock still in business?????
 
Um . . . no.

Extremes stuff still penetrate more then enough to make it into the next apartment.
 
But, at magnum velocities a heavier bullet will impart the hydrostatic shock of a much larger bullet.

Is the question, not danced around, can a frangible (or other) handgun bullet be pushed fast enough that the sheer kinetic energy negates entirely whether the person is wearing very good body armor as it will kill them regardless?

Sorry if I'm missing something, but I think that's the question being asked here in the subtext. Yes?
 
Shooting into the mud after a rain yielded an impressive and violent reaction.
Click to expand...

That's nothing. I shot my .22 lr into a fresh cow pie once. Needless to say, I and my companions were covered with cow pie. (Doesn't need to be a big caliber to make a mess. :D )
 
As usual, read this http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

it would remove the over penetration issues
Click to expand...
What over penetration issues are you talking about?

Why is extreme shock still in business?????
Click to expand...
Some people don't educate themselves on modern ballistics and some lightning bolts, guys in black, and names like "terrorist fang face super exploder" convince them to buy. Why is mcdonalds still in business?
 
The deadliest ammo on the planet is the dreaded 17 HMR (Human Massacre Round). It is intended to slip between ribs, causing massive damage.

Unfortunately, these folks seem to be covering it up, since I pointed it out to them many months ago:

http://vpcblog.wordpress.com/
 
I already have made such ammo myself and tested it and been quite happy with the results on various targets.
Frangible though is a wide open term, defined differently by different manufacturers. If you are talking about the rounds that are solids composed of birdshot which break apart on impact then yes. You need the projectile to fragment into projectile sizes that can still continue to penetrate, not just become powder. You want the rat hole effect.

It is effective in magnum power revolvers as long as it is made with shot that still penetrates deep enough.
It is comparable to shooting with a contact shot by a smaller gauge shotgun with birdshot. Doesn't sound like much, but such a contact shot is more lethal than any pistol rounds. By contact I mean a few inches from the target.
It takes tremendous energy to make such a round effective though. So in most pistols it is not effective enough because they already have just adequate to poor penetration and the results would be a superficial wound.
The exception would be .44magnum and above (even the .44 is just barely enough.) Basicly in calibers you have so much excess penetration that giving up 75% of your penetration still leaves you with plenty, while at the same time dramaticly increasing the wound channel.
I would probably put a round or two of that in the first cylinders. The benefit is you can load such a round extremely hot, and get the effects of a small shotgun. You however lose the effectiveness of such a caliber against things like light barriers and soft armor, so I would still reserve some some cyclinders for better penetrating single projectile rounds.

A single shot from such a round would probably be about as effective as 3 from a service pistol caliber like .40S&W in real world stopping power.

I have also thought such magnum power handguns firing 2-4 rounds per cartridge (more or less scaling with energy), each weighing 25-50% of the normal bullet weight would be more effective than the single round and still each be about as effective as a 9mm per projectile. Essentialy giving you 2-4 round bursts. If you have 4x the penetration that you need, why not fire 3 rounds with just adequate penetration about the same diameter?

There is a lot of options when you have that much energy and velocity to spare.
The problem is there is no commercial rounds designed to take advantage of that excess power for man size targets. We all know the issues mentioned with reloads for self defense.
 
Yes, I feel like frangible bullets are for the most part crap, unless you are using them for target practice at steel plates. And yes, I am questioning whether or not others would feel that, perhaps, when you push 200+ grains at .44 magnum velocities, that may be the advertised "Extreme shock" might become more of a reality.
Click to expand...

I believe the answer is "NO". Higher velocity means BIGGER explosion upon impact and MORE fragementation, resulting in LESS velocity and LESS effectiveness at reaching the penetration needed to incapacitate, esp. through bone, from odd angles, and through heavy clothing and fat layers.
 
A sintered bullet will overpenetrate just as easily as a non-sintered bullet. Lead IS frangible. It takes hitting something hard to get it to break apart. I shot a Delta Frangible .357 into ballistic gelatin. It neither expanded nor fragmented. Penetration was extreme. It acted just like a FMJ unless it hits something harder than itself.
 
The hypothesis that I am proposing is that "blast" for lack of a better term, may be substantial enough to damage the heart of a living being with out actually having to permeate it directly. Not to mention the tremendous "explosive-like" blunt force trauma it would impart upon living flesh, which, could generate a very high percentile of instantaneous incapacitation never before seen in handgun rounds (revolvers or service pistols alike.)
Click to expand...

I think I understand the question and I think zoogster is on the right track. Being neither a mall ninja nor an LEO nor desirous of actually testing the theory, I've always felt that the tensile stregth of the projectile has little to do with stopping power if it's big enough and fast enough.

I analogize thusly: a one ounce blob of water at close range, moving at 1200-1300 f/s would be just about as effective as a one ounce blob of 7 1/2 birdshot at the same speed. (All assuming close, defense ranges...)

But I also see the scaling problem to which OP obliquely refers: A 240 grain blob of water moving at 1300 f/s wouldnot be as effective as a 240 gr blob of 7 1/2 shot out of the same gun.

And so on: A 40 gr blob of water... compared to the 40 grain blob of a .22 shot round ...

There, to my coffee-deprived brain, should be some kind of crossover point considering weights and velocities where the effectiveness of the two "types" of projectiles, cross over.

Perhaps Extreme Shock has done the research to determine this crossover point for each caliber.

And maybe that's why they're still in business?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Did you see this one, today's www.wnd.com?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Edward429451
E
N
  • Locked
Ammunition by Anonymous: Opinion Piece
Replies
14
Views
1K
ilcylic
I
IWAC
  • Locked
Miscellneous thoughts
Replies
17
Views
1K
PJSprog
P
L
  • Locked
A gel expert explains
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Replies
305
Views
22K
QED
Q
M
  • Locked
Formulating the Pressure Wave Hypothesis
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
thales
T
Back
Top