Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Questions About This Image

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    0
    .380 ACP is inadequate; .38 Sp from a J-frame is the bare minimum I'd feel comfortable with and would prefer 9mm and up...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the 2nd Amendment still lives.
    Posts
    2,729
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    .380 ACP is inadequate; .38 Sp from a J-frame is the bare minimum I'd feel comfortable with and would prefer 9mm and up...
    What would you suggest be the minimum velocity and mass out of that J-Frame? I'M still honing my ammunition choices for off duty carry guns and while I know no one load is perfect for every mission maybe there is one which can handle the bone of the skull or the sternum in the chest and still reach deep enough to get the job done. We always see what bullets do in bare or soft denim covered gel but I wonder how adding the fore mentioned obstacles would change the results. I always tended to look at wall board results when published then compare it to the bare shots to help judge a bullets possible performance when hitting skull or sternum. I maybe well off with the wall board/bare gel comparison but lacking any other source of information on the subject it was my best guess on the issue. I always wondered why the FBI never added those obstacles or a adequate substitution to their tests.

    Sorry for another Greenhorn question gentleman.
    Last edited by PA PATRIOT; 02-28-09 at 09:52.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    0
    I am afraid there is no simple formula to calculate minimum effective projectile velocity and mass.

    Thin flat bones like the sternum and ribs are no big deal; take a look at the work done by Kramer Powley and Dean Dahlstrom at the RCMP--they have shown that the addition of pig ribs into gel makes no significant difference in testing outcomes. On the other hand, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Ed Lane's tests of swine femurs embedded in gel blocks presented at the 1993 FBI Wound Ballistic Workshop demonstrated that thick long bones can pose problems for lighter handgun projectiles.

    Skulls are another story. There is no way to adequately replicate the limitless intricate variations in skull anatomy prevalent in the world's population. Skulls present challenges to any service caliber handgun projectiles.

    The wallboard test will not provide any of the information you desire--if you really want something for skulls, you would be better off looking at the auto windshield testing...
    Last edited by DocGKR; 02-28-09 at 13:02.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •