Report : .40S&W JHPs versus Bone and Ballistic Gelatin

[Mike1234567]

I wonder how a 1/2" gel in front of the simulant would have changed the results, if at all. It might have allowed enough fluid to get in the HP before being plugged with the bone simulant.

Hmm... good idea. But I'd suggest using animal carcasses that most closely resemble human physiology. I realize dead flesh won't react quite the same way as living tissue but I don't want live animals shot for the sake of experimentation. I also realize that animal physiology differs from human.

I'm sure there are many existing studies as described above. If anyone has links to this data it seems pertinent to post them here.

 

[Cards81fan]

Hmm... good idea. But I'd suggest using animal carcasses that most closely resemble human physiology. I realize dead flesh won't react quite the same way as living tissue but I don't want live animals shot for the sake of experimentation. I also realize that animal physiology differs from human.

I agree, you are right that certain animal carcasses resemble human physiology fairly closely. Place a rack of pork spareribs at the front of gel, and a pig's heart behind that, and you have a fairly close representation of a human chest.

. . .

But the problem with that is then the shots themselves aren't identical. Synthetic Bone and Ballistic gel provides a universal medium to gauge cartridges against each other. Even if the medium is less than ideal, it's consistent for every shot. The pig parts mentioned above will have varying results with each shot, as the bone and flesh and other tissue is inconsistent across a sectional sample.

So we have to pick our poison when it comes to these experiments. Ballistic gel cannot opt out of being shot for the sake of science

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ True, but the higher the number count the more reliable the data. But then... who wants to ruin several thousand perfectly good racks of pork rib in the name of science?

 

[XDJ]

My theory and some pure conjecture:

It seems all lead based hollow points taper to a smaller hole as they go deeper, deeper in tyhe bullet, not deeper in the body. The Barnes actually gets bigger deeper than the "rim" of the hollow point. (I hope that makes sense) Because of this, a lead hollow point is more likely to plug with hard material since it gets jammed tighter as it goes deeper in the hollow point. The Barnes actually has a cavernous cavity for the hard material to go into allowing "fluid" to still enter and expand the bullet. Granted I've only shot water bottles but i have been very impressed with the Barnes expanding at various velocities.

Conjecture and likely completely wrong:
Barnes designed hunting bullets long before defensive bullets and in much of hunting, the bullet goes through a shoulder blade to get to the vitals. With this experience, they have a leg up on those designing bullets simple to meet FBI testing protocol.

I am not a hunter but fairly versed in anatomy so don't crucify my admittedly made up "theory".

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ You may have something there. Too, with less inner reinforcement of the petals, perhaps the material collected inside the cavity is more prone to force the petals outward.

 

[gofastman]

one thing I noticed about the TAC-XP bullets is they punch a nice clean hole in those "self healing" polymer targets
a trait other hollowpoints dont possess