View Full Version : 9mm Terminal Ballistics
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf
I was looking over the figures in the data chart and it appears all of the 147 gr. bullets that expanded over .57" failed to penetrate 12" of human muscle. All of the bullets that expanded less than .57" penetrated at least 12".
With several modern 147 gr. loads expanding to at least .57" in layered ballistic gel it had me wondering if the 147 gr. bullets were the deep penetrators they were made out to be.
I believe the round tested was the old Winchester Super-X JHP. Note one of the expanded projectiles has rounded leading edges and the jacket is expanded to the base. That would account for the lackluster expansion. Todays rounds like Ranger T have a larger expanded diameter(.62-.66) and still penetrate right at 14 inches.
I had more to type, but I'm so tired I forgot it while I was typing.
Thats what I don't understand. That data shows the larger the bullet expanded the less it penetrated. How are todays loads different especially when these bullets are designed to expand larger and fully within the first four inches?
Bother way, go get some shut eye :lazy2:
The edges of the bullets today are sharp, not rounded. They cut tissue as opposed to pushing it aside.
I thought about that but figured it would only really aid in cutting a wider hole rather than cut deeper. Some hard evidence similar to the link would be awfully nice.
Thanks for keeping up with me FS. Have a good weekend.
How common are exits with the 147 gr.?
Beat Trash
05-07-11, 12:46
How common are exits with the 147 gr.?
My department has been using the WW 147gr JHP since transitioning from revolvers in the late 1980's.
When our officers shoot people with them, sometimes the bullet exits, sometimes it does not. It all depends on where the individual is struck, any barriers, and/or clothing, and how thick the body was at that point.
Bottom line is that over penetration is not something that is viewed by my agency as a liability issue. One missed round will blow all of the over penetration worries out the window.
Thanks Beat. Over penetration isn't a concern. How well does it do against multiple bones?
Beat Trash
05-07-11, 17:24
Not sure what you're talking about with multiple bones.
I've seen a knee destroyed.
I've seen skull bone penetrated.
There is a limit to the amount of testing an agency will do with it's duty ammunition.
While I'd prefer to be issued a more modern and updated round, it's a hard sell to our administration when we aren't having issues with the current round. Our last OIS was about 3 weeks ago. Suspect with a 7" knife attacked an officer. His cover officer fired two rounds into the upper chest of the suspect. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
When dealing with an armed individual, I've never once worry about the ammunition that was loaded in my pistol.
I tend to focus more my tactics and the front sight.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Multiple bones like through an arm bone and rib bone or through chest bone into/through the spine.
I thought about that but figured it would only really aid in cutting a wider hole rather than cut deeper. Some hard evidence similar to the link would be awfully nice.
That landmark study by the late Gene Wolberg is 20 years old. Bullet technology has improved since the old original Winchester 147 grain Subsonic.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=986975&postcount=14
KCabbage has a good point though. Today's bullets are "better" in the sense that they more consistently expand through barriers and the like, but there's still the question that even today's bullet are simply expanded metal slugs weighing 147gr - just like the ones in Wolberg's study. You can't easily dismiss the question by simply pointing to "better technology".
I also wonder about the cutting vs. crushing argument - the long-standing theory is that bullets crush tissue. Now that doesn't mean that dynamic friction can't somehow be reduced though.
The thing to keep in mind is that there will always be some variance across different shootings, and on AVERAGE the bullets do meet the penetration criteria.
Y'all got me thinking though - I'll have to see if I can come up with a hypothesis.
KCabbage has a good point though. Today's bullets are "better" in the sense that they more consistently expand through barriers and the like, but there's still the question that even today's bullet are simply expanded metal slugs weighing 147gr - just like the ones in Wolberg's study. You can't easily dismiss the question by simply pointing to "better technology".
I also wonder about the cutting vs. crushing argument - the long-standing theory is that bullets crush tissue. Now that doesn't mean that dynamic friction can't somehow be reduced though.
The thing to keep in mind is that there will always be some variance across different shootings, and on AVERAGE the bullets do meet the penetration criteria.
Y'all got me thinking though - I'll have to see if I can come up with a hypothesis.
I was responding to his original post. The 147 grain 9mm's in the links Doc posted expanded far more than to .57 and still penetrated 12".
Are there any gel test on the round used in the study?
Are there any gel test on the round used in the study?
That round has been replaced with newer loadings. As noted by Wolberg in the article, the original 147 Winchester would usually go 12"-14" in gel, but expansion wasn't nearly as large as most of the best 147 grain loads made today. Some of them will go to .75-.85+, while still making 12" in penetration. That was unheard of 20 years ago.
I'd like to see a similar report involving modern loads, the 147 gr. HST in particular.
There is no way to generalize how much a HP will penetrate based on its mass. It depends on velocity and how much it expands which 'puts on the brakes.' More velocity means more expansion and tends to mean less penetration.
Extreme penetration could still be an issue even for misses, as a bullet may go through a few walls and hit someone. That being said, the best bullets for terminal performance in people tend to not be bullets known for excessive penetration. My point is that - just pick which bullet has the best terminal performance in gel as per the FBI specs, and consider that the risk of over-penetration does not need to be independently considered as those bullets would be weeded out anyway.
I'd like to see a similar report involving modern loads, the 147 gr. HST in particular.
Without an IWBA, the chances of another study involving data from field shootings is pretty unlikely.
Without an IWBA, the chances of another study involving data from field shootings is pretty unlikely.
And the chances of another IWBA getting together is pretty low at this point. There were so many misconceptions in the 1980s, that law enforcement agencies around the country were basing their ammunition procurement on war stories, and energy dump science. Now days, almost all of the major ammo manufacturers follow FBI protocol testing, and almost all LE agencies choose their ammo based on a stronger foundation of ballistics science. All of this is thanks to the contributions of the IWBA and the FBI.
At this point, I don't see enough of a movement into the direction of junk science by the LE community to warrant a comeback of the IBWA. Courtney's BPW, Le Mas blended metal, extreme shock, and other crap snake oil influences simply aren't gaining any traction in the establishment to cause any worry.
And the chances of another IWBA getting together is pretty low at this point. There were so many misconceptions in the 1980s, that law enforcement agencies around the country were basing their ammunition procurement on war stories, and energy dump science. Now days, almost all of the major ammo manufacturers follow FBI protocol testing, and almost all LE agencies choose their ammo based on a stronger foundation of ballistics science. All of this is thanks to the contributions of the IWBA and the FBI.
At this point, I don't see enough of a movement into the direction of junk science by the LE community to warrant a comeback of the IBWA. Courtney's BPW, Le Mas blended metal, extreme shock, and other crap snake oil influences simply aren't gaining any traction in the establishment to cause any worry.
I agree. Things are generally far better than they were in the old days.
But I do worry about the future, if there's no organization dedicated to educating the new rangemasters and ammunition buyers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.