barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
'Tis but a flesh wound; I've had worse.
"Look how shallow that 2" wound is. It's a surface divot. A crater."
That is a section-cut about 8" into the 22lb block of pig, buddy. A separate image shows the two side by side, and I think penetration was something like 10"-11" on a diagonal (hard to tell how the meat was oriented originally). Complain about it being cold and not realistic of living tissue if you want to dispute it
I've never seen a 22mag or 22LR make that type of wound, though, 'divot' or otherwise.
"The bullets did not produce enough wound trauma, i.e., the amount of physical tissue damage was inadequate, to compel rapid incapacitation.
The temporary cavity produced was insufficient to cause concussion of the spinal cord."
Ah, so that's the secret to the mythical stop. I always thought it was 'smashing bone,' or 'expanding bullets,' or 'the target realizing they were hit with a round that starts with a 4.' Then why are you carping about wound characteristics in the first place? If hydrostatic shock is the critical factor, we should be trying to measure/replicate that somehow instead (or simply recognizing that with a velocity of over 2000fps, it should be in play to some extent already). Is that why a slower, heavier, wider handgun round is so preferable to the 5.7x28? I understand why you'd want a rifle's power for the purpose, but there are practically no handguns rolling that fast of any practicality for any kind of carry.
As far as inadequate tissue damage, here's a chart we've all seen a zillion times;
Where is the extra order of magnitude of damage from any other those that precludes the need for ten or more hits for effect? Penetration isn't hugely different (another inch or so it seems, at which point most rounds including the 5.7 would have exited anyway), tearing diameter isn't all that much wider, or longer (maybe a half-inch?) So where is the superior effectiveness coming from?
Still no opinions on how easy it is to use an excessive (tactically speaking) number of rounds on a target with both the P90 and five-seven due to their controllability & capacity, and how that fact may play into how many rounds are 'felt' to be needed in practice, all physical evidence to the contrary.
TCB
"Look how shallow that 2" wound is. It's a surface divot. A crater."
That is a section-cut about 8" into the 22lb block of pig, buddy. A separate image shows the two side by side, and I think penetration was something like 10"-11" on a diagonal (hard to tell how the meat was oriented originally). Complain about it being cold and not realistic of living tissue if you want to dispute it
I've never seen a 22mag or 22LR make that type of wound, though, 'divot' or otherwise.
"The bullets did not produce enough wound trauma, i.e., the amount of physical tissue damage was inadequate, to compel rapid incapacitation.
The temporary cavity produced was insufficient to cause concussion of the spinal cord."
Ah, so that's the secret to the mythical stop. I always thought it was 'smashing bone,' or 'expanding bullets,' or 'the target realizing they were hit with a round that starts with a 4.' Then why are you carping about wound characteristics in the first place? If hydrostatic shock is the critical factor, we should be trying to measure/replicate that somehow instead (or simply recognizing that with a velocity of over 2000fps, it should be in play to some extent already). Is that why a slower, heavier, wider handgun round is so preferable to the 5.7x28? I understand why you'd want a rifle's power for the purpose, but there are practically no handguns rolling that fast of any practicality for any kind of carry.
As far as inadequate tissue damage, here's a chart we've all seen a zillion times;
Where is the extra order of magnitude of damage from any other those that precludes the need for ten or more hits for effect? Penetration isn't hugely different (another inch or so it seems, at which point most rounds including the 5.7 would have exited anyway), tearing diameter isn't all that much wider, or longer (maybe a half-inch?) So where is the superior effectiveness coming from?
Still no opinions on how easy it is to use an excessive (tactically speaking) number of rounds on a target with both the P90 and five-seven due to their controllability & capacity, and how that fact may play into how many rounds are 'felt' to be needed in practice, all physical evidence to the contrary.
TCB
Last edited: