Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 92

Thread: JOINT AGENCY BALLISTICS TEST FOR DEFENSIVE HANDGUN AMMUNITION

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    46
    Feedback Score
    0
    I read that but at least to me it means nothing because there were no pictures, and processed meat is non analogous to living tissue. Shooting into meat like brisket or ham is more comparable to ballistics gel than it is to living tissue. Dead meat is much less flexible and tears more easily than living tissue. My only experience with the lehigh's is back when they first came out and were the hot new thing, I shot a coyote attacking my dog with a 115gr 9mm xp. It penetrated through both shoulders. The coyote turned around and walked away and found it about 40 yards away, it died surprisingly slowly. The wound was unimpressive and was a clean through and through. the wound was small and didn't do an impressive amount of damage. It broke the first shoulder well, but only put a small hole through both lungs and knicked the heart. I was unimpressive and went back to 147gr hst. My other experience shooting a coyote with 9mm was with a 124gr +p gold dot from a Glock 26. Shot shattered the first shoulder, put an impressive hole in both lungs, and barely passed through the other side. I actually found the bullet on the ground on the other side of the yote. Even though it was only a lung shot, that coyote did a flip, rolled over and died. So ill be sticking with tried and true JHPs

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    11,718
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Eda View Post
    So ill be sticking with tried and true JHPs
    Oh yeah, me too, especially since I am heavily invested in them! I just found the observations about a different bullet technology interesting. Who knows, something in that direction might be the future.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry
    F**k China!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    21,784
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eda View Post
    I'm very skeptical of the Lehigh fluted solids. Their nose design is not intended to produce large wounds, it is borrowed for a pattent for shaped nose penetrators for 105mm tank guns. You also see similar designs in African dangerous game solids. Its designed to stabilize the nose and keep it nose forward, giving deep, straight line penetration. I think the wounding effect of the bullets is exaggerated by the nature of gel. Gel stretches like tissue but it tears much easier than living tissue, causing the cavitation shown in gel. I fear that in living tissue they will act just like expensive flat nosed fmj
    That issue is discussed in the paper BTW.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,584
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    There are four main subjects involved in stopping power. Shot placement (wound
    placement), amount of shots, bullet capability (wound ballistic profile) and the target
    being shot.
    They're starting with false premises. We'll just ignore the use of the term stopping power, but "bullet capability" can't be ignored as they're defining it, and especially not by how they're measuring it. They define that to include permanent wound cavity, which they're deriving by doing some calculus on gel blocks. Gel is in no way comparable to human tissue. There is not a manmade substance on this planet that can replicate the resilience of living tissue. Nor one that even comes close! The reason gel is relevant is because it's the closest you can get, and being stabilized water it takes a snapshot of how a bullet might behave in a person, not how the bullet will affect said person. It simply acts as a predictor of how a bullet will respond to moving through a fluid, in terms of how it will tumble or expand, fragment, etc. It also allows parallels to be drawn between bullets pulled from gel and ones pulled from people (e.g. a bullet penetrating 18" in gel is unlikely to fully penetrate an average sized male). You can't predict whether a permanent cavity will form, beyond the obvious that you would already know. Measuring the minute differences in cavity size between duty pistol bullets won't predict anything at all, and it is safe to assume that none of them will have any spectacular effect in that regard, making the exercise pointless.

    I will give them props for admitting that stretch cavities don't lead to permanent wounds within the scope of this study, but at the same time it just makes it all the more frustrating that they're still measuring the gel cavities and using that data to influence their conclusions, because the cavities they're measuring are a direct result of the stretch cavity in the gel. It seems as if they're not quite clear on the relationship between stretch cavities and the resulting permanent cavities they're measuring, but at the same time it seems they are in fact very aware of how it all works. The only thing I can figure is this was a group effort and everyone got to have his say before someone else edited it all together. The connection they draw between velocity and likelihood of tearing is also false. For example, a shotgun slug is well under 2k fps, and it will definitely leave a nasty hole. I've also seen deer hearts and lungs shot with magnum pistols that were turned into minced meat, with velocities around the speed of sound but muzzle energies approaching 1k ft lbs.

    I also have some skepticism regarding the claim that human tissue can't expand fast enough to withstand 2k fps. I have long thought that velocity does trump mass, overall energy being equal, but in looking to prove that I've been unable to. PDW rounds traveling over 2k fps should leave impressive permanent cavities in people and animals, but they don't seem to. I think they're either miscalculating the rate of expansion as it relates to velocity, or underestimating how resilient tissue is, or both. I would also accept that the rounds simply decelerate too fast, which is supported by their argument that higher inertia leads to larger cavities. In any case, you can't count on anything going 2k fps to cavitate, nor can you assume anything going slower won't.


    Fear that a bullet will pass through a target body and damage a bystander are
    unfounded.
    This is pure gold. The FBI standards were made at a time when HPs were very unreliable, and 12-18 inches was the best you could hope for. Now we have better designs that will all stop from 18-20 inches in that 2 inch window. The standard needs to be updated to an average of 18 or maybe even 20 inches with a maximum deviation of plus or minus 1 inch.

    Ballistic Ratio (BR) is a mathematical calculation used to compare results from
    different tests.
    And now we're back to hairpulling frustration. Despite clearly possessing all the facts to come to the obvious conclusion that PWC is beyond meaningless in this test, they're going to do it anyways. I'm beginning to feel like someone involved in this knew their stuff, but was shouted down by someone else who had a preconceived notion about what was best, and designed a test to reach a specific conclusion. I have a sinking feeling that .45 ACP is going to end up looking very favorable...

    Animal Tissue with a standard denim barrier. All rounds fired at least 4 times
    into Animal Tissue with a denim barrier. Rounds not recovered.
    Even recently deceased, yet to be drained of blood tissue rapidly loses its resilience. By the time it's made into brisket and sold at the meat counter, it bears absolutely zero resemblance to living tissue. They could have simply gone hog hunting and gotten some useful data. You would actually be amazed and a little bit disturbed by how similar our physiology is. Even the size distribution is similar to human populations, with the average hog having similar dimensions to an average person (i.e. what penetrates in a hog is likely to penetrate in a human, too). What's more, the average hog in the wild is akin to a body builder in terms of composition and density, so if it works in the hog then you can bet it's going to work in super thug.

    Cow brisket closely
    represents human muscle tissue and organs. It is a compressible realistic consistent
    media.
    Yes, when it's alive!!! Not drained of blood, butchered, and sitting in a meat locker for days, weeks, or months on end. And especially not after being frozen and thawed.

    Gel is a fluid and is non-compressible unlike human material.
    Temporary Stretch Cavity does not represent any damaged or destroyed material.
    Again, it's like someone had a clue and got outvoted when designing the test methods. They're literally saying that the measurements they're taking for their data are irrelevant. Anything beyond an icepick hole in gel is 100% due to the stretch cavity. If they were genuinely not measuring anything related to the stretch cavity, then the penetration depth alone would dictate their values for PWC, and for all calibers.

    Take a look at the photo below. The icepick trail at the end is what a PWC looks like when no stretch cavity damage is at play. All the damage you see that's greater than that in the beginning is 100% due to tearing from the stretch cavity. This is even more dramatic in human tissue because it's far more resilient. It's like someone thinks bullets punch holes in tissue like they would something non water based. Let's put it this way. People get impaled by large rebar, pipes, etc. on a regular basis, and when they pull it out the hole does NOT in any way suggest that they were just run through with a giant cylinder. Aside from the entrance hole in the skin, a stab wound from a large piece of rebar is going to resemble one from an icepick.

    It's like stretching a rubber band. Doesn't matter how far you stretch it, unless you stretch it far enough to break it. If you don't, it will just rebound to its previous shape. That's why minute differences in pistol bullets don't matter, because they all fall short by a wide margin of breaking the rubber band, so to speak. It's an all or nothing proposition. It either does or doesn't, there's no in between.

    33f9af094a9e325e5bec87e4ca9552cb.jpg

    In each caliber tested the FMJ rounds produced the smallest Permanent Wound
    Cavity size.
    If they redid this test on living hogs, they would find the differences to be irrelevant, and only present in the first few inches at that.

    Overall if extremely deep penetration and barrier performance is important while
    small diameter wounding is acceptable on your agency criteria list as it was for a
    couple of the involved groups then FMJs are a logical choice.
    Those two agencies obviously have some smart people working for them!

    The solid copper rounds available in 9mm present some of the best bullets available
    in this caliber. The jump in performance and wounding capability between hollow
    points and solid copper is the largest of any caliber.
    By their own admission they can't know this, because they have no way of knowing if those differences would be present in actual living tissue. For all they know, both would look identical, and that is indeed the most likely conclusion supported by the known facts. In real life, these probably wouldn't perform any differently than FMJ, and cost 5-10 times as much. Agencies would be better served by using FMJs and using the savings to train more, because shot placement is 99.9% of success. The only time you can ever blame the bullet is if it didn't penetrate far enough. By their own admission, 40% of bullets aren't even hitting the target, so let's improve that by saving money wherever possible and spending it on more range time, vs. spending several dollars per round on a bullet that MIGHT increase PWC by a small fraction of an inch.

    The jump in performance, reliability and wounding capability between
    hollow points and solid copper rounds is very large.
    Ditto. They just restate this over and over without even beginning to offer any tangible justification for spending 10 times as much on ammo.

    10mm hollow points tend to have excellent penetration, on par with the 45ACP.
    Granted, but 9mm has no problem with penetration until you start artificially limiting it. If overpenetration is the desired outcome, you can simply switch to 9mm FMJ, rather than going to a larger caliber. There are varieties of 9mm that penetrate to any desired depth you could wish for. Now, full house 10mm and .45 ACP +P+ both are bordering on energy levels where permanent cavities do become relevant, but they also come with the recoil of .357 and break guns. Whether that tradeoff is worth it or not is up for debate. For those willing to carry a full size 10mm, maybe. However, there have been cases where high energy rifle rounds have passed within an inch of the heart and didn't incapacitate the shooter enough to make him stop shooting, so I would still say shot placement is 99% of the game, and therefore it would only make sense if you could shoot equally as well with both, and I'm willing to accept that some people probably can.

    For us mortals though, tight groups placed fast are the name of the game. Since the heart is a small moving target, statistical probability is very much at play, no matter how good you are. Only a machine could hit a moving target that small with any reliability, so a reduction in felt recoil is a genuine life saver because it allows a person to exercise the same level of shot placement in a shorter time, which is usually the difference between life and death, either because someone is running at you or shooting back.

    All agencies that took part in this test agreed that Penetration is the most
    important characteristic of projectile wounding.
    Between the rounds tested, with the possible exception of some of the 10mm, it's the only thing that matters.
    Last edited by okie; 03-20-21 at 21:31.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,584
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    mysterious double tap
    Last edited by okie; 03-20-21 at 21:30.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    46
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    That issue is discussed in the paper BTW.
    They address it in word but don't do much test it. Shooting store bought briskets is not living tissue

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,221
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Exactly who supposedly wrote this?

    I don't see any Law Enforcement agencies testing Underwood or Fort Scott ammo and including it in a report.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    46
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed L. View Post
    Exactly who supposedly wrote this?

    I don't see any Law Enforcement agencies testing Underwood or Fort Scott ammo and including it in a report.
    I could see a foreword thinking agency or two putting together a test of Lehigh bullets. I remember sitting in on an agency testing fort Scott rifle rounds a year ago. According to the report its the sanitized civilian copy so maybe they removed the names of the agencies involved

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,747
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    beef briskets
    What!? No fruits and vegetables like that guy on youtube? This "test" is too heavily biased towards the carnivore diet. We need to see how bullets perform against a balanced diet.

    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    I have some .380 Penetrator ammo from Underwood (not the Defender one although they look very similar). Haven't shot it yet.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnFwr2ycgXk&t=17s
    Thats probably the only use for these "propeller" bullets is in pocket guns when your other choices are FMJ or poorly expanding XTP bullets. Personally I'd still go for the XTP bullet. You would be stupid to use a "propeller" bullet in a proper service caliber. Hell, the petals on an expanded HP probably cause more propeller like temporary stretch cavity than the actual "propeller" bullet.
    Last edited by vicious_cb; 03-20-21 at 21:43.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,584
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    What!? No fruits and vegetables like that guy on youtube? This "test" is too heavily biased towards the carnivore diet. We need to see how bullets perform against a balanced diet.
    I'm going to postulate that a block of silky tofu is probably ballistically identical to the average Antifa member.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •