Originally Posted by
DocGKR
WS6—I think you are missing something here; nobody is saying that the initial wounds are identical; what is being stated is that when you go observe the wound tracks later during debridement, surgery, or autopsy, the elastic recoil of the tissue makes it nearly impossible to visually determine any differences between calibers and projectile type. While you may feel that, “.40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho.”, in reality, it does not turn out that way, as noted in my first sentence above. Also, keep in mind that it is quite likely that in numerous shootings, the smooth edges of FMJ’s have allowed them to slip past blood vessels without causing significant injuries; in contrast, if sharp edged projectiles had traveled in the exact same paths through tissue, damage to the vessels would have been substantial—this phenomena has been seen in lab testing as well in OIS incidents. In fact, I have a friend who was shot through the neck by an FMJ, who is likely still alive today due to the bad guy using .45 ACP FMJ, instead of a robust expanding JHP. There is also substantial lab and OIS incident evidence that the larger, heavier calibers (.40 180 gr and .45 230 gr) do a better job at penetrating some types of intermediate barriers, as well as being more likely to crush through bones. Finally, JHP’s are much less likely to get deflected by both intermediate barriers and skeletal bone compared to FMJ’s. Take a look at the OIS statistics for large LE agencies like NYPD that have transitioned from FMJ to JHP and it is quite obvious that there are advantages to using well designed, robust expanding JHP’s.
----------------
Unlike shooting paper, flat point truncated cone type FMJ’s, much like their semi-wadcutter cousins, do not produce larger wound tracks in living tissue compared to standard FMJ’s; on the other hand, as Dr. Fackler has discussed, a true full wadcutter with sharp leading edges can effectively enhance wounding effects compared to FMJ, LRN, and SWC’s.
--------------
I've posted my comments over at GT--"Lookin4U" has listed what agency he works for, his findings for the most part mirror those of other LE agencies and are in concordance with results published in the surgical, forensic, and wound ballistic literature. I am utterly perplexed and astounded that his commentary could have created any sort of controversy given how mainstream his thoughts are...
Bookmarks