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

[Phil DeGraves]

They're in business because people will believe ANYTHING if it is phrased properly. Just look at all the antis.

 

[IndianaBoy]

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.

You owe me a screen cleaning. Pepsi... all over the place.

 

[Big Boomer]

whenever this ammo is mentioned this picture has to rear its ugly head!

 

[Rampant_Colt]

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.

LoL

Surely you're just joking around

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?

Zoogster's not even close..
Shot doesn't act as a cohesive projectile after being shot into flesh, it separates, disperses and rapidly loses momentum and penetrating energy due to poor sectional density and weight. It's only birdshot.

I dunno how you can compare the penetrating ability of water to lead. Where'd THAT come from?

 

[Rachen]

Big Boomer, put that Glocal Warming sentence in GREEN. It will look much better!

 

[Rachen]

Sounds like the OP answered his own question...


this is worth a good laugh - click on pic:

Wow, Gecko45 would definitely be a fan of this.

 

[230RN]

I dunno how you can compare the penetrating ability of water to lead.

Think in terms of a progression of tensile strength from an AP round, through a ball round, through a hollow point, through a frangible round, through the least tensile strength, i.e., water (or perhaps birdshot*).

Now think crowd suppression with a fire hose.

Then think crowd suppression with a water pistol.

Just comparing the continua of velocity versus weight versus tensile strength, as in my remark:

There (snip) should be some kind of crossover point considering weights and velocities where the effectiveness of the two "types" of projectiles, cross over.

The two "types" refers to the frangible versus other types of bullets.

Thus, in this discussion, we have at least four variables with which to deal, not just the weight, velocity (energy) and caliber.

Tensile strength is another.

Thus the reference to a blob of water.

I have always found it instructive to take variables through their entire range, when considering a problem.

--Terry

-------
* That would be another variable to consider, i.e, the terminal size of the projectile fragments... from molecular, in the case of water, to birdshot size, to buckshot size....and so on. Perhaps the most effective frangible bullet would break up to allow, say, 1/8" squares of sharp-edged tungsten sheet to carry on through the target.