View Full Version : I have a few questions pertaining to Jim Cirrillo's book on Gun Fighting
While recently reading the ballistics chapter of Jim Cirrillo's book on Gun Fighting, I found a couple of thins that struck me as odd or perhaps wrong ?
Mr. Cirrillo explains that FMJ rd's of all pistol calibers tend to leave a sub-caliber wound in soft tissue. Cirrillo even qoutes a local Coroner as stating " that he can't tell a difference between .32 acp and .45 acp wounds during the post mortom autopsy". Is this truly the case ?
Another point that Cirrillo makes is how effective Semi-Wad Cutters are, even compared to JHP's. It was his belief (he has since passed on) that Semi-Wad Cutters tended to penetrate better against sloping bone such as the skull and wounded better in general.
I look forward to your concise detailed insights on these matters.
Thanks
Signed,
Joseph
PRGGodfather
11-26-09, 12:55
Det. Cirrillo, bless his soul, was a hero of the NYPD Stakeout Unit, and undoubtedly knew how to take bad guys down effectively. At the end of the day, one cannot mess with success.
Still, his personal experiences are anecdotal, and while significant compared to most police officers, his sampling is still too small to make him a distinguished ballistician. His naked eye observations as to the holes left from FMJ pistol rounds are consistent with real world shootings, but such are but one facet of the evidence.
Det. Cirrillo's observations are consistent with what we saw in handgun ballistics decades ago, and bullet construction and engineering have moved light years forward from such simple choices as between FMJ and SWC.
Of course, bullet placement continues to be an important factor -- but we know more today about minimum penetration and wound ballistics than what he learned in his day. Getting the shot placed and having insufficient penetration can make all the difference, although most would concede both FMJ and SWC configurations have worked in the past in many incidents.
We have several better options to our avail today. Check the stickies on DocGKR's board, and you will have much from which to choose.
To keep things in perspective, Cirillo does discuss Win Black Talons, etc... I think that the book was written in 1998 or 99.
PRGGodfather
11-26-09, 15:33
I understand; it's just that we have learned more in the last 10 years than the previous 30 as to wound ballistics. While exaggerated, it's somewhat akin to comparing David's sling and stone to my Glock 19 and 147 grain HST's (16 of them!). Both can get the job done (but forgive me if the Glock is my choice).
The question is a good one, but there are so many better options available today. In effect, this is a debate from yesteryear, although understanding it is a worthwhile endeavor. Over 10 years ago, we learned "hollow points" often reacted like FMJ's at least 50% of the time. New construction and consistent testing have changed the terminal statistics.
After all, if all what you have is ball and SWC, you have to find a way to make it work, no?
Today, through the good work of gentlemen like our own DocGKR and some better defined performance standards developed by the FBI, we enjoy well-manufactured and engineered ammunition that maximizes wound potential even if not properly placed, as is often the case under extreme stress. Heck, Doc can even tell you which lot numbers do not perform to minimum standards, or which manufacturers are inconsistent. There are no magic bullets, but given the choice -- some have better mojo than others.
Tom Burczynski developed some pretty interesting loads since 1998, including the HST. IMHO, in general terms, any of the big brand's premium hollow points will perform better than FMJ's, with rare exceptions. Gotta make all of them work, if that's all you have.
If you have a choice, then Federal HST's are leading the pack.
Cirrillo even qoutes a local Coroner as stating " that he can't tell a difference between .32 acp and .45 acp wounds during the post mortom autopsy".
I asked a local physician who was in Fresno for 15 years as an emergency room physician.
He said he couldn't tell the difference between the pistol calibers as they related to wounds, and most wounds were through and through the body.
PRGGodfather has given some good advice.
"Mr. Cirrillo explains that FMJ rd's of all pistol calibers tend to leave a sub-caliber wound in soft tissue. Cirrillo even qoutes a local Coroner as stating " that he can't tell a difference between .32 acp and .45 acp wounds during the post mortom autopsy". Is this truly the case ?"
Yes this is generally correct, as it is difficult to elucidate the caliber just from soft tissue damage--especially with un-deformed projectiles. Keep in mind that when the larger, heavier bullets hit bone, they tend to punch through better than smaller, lighter projectiles.
"Another point that Cirrillo makes is how effective Semi-Wad Cutters are, even compared to JHP's. It was his belief (he has since passed on) that Semi-Wad Cutters tended to penetrate better against sloping bone such as the skull and wounded better in general."
As Dr. Fackler has written (see his quote about wad cutters towards the bottom of this page: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19914), full wad cutters are quite effective, more so than semi-wad cutters, and certainly better than poorly designed JHP's that do not offer robust expansion, as well as easily deflected FMJ's. Obviously, well designed JHP's with robust expansion also work very well.
PA PATRIOT
11-29-09, 11:24
I have spoken with the Medical Examiners down at the Philly Morgue who sees roughly 400+ shot bodies a year and they relate that they can often not tell a bullets caliber by its wound track. They also stated that most 9mm and up caliber FMJ bullets almost always fully penetrate the body unless bone is hit and most hollow points exit if only the lungs at hit.
GSWs can be impressive or really underwhelming. Mostly the latter in my experience. When a couple of patients reported that they had been shot, I had to ask where, for lack of blood and visible injury. Tell the caliber from the hole? Doesn't happen much. GSW wound examinations at autopsy can be pretty interesting.
On a somewhat related note, why is there such an emphasis being put on .45acp FMJ's vs 9mm FMJ's. If it's not an older war vet talking about how great the .45 is, it's our upper echelons (I am Mil) looking to possibly adopt it.
I have read and reread DR. Martin Fackler's notes on 9mm and .45acp crush cavity,what am I missing? Is the Army just bored with the M-9 pistol and 9mm cartridge?
When limited to true non-deforming FMJ service caliber handgun projectiles, the only way to make a larger hole in tissue is to use a larger bullet, thus .45 caliber offers the greatest potential tissue crush when forced to use FMJ in a duty handgun. In addition, compared to 9 mm ball loads, the larger caliber, heavier handgun projectiles are often less effected by many common intermediate barriers found on the urban battlefield.
When limited to true non-deforming FMJ service caliber handgun projectiles, the only way to make a larger hole in tissue is to use a larger bullet, thus .45 caliber offers the greatest potential tissue crush when forced to use FMJ in a duty handgun. In addition, compared to 9 mm ball loads, the larger caliber, heavier handgun projectiles are often less effected by many common intermediate barriers found on the urban battlefield.
Ah, I had not thought of intermediate barriers for some reason. Will .45 or even .40 cal FMJ's produce signicantly larger crush wounds ?
Larger yes, but not "significantly larger"...
Thanks for the information.
On a somewhat related note, why is there such an emphasis being put on .45acp FMJ's vs 9mm FMJ's. If it's not an older war vet talking about how great the .45 is, it's our upper echelons (I am Mil) looking to possibly adopt it.
"When limited to true non-deforming FMJ service caliber handgun projectiles, the only way to make a larger hole in tissue is to use a larger bullet, thus .45 caliber offers the greatest potential tissue crush when forced to use FMJ in a duty handgun".
Will .45 or even .40 cal FMJ's produce signicantly larger crush wounds ?
Larger yes, but not "significantly larger"...
Doc, when you write "not significiantly larger", would that also mean not significantly more effective?
To me, the whole subject of handgun effectiveness is beginning to look like trying to measure jello with a micrometer.
I am settled on the fact that bullet placement is paramount and that sufficient penetration is very important. I am also satisfied with the fact that a blunter object tearing through tissue will cause more damage than a polished smooth object or that a flat, jagged object will cause more damage than anything else. But how does all of this translate into a measure of rapid incapacitation?
I think the 9MM FMJ vs the .45 FMJ is a very good baseline for comparison. There are vastly different opinions about the effectiveness of these two bullets. Despite all we have learned in the past 10 years, no one can scientifically prove that one is 10, 20, 30 or whatever percent more effective than the other. We can measure the differences in permanent wound cavities between these two bullets but how does the measured amount of destroyed tissue translate into a scientific measurement of the chances of immediate incapacitation?
Despite all that we have learned, to the average civilian, police officer and soldier, handgun incapacitation perception is based more on anecdote and the faith of the user than on any demonstratable scientific facts. A faith based decision to re equip a police department or a nation's army, with a handgun firing a slightly fatter bullet, without a measurable gain in effectiveness, is not justified. A loss of magazine capacity and decreased weapon controlability due to increased recoil, could be the only measurable result of such a decision.,
"When limited to true non-deforming FMJ service caliber handgun projectiles, the only way to make a larger hole in tissue is to use a larger bullet, thus .45 caliber offers the greatest potential tissue crush when forced to use FMJ in a duty handgun".
Larger yes, but not "significantly larger"...
Doc, when you write "not significiantly larger", would that also mean not significantly more effective?
To me, the whole subject of handgun effectiveness is beginning to look like trying to measure jello with a micrometer.
I am settled on the fact that bullet placement is paramount and that sufficient penetration is very important. I am also satisfied with the fact that a blunter object tearing through tissue will cause more damage than a polished smooth object or that a flat, jagged object will cause more damage than anything else. But how does all of this translate into a measure of rapid incapacitation?
I think the 9MM FMJ vs the .45 FMJ is a very good baseline for comparison. There are vastly different opinions about the effectiveness of these two bullets. Despite all we have learned in the past 10 years, no one can scientifically prove that one is 10, 20, 30 or whatever percent more effective than the other. We can measure the differences in permanent wound cavities between these two bullets but how does the measured amount of destroyed tissue translate into a scientific measurement of the chances of immediate incapacitation?
Despite all that we have learned, to the average civilian, police officer and soldier, handgun incapacitation perception is based more on anecdote and the faith of the user than on any demonstratable scientific facts. A faith based decision to re equip a police department or a nation's army, with a handgun firing a slightly fatter bullet, without a measurable gain in effectiveness, is not justified. A loss of magazine capacity and decreased weapon controlability due to increased recoil, could be the only measurable result of such a decision.,
Doc I'd love to see your reply to the above. I've read just about everything you've written on Tactical Forums, M4carbine.net, and Firearms Tactical. I understand that given high quality robustly expanding JHP ammunition all of the common combat handgun calibers "work" (ie, 9mm/.357sig, .40s&w, .45acp). I also understand that you've often written that the larger and heavier calibers (namely in .40s&w and .45acp) have an advantage when shooting through commonly encountered barriers. How much of an advantage is there? Do you consider it a significant advantage, or a marginal advantage? My thinking is that if it's a marginal or theoretical advantage one would be better off with a good quality 9mm load so as to maximize magazine capacity and handling characteristics while gaining the benefit of cheaper practice ammo and generally more longevity from most platforms.
Am I wrong in that the advantage of the larger calibers is significant and therefore worth the trade-off? Or is the advantage of larger calibers mostly academic?
In doing work in Canadian Courts as an Expert Witness, for some twenty years I have to say... Judges and Lawyers in most instances know nothing about the subject of bullets/calibres/fighting, and most things any expert brings forth at trial.
And speaking to people who have shot people with hand guns, or having been present at such shootings, the truth, guess, or myth is hard to separate from reality.
For instance, a good friend of mine, we will call him Des (mainly because it's his name!) was 15 years in the Royal Marines, an Irish chap, then 7 years in the RUC, in Belfast, I met him in Canada.
Des recounted an incident/shooting in a Hospital, Des was armed with a 9mm Sub Gun, and I believe a Revolver (Ruger) his Army partner, wearing a plain non unit marked smock, a Browning Hi Power, and two extra magazines, with Sten/Sterling ammunition in it (Hardball) they were on routine patrol.
A nurse ran up to them and said "There are two boyos robbing the Post Office Savings Branch"
The soldier drew his pistol, as two men ran around the corner carrying bank bags, the Parra came to a two handed hold, and fired two deliberate shots.
Des said the one in front (stocking masked) fell instantly, the one left standing, staggered a bit, collapsed, with one leg under him. One never moved one iota, one had a type of vibration in his leg, heel tapping the tiles, then that stopped.
They were pronounced by a Hospital Dr. Des attended the Autopsy, through and through shots. I forget what was hit, or even if he told me?
Des Immigrated with his Family to Ontario Canada.
I am not suggesting that NATO 9mm is the way to go, but in this case it worked, and that was the issued round then.
In doing work in Canadian Courts as an Expert Witness, for some twenty years I have to say... Judges and Lawyers in most instances know nothing about the subject of bullets/calibres/fighting, and most things any expert brings forth at trial.
And speaking to people who have shot people with hand guns, or having been present at such shootings, the truth, guess, or myth is hard to separate from reality.
For instance, a good friend of mine, we will call him Des (mainly because it's his name!) was 15 years in the Royal Marines, an Irish chap, then 7 years in the RUC, in Belfast, I met him in Canada.
Des recounted an incident/shooting in a Hospital, Des was armed with a 9mm Sub Gun, and I believe a Revolver (Ruger) his Army partner, wearing a plain non unit marked smock, a Browning Hi Power, and two extra magazines, with Sten/Sterling ammunition in it (Hardball) they were on routine patrol.
A nurse ran up to them and said "There are two boyos robbing the Post Office Savings Branch"
The soldier drew his pistol, as two men ran around the corner carrying bank bags, the Parra came to a two handed hold, and fired two deliberate shots.
Des said the one in front (stocking masked) fell instantly, the one left standing, staggered a bit, collapsed, with one leg under him. One never moved one iota, one had a type of vibration in his leg, heel tapping the tiles, then that stopped.
They were pronounced by a Hospital Dr. Des attended the Autopsy, through and through shots. I forget what was hit, or even if he told me?
Des Immigrated with his Family to Ontario Canada.
I am not suggesting that NATO 9mm is the way to go, but in this case it worked, and that was the issued round then.
Then would you say that their training overcame in deficiencies that handgun calibers exhibit ?
Then would you say that their training overcame in deficiencies that handgun calibers exhibit ?
Short answer, yes! The calibre in essence was almost of secondary importance.
In fact looking back, to what I was told, I think Desi's Army buddy must have been SAS.
As I tell people I instruct, shooting is akin to the mantra of Real Estate agents, Location, Location, Location!
If it was the 80's, they were using pure classical Modern Technique and were shooting double taps. The British military I believe was onto that before our guys were? They are definitely extremely well trained soldiers.
I never read or heard Jim Cirillo advocate SWC bullets, wadcutters yes, SWCs no.
I didn't know him nearly as well as some folks did, but I trained with him, and talked to him fairly regularly via e-mail and phone until his death.
He was actually (much like my readings of Elmer Keith) in my estimation a pretty decent observer and amateur scientist, and he humored my many questions well.
Unlike almost anyone else, he got to see the before, during and after of the gunfight, and make observations from a gun nut/bullet guy/hunter/reloader perspective.
Although his observations may at times have been "anecdotal" they were certainly accurate, and IMHO the advice of a guy who walked away from 19 gun fights without a scratch needs to be taken seriously.
Like Dr. Fackler, Jim was an advocate of pistol bullets that had a cutting edge to them, and observed that RNL, FMJ and even many (most?) expanded JHPs were of a rounded shape that made them less effective at tissue crush than they could have been if they had a wadcutter shape.
Also, like Doc Roberts, Jim was an advocate of mindset and training over gear and bullets, but since he had both of the first more than covered he often looked into the gear and bullet aspects.
Note that his first stake-out squad gunfight was by any measure a feat of arms, and was in fact an event where the nuances of poor bullet design almost got him in trouble.
Yesterday, the 7th,
We had our monthly IDPA match yesterday, our SO is one of the Instructors at the local PD, Orlando.
We chatted a little in the down times.
This Officer thinks just like I do! Scary. His feelings, like mine, KEEP SHOOTING! The double tap, to my mind, when I taught Revolver shooters (23 years) was a viable system, 6 is all you had. Now with 16 rounds of WW Ranger 127g HP's, up and a G17 round magazine, in case of a malfunction, on the belt, double taps are not so important, except possibly in the case of multiple assailants.
We both agreed that with the massive improvements in consistency of bullet manufacture, and design, the difference in the 3 major calibers, 45/40/ and 9mm, was not measurable. He had a documented case of instant incapacitation with a .357 Sig center chest hit, one case? And the advantage is a mute point considering recoil and cost differences, IMHO.
By the way, I had 7 points down in a total of 8 stages! Most accurate, no at 74 I did not win anything, but am happy with my hits! Great sport this IDPA!
PA PATRIOT
03-08-10, 12:23
"When limited to true non-deforming FMJ service caliber handgun projectiles, the only way to make a larger hole in tissue is to use a larger bullet, thus .45 caliber offers the greatest potential tissue crush when forced to use FMJ in a duty handgun".
Larger yes, but not "significantly larger"...
Doc, when you write "not significiantly larger", would that also mean not significantly more effective?
To me, the whole subject of handgun effectiveness is beginning to look like trying to measure jello with a micrometer.
I am settled on the fact that bullet placement is paramount and that sufficient penetration is very important. I am also satisfied with the fact that a blunter object tearing through tissue will cause more damage than a polished smooth object or that a flat, jagged object will cause more damage than anything else. But how does all of this translate into a measure of rapid incapacitation?
I think the 9MM FMJ vs the .45 FMJ is a very good baseline for comparison. There are vastly different opinions about the effectiveness of these two bullets. Despite all we have learned in the past 10 years, no one can scientifically prove that one is 10, 20, 30 or whatever percent more effective than the other. We can measure the differences in permanent wound cavities between these two bullets but how does the measured amount of destroyed tissue translate into a scientific measurement of the chances of immediate incapacitation?
Despite all that we have learned, to the average civilian, police officer and soldier, handgun incapacitation perception is based more on anecdote and the faith of the user than on any demonstratable scientific facts. A faith based decision to re equip a police department or a nation's army, with a handgun firing a slightly fatter bullet, without a measurable gain in effectiveness, is not justified. A loss of magazine capacity and decreased weapon controlability due to increased recoil, could be the only measurable result of such a decision.,
Doc I'd love to see your reply to the above. I've read just about everything you've written on Tactical Forums, M4carbine.net, and Firearms Tactical. I understand that given high quality robustly expanding JHP ammunition all of the common combat handgun calibers "work" (ie, 9mm/.357sig, .40s&w, .45acp). I also understand that you've often written that the larger and heavier calibers (namely in .40s&w and .45acp) have an advantage when shooting through commonly encountered barriers. How much of an advantage is there? Do you consider it a significant advantage, or a marginal advantage? My thinking is that if it's a marginal or theoretical advantage one would be better off with a good quality 9mm load so as to maximize magazine capacity and handling characteristics while gaining the benefit of cheaper practice ammo and generally more longevity from most platforms.
Am I wrong in that the advantage of the larger calibers is significant and therefore worth the trade-off? Or is the advantage of larger calibers mostly academic?
LaBump
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.