Potters Clay as medium on TV (10mm?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

axeman_g

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
1,154
Location
South Jersey
All this is not a .45 vs 9mm thread... dont turn it into one.

I was channel surfing the other night and saw a show on the Military Channel about Green Berets. It had some great info in it, but I had come in late, caught a bit about the newer HK 416 rifle (sold me on it) and handgun choices in the military.

They did a test of the 1911 .45 versus the M9 9mm into a 5 gallon spackle bucket packed with potters clay. Those buckets must have weighed 50pds at least and in my opinion, gave a great test for power, cavitation, penetration and performance. All rds appeared to be FMJ.

The 9mm made a nice size entry hole deflected slightly downward and exited the back of the bucket! The commentator stated that the penetration would be equal to passing through two people standing back to back. Not really a good thing sometimes. But the wound channel was impressive.

The .45 shocked me... the entrance wound was huge, ragged and blownout, the cavitation was immense, you could have put a your hole fist in there. The damage would have been extreme to say the least.

Now, the main point to the exercise was to show speed and sectional cross density or just plain old size.

My question is ... has anyone ever seen this test done with 10mm FMJ. It has the size of the .45 and the speed of the 9mm. What were the results?

I would imagine that you would get a injury much like the .45 with a massive cavitation channel that would carry on through the back of the bucket and exit.

Personally, I like big entrance holes and exit holes....
 
Clay seems like a very fun medium to shoot, because it isn't elastic like people, so when something hits it, it will retain ALL of the damage the bullet inflicted.

I think it would show far more dramatic results than on a human, and that's why they used it for the show, entertainment.
But a 10mm through clay would be awesome! Imagine the particles flung everywhere!
 
I saw that show and didn't really care for the commentaries about pistols. I think one of them even made a comment that went something like "a hit anywhere by the 45, and he's going down" and some other exaggerated statements.

The clay test was, in my opinion, more for titillating TV viewers than a legitimate test for drawing useful conclusions. I think the intent was to have the viewer believe that the same big fist-sized cavity would happen to a human hit with the round.

Basically they just said "the military switched to the 9mm Beretta in 1985, and that was stupid" without exploring any of the rationale behind the move. Still an interesting show, but as with anything on TV to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
The BOT uses water for penetration tests. They know that clay is an inaccurate medium for finding wound ballistics because it shows the temporary cavity and not the permanent cavity. Clay doesn't spring back like flesh does.
 
Makes sense, it definitely would give some indication of how much of a thumpin' your chest would take from a particular gun/round/vest combo, where jello or water wouldn't.
 
The clay test was, in my opinion, more for titillating TV viewers than a legitimate test for drawing useful conclusions.
Click to expand...

The test was perfect for comparing the penetration differences of 9mm and .45ACP.

That was exactly what it was aimed at doing, not titilating viewers.

Just because it isn't fired into calibrated ballistic gelatin doesn't mean the test is pointless.
 
The test was perfect for comparing the penetration differences of 9mm and .45ACP.

That was exactly what it was aimed at doing, not titilating viewers.

Just because it isn't fired into calibrated ballistic gelatin doesn't mean the test is pointless.
Click to expand...

It wasn't all about penetration testing. They made more of an issue over the size of the cavity than they did the penetration.
 
I saw that show and didn't really care for the commentaries about pistols. I think one of them even made a comment that went something like "a hit anywhere by the 45, and he's going down" and some other exaggerated statements.

The clay test was, in my opinion, more for titillating TV viewers than a legitimate test for drawing useful conclusions. I think the intent was to have the viewer believe that the same big fist-sized cavity would happen to a human hit with the round.
Click to expand...

I have seen that part twice already, and I believe it is very biased towards the .45.
The entry holes on both the 9mm and .45 were not that much different, but then the commentator had to go dig open the .45 entry hole to show how much cavitation it caused inside, but, lo and behold, he 'forgot' to do the same on the 9mm test - just showed the exit out the bottom/back of the bucket. That IMHO just blew his credibility. I did enjoy the part on the H&K416 though

Not much impressed with the test, if they could not be unbiased and show all views and all results on both tests.

The commentator is supposedly an 'ex green beret' and he obviously had his personal preferences reflected in the show.
 
It wasn't all about penetration testing. They made more of an issue over the size of the cavity than they did the penetration.
Click to expand...

Halo, if that was what they were supposed to present, then they failed, because they did NOT show the size of the cavitation on the 9mm test.

I have seen that particular show twice and in both cases I noticed the 'oversight'.

B.I.A.S.E.D. :banghead:
 
Clay tells you nothing. I've tried shooting plasticine modeling clay (which is considerably tougher than potting clay) before. With a .40 JHP, it blew an 8" wide hunk to pieces after a couple shots, with bits of clay going about 20 feet in all directions. Does that mean a .40 JHP will splatter a person like that? No.

Also sent a dirt clod about 50 feet up in the air once, when shooting at a low target. No exaggeration. It was pretty amazing. That thing was airborne for a good 2 or 3 seconds.
 
Clay tells you nothing.
Click to expand...

Shoot one 9mm round into clay, shoot a .45 round into another block of clay and it tells you the difference between shooting clay with a .45 and a 9mm.

Again, that's all they were trying to do. And the neat and amazing thing is that it works with just about any medium. It shows the difference in the capabilities of any two rounds if they are shot into the same medium.
 
lets get one thing straight ....the show was def. biased towards the .45. I also never intended to state that the 10mm was the exact size of the .45, more I was trying to say that the 10mm is closer in size to the .45 then the 9mm. Which was a large part of the shows arguments.

Clay did not display the same characteristics of jelly, the show was biased, not a scientific study etc etc etc...and this was not intended to be an argument of .45 or 9mm..... I am trying to see if anyone has ever done this with a 10mm and what the results were. Sometimes members of this board do not take the time to read a question.... they just wish to state their opinions!
 
I think the reason people question the use of clay is because its usefulness as an analog for flesh is at best questionable, but it was presented in a rather more definitive light in the show.

Shooting a .45 into clay and a 9mm into clay may tell us the difference between shooting clay with a .45 and a 9mm, but what does that difference tell us about shooting into flesh with a .45 and a 9mm? Everything? Nothing?
 
has anyone ever seen this test done with 10mm FMJ. It has the size of the .45...
Click to expand...

FYI 10mm = .39370 inches
Click to expand...

I also never intended to state that the 10mm was the exact size of the .45, more I was trying to say that the 10mm is closer in size to the .45 then the 9mm
Click to expand...

10mm (.39370)
9mm (.35433)
.45 (.45000)

Correct me if I'm wrong. I know alot of bullets are not actually the dimension implied by the round's name.

9mm
 
MDeViney.... what is your point? Is not the 10mm closer to the dimension of the .45 then the 9mm is closer to the .45? Is it closer in size to the .45 or not?

Let me guess... you're a weights and measures inspector for the state. Maybe an IRS clerk, specializing in Tort Taxation issues? PIA.
 
Wait a second, a 9mm is .35" a 10mm is .40" and a .45" is 11.45mm. So how is a 10mm which is .40 inches any closer to a .45 then it is to a .35?

Agree with the rest. That test nicely showed what rounds to use if we ever are attacked by an army of people made from clay. For all other instances I'll take my Jello and my statistics, TYVM.
 
Axeman, did you even look at the numbers that MDeViney posted in his post you so rudely criticized? the answer is obviously, NO, 10mm is NOT closer to .45. it is closer to 9mm. this is simple math you should have checked before blasting a poster who merely stated a simple statistic. I noticed and I am not even an accountant, much less an IRS clerk.

I have however occasionally been accused of being a PIA, but when you repeatedly make an easily correctable, mathematically incorrect statement and then get PO'd when someone points out your mistake, you are not on the High Road.
 
MDeViney.... what is your point? Is not the 10mm closer to the dimension of the .45 then the 9mm is closer to the .45? Is it closer in size to the .45 or not?

Let me guess... you're a weights and measures inspector for the state. Maybe an IRS clerk, specializing in Tort Taxation issues? PIA.
Click to expand...

I'm in college, but that shouldn't matter. It was a matter of subtraction.

My point was that 10mm is closer to 9mm. I was making the point because you were under a false assumption which would cause problems while looking for answers (which is precisely what you're doing on this website).

So you're welcome.
 
just to get the numbers right a "45" bullet is actually .451" or if using lead is .452" if one must add trailing zero's might as well get it right.
 
Jezz... I said I uinderstand that the 10mm is closer to the 9mm then closer to the .45.. of course it is...

BUT the 10mm is still closer in size to the .45 then the 9mm is comparable to the .45!

In descending size
.45 (.45000)
10mm (.39370)
9mm (.35433)

See... the 10mm is closer in size to the .45 then the 9mm is to the .45.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Outdoor shooting - Meat!
Replies
22
Views
1K
Dr.Rob
Dr.Rob
M
  • Locked
.40 Caliber Pressure Wave Effects
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
4K
Michael Courtney
M
Skribs
Wounding mechanisms
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
Bfh_auto
B
S
  • Locked
Hard Cast or FMJ vs. expanding bullets for wildlife defence
Replies
6
Views
1K
The Lone Haranguer
T
G
  • Locked
.22LR vs .25ACP
2
Replies
48
Views
20K
il_10
I
Back
Top