Interesting thread on GT about bullet performance in actual shootings

[DocGKR]

WS6--stay in the car! How many OIS incident reports would you have to see before you believed something, even though you didn't directly observe it? 100? 200? 500? How many OIS incidents do you think have been analyzed and correlated with lab test results in the 20 years since the FBI protocols were developed?

-------------

Thomas M4: Two pieces of 20 gauge, hot-rolled steel with a galvanized finish are set three inches apart. The clothing covered gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the rear most piece of steel. This test event simulates the weakest part of a car door.

[Thomas M-4]

WS6--stay in the car! How many OIS incident reports would you have to see before you believed something, even though you didn't directly observe it? 100? 200? 500? How many OIS incidents do you think have been analyzed and correlated with lab test results in the 20 years since the FBI protocols were developed?

-------------

Thomas M4: Two pieces of 20 gauge, hot-rolled steel with a galvanized finish are set three inches apart. The clothing covered gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the rear most piece of steel. This test event simulates the weakest part of a car door.

Thanks DocGKR.

[WS6]

WS6--stay in the car! How many OIS incident reports would you have to see before you believed something, even though you didn't directly observe it? 100? 200? 500? How many OIS incidents do you think have been analyzed and correlated with lab test results in the 20 years since the FBI protocols were developed?

-------------

Thomas M4: Two pieces of 20 gauge, hot-rolled steel with a galvanized finish are set three inches apart. The clothing covered gelatin block is placed 18 inches behind the rear most piece of steel. This test event simulates the weakest part of a car door.

From what little I have seen, OIS's are contradictory. One of my friends locally analyzed lots of them when he worked for the local PD and said that going from 9mm to .40 resulted in a LOT! higher success rate. Yet, others state that as long as the 9mm and .40 are both well-chosen rounds, they should do about the same. The 9mm's used were 127gr +P+ Ranger and the .40 used is the 165gr GDHP, IIRC. Both good rounds.

[Lookin4U]

Thermocafe:

I've met several Crime Scene Techs from Miami-Dade and Broward during many trips to IPTM on the Unversity Of North Florida's campus in Jacksonville, FL. Great people and Broward sounds like it would be an incredible place to work....

I apologize for my failure to make myself clear, something that gets me in trouble of forums (LOL).

My reference was to an optimal round, one that in and of itself consistently satisfactorily meets the listed requirements of penetration and adequate wound channel in the human anatomy. My choice of 9x19mm was based on these perimeters as well as control-ability, magazine capacity, and size of platform.

If I am to carry the weapon everyday, have no magazine capacity restrictions, and am shooting at commonly clothed individuals, increase in size or penetration will not out weight the compromises other rounds will bring, in my opinion.

Best is dictated by circumstances. There are no ridiculous capacity restriction placed on me, I'm average size, can compensate for a reasonable range of recoil (recovery time), and frequently encounter intermediate cover, so "best" for me and my circumstance is .40S&W.

Changes in circumstance and expected encounters dictate what will be necessary, but in my opinion 9x19mm is the handgun baseline. Everything else brings the listed compromise, but may be necessary.

A citizen in California or similar states have 10-round restrictions, therefore the "capacity out weights diameter increase" logic has no bearing, but the possible perceived increase in recoil/recovery time still does.... Again, for the small increase in recoil I, personally would move to a .40S&W or single stack 10mm, and play with loads until desired results were reached (the Glock 20 is uncomfortable in my hand).

If I was in the position of dignitary security, I would expect that vehicle involved confrontations would increase in priority and would move to 10mm (Actually to a 6.8mm AR, but we'll stay with service handguns...), as intermediate barrier penetration would take first place (remember, if the bullet doesn't get there nothing else matters).

As clumsy as my explanation is, I hope it makes some sense...(?) (I understand what I'm thinking, just sometimes I fail to let others in on it! LOL)

[200RNL]

The only way to significantly damage vital structures is to have the bullet travel into and preferably completely pass through that structure.

The two performance criteria in selecting caliber is optimum diameter and optimum penetration.
Optimum is the point beyond which no additional benefit is received, but begins to become counter productive.

There seems to be some agreement on the cutoff point of what caliber and power level is acceptable for a service caliber handgun. Many consider .380 ACP as the bare minimum.

One day I was looking at the 'Box of Truth' website. One of the tests seemed to illustrate why the cutoff is at that caliber.

In the 'Books of Truth' test, handguns in .22 LR and 32 ACP calibers, were fired into a stack of books. They both penetrated about an inch. The service calibers were fired at the same books. The .45 FMJ went in about 4 1/4 inches. The 9MM FMJ and 7.62x25 FMJ both did about 7 inches.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot31.htm

I would venture to guess that the early short cartridges, .38, .44 and .45 calibers, that were found to be inadequate back then, were just not powerful enough to consistantly drive a lead bullet completely through a human body from less than ideal angles. Most countries settled on calibers with 200 to 350 ft lbs of muzzle energy and 7.62 to 9MM bullet diameters and seem to be content with their choices right up until today.

[DocGKR]

.380 ACP is below the minimum...

[Lookin4U]

I fail to understand the uproar over my statement about my documented observations of 9mm having generally less intermediate barrier penetration than .40S&W or .45ACP.
And yes, this was with what is probably the cheapest, and poorest performing ammunition available... but then, that's what I'm interested in.

Real life shootings are never "best case scenario" situations... Think about it, first off you're in a real life shooting!

It is my very firm conviction that performance should be based off of the worst that I see - what happens when the shot takes a longer path of travel in tissue, or is at the very bottom of the performance scale. This, in theory (as flawed as it may be), gives me a reasonable minimum I can expect. If the cheap, common, garbage ammunition consistently does what is necessary then I am reasonably confident in what the expected performance will be even if the new ammunition fails to be the "night-and-day" improvement its manufacturer claims.

Just my opinion, worth nothing, but I would be fearful of expecting published "best performance" results in a bullet that, for unforeseen reasons and unaccounted for circumstances, performed like standard pressure ball ammunition... At least if I "expect" the minimum, I'll rarely be disappointed.

Again, my opinion, but I'd rather go into a life-or-death struggle with a lower expectation of performance....

[200RNL]

.380 ACP is below the minimum...

I agree with you but alot of people have been led to believe that .380 is the minimum.

[Lookin4U]

200RNL:

I'll "cheat" on the question of cut-off round, and put what I posted about this question on GT.

"9x19mm and above will cut a more than sufficeintly large hole 'more-or-less' straight (discounting possible bone deflection all bullets, pistol and rifle, may experience) to sufficient depth in a human body. I have never seen a 9x19mm or larger service caliber have insufficient penetration unless there was some intermediate barrier struck prior to entrance into the body.

From what I have seen (again, your "tests" may vary), .380ACP (9x17mm) is unreliable at this, and everything below this is just plain insufficient in my opinion (not saying you won't die from a .22 short, just that it is far less likely). I have, indeed, seen a few .380ACP's strike average or better size adult males, track reasonably true, and penetrate sufficiently to strike vital targets and cause death.
More often, however, I have seen them fail to penetrate deep enough to reach vital structures, either through actual lack of penetration or inability to travel true even in soft tissue.

With this much variation in performance, I assume (just my opinion, could be wrong) that the better penetration is the upper limit of this calibers capability. I cannot, therefore, recommend a caliber that I can only assume performs only 'adequetly' in just the best case scenarios.... Also, with the large number of similarly sized, high quality 9x19mm handguns available, why would I? (Again, this is just my opinion.)"

[200RNL]

I fail to understand to uproar over my statement about my documented observations of 9mm having generally less intermediate barrier penetration than .40S&W or .45ACP.

I don't even know why there is an argument. Unlike the hard to pin down caliber / incapacitation issue, all one has to do with barriers is to go out and do tests on the materials in question.....case closed.