Are Penetration and Expansion minimums enough?

[Styx]

I simply buy the most affordable ammunition available that will penetrate and expand to generally acceptable rates and call it a day. If I can find it it's a box of 50 or 100 Remington UMC. I'll leave everyone else to over analyze, obsess over, and bicker about calibers and different loads.


I also carry Federal Syntech which I was able to pick up several boxes on 20 each from Wally World back in the day @ $6 and change per box.

IMHO these micro analysis on caliber and load debates are silly and borderline obsessive compulsive thing gun nuts do that's a waste of time. Freaking buy something affordable that's consistent and train and/or practice with it. It's that simple. I rather have 100 rounds of UMC than a lot less of some super self defense ammo that's a lot more expensive thus I won't shoot it as much. I rather shoot a caliber that I can shoot well and handle the recoil whether it be 22mag or not than to carry something more powerful just because know it all experts on the inet tell me I'm doing it wrong. If the round hits and has enough energy to penetrate then it's enough. Most common self defense ammo is enough to get to vitals if the shot placement is on point.

It's not as complicated as a minority over super obsessed gun owners make it out to be. K.I.S.S.

 

[JTQ]

I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm always intrigued that the typical bullets (and rounds) that people choose for personal defense against a 200 lb human are usually different than the typical bullet (and rounds) that hunters choose when hunting a 200 lb animal.

While there certainly is some official study of the effects of bullet performance on humans, hunters shoot significantly more animals every year, and since they typically personally inspect the effects on each animal shot, and they are generally hoping to stop that animal with one shot, rather than with a mag/cylinder dump, round/bullet performance is pretty important to them.

Edit to add: Another point is animals typically are also not stopped by a psychological stop. You have to actually stop them, they aren't quitting.

 

[Styx]

I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm always intrigued that the typical bullets (and rounds) that people choose for personal defense against a 200 lb human are usually different than the typical bullet (and rounds) that hunters choose when hunting a 200 lb animal.

While there certainly is some official study of the effects of bullet performance on humans, hunters shoot significantly more animals every year, and since they typically personally inspect the effects on each animal shot, and they are generally hoping to stop that animal with one shot, rather than with a mag/cylinder dump, round/bullet performance is pretty important to them.

Is one hunting round that will penetrate and reach the the target on an accurately placed shot really that better than a other? The differences in having to account for what animal your hunting (different animals require different rounds to do the job) and having to account for accuracy in round selection as well as hunters generally shoot from distances is why hunting vs self defense against humans is an apples to oranges comparison within the context you applied it IMHO.

Self defense ammo is typically all geared and designed towards what best on humans, and when it comes to hunting you typically have a plothera of other factors to take into account that do not exist for humans. Since you mentioned mag/cylinder dumps, one of those factors are that hunters can typically use longer, heavier, and bigger handguns and rifles. They typically don't have to worry about several follow up shots, so they can utilize much, much more powerful ammo. Animals aren't shooting back, and hunters aren't being attacked by multiple animals at one time who maybe armed... I mean, depending on the 200lb animal, they have thicker hide, bone structure, and vitals in different places than all humans do. Of course a hunter is going to use different ammo for a 200lb animal vs a 200lb human for all of the aforementioned reasons a gave and others I've omitted. It's just not an appropriate comparison IMHO.

 

[C-grunt]

Projectile size and weight and speed. A smaller hammer swings faster but a bigger heavier hammer delivers more force. Ask anyone who has ever pounded a nail.
Ask the same question of martial artists who use striking weapons. In fact ask the martial artists who use piercing weapons too, is an epee or a lance more deadly?
In general bigger is better.. more power, grunt grunt


View attachment 1148151

I understand your point, but nobody here has been talking about one round that is 16 times the weight of the other.

 

[Atavar]

40gn vs 300gn is pretty close

I understand your point, but nobody here has been talking about one round that is 16 times the weight of the other.

 

[481]

40gn vs 300gn is pretty close

300 ÷ 40 = 7.5

That's not even half the value (16x) being discussed.

 

[Tinman357]

To answer the OP.

No. The minimums set by the FBI and others are just that, minimums.

I prefer more. If I'm forced to get ugly, I'm going to get ugly enough, fast enough.

Second place is fine for foot races, sports, etc..... but in a SD encounter that you are forced into by a criminal, at his choice of time and place, he controls the circumstances. Get ugly enough. Fast enough.

No second place there.

 

[Atavar]

300 ÷ 40 = 7.5

That's not even half the value (16x) being discussed.

Lemme guess, you took debate in high school.

 

[film495]

I hike with a snub nose NAA mini revolver .22 Mag, I landed on speer gold dot hollow points designed for snub nose. maye that makes a difference, maybe it doens't. hope I never find out. I saw a few reviews and like what they had to say, so that is what I picked.

 

[Kleanbore]

No. The minimums set by the FBI and others are just that, minimums.

The FBI also specifies a maximum. It tells how much penetration one should have, and how much one can use when shooting at humans. If a projectile goes through, the remaining oomph in it goes something else down range

 

[WisBorn]

The FBI also specifies a maximum. It tells how much penetration one should have, and how much one can use when shooting at humans. If a projectile goes through, the remaining oomph in it goes something else down range

The FBI standards are for law enforcement agencies. Do they download their sniper rifles to only penetrate 18" .
Do they regulate that the 9mm will penetrate a windshield then have enough energy to stop the driver.
The FBI went back to 9mms not because they were more or less effective than the 40s&w. It was because their agents couldn't shoot the 40s&w as well.

 

[Kleanbore]

The FBI standards are for law enforcement agencies.

Yeah. Why would they not apply to civilians?

Do they download their sniper rifles to only penetrate 18"

I do not know.

Do they regulate that the 9mm will penetrate a windshield then have enough energy to stop the driver.

Yes.

The FBI went back to 9mms not because they were more or less effective than the 40s&w. It was because their agents couldn't shoot the 40s&w as well.

Not exactly. No one can shoot the .40 as well in defensive drills, in guns of the same weith at configuration. That's basic Newtonian physics.

Shooting "well" in defensive shooting involves a balance of speed and precision. The objective is to shoot several shots into the target area very quickly. That requires the pistol to return from recoil very rapidly. That requires that the pistol recoil less to start with. That is the advantage of the 9mm over the .40. Shooters can hit the target more rapidly with the 9mm.

 

[CDW4ME]

The FBI standards are for law enforcement agencies. Do they download their sniper rifles to only penetrate 18" .
Do they regulate that the 9mm will penetrate a windshield then have enough energy to stop the driver.
The FBI went back to 9mms not because they were more or less effective than the 40s&w. It was because their agents couldn't shoot the 40s&w as well.

They wouldn't have to download the rifle if it is 5.56 and using Ranger Bonded:
https://winchesterle.com/-/media/Pr...gun-Bullet-Barrier-Testing-Protocol_2016.ashx
Ranger Bonded 64 gr. 5.56 - bare gel 16.9'' - heavy clothed gel 17.3''

Auto Glass?
9mm 124 +P T series - 11.3''
9mm 147 gr. T series - 10.8''
9mm 147 Bonded - 11.5''
40 S&W 180 T series - 12.7''
40 S&W 180 Bonded - 14.8''
40 S&W 165 T series - 12''

 

[C-grunt]

The FBI standards are for law enforcement agencies. Do they download their sniper rifles to only penetrate 18" .

I dont know what round FBI snipers use but I have worked around and been on call with SWAT snipers over the years. I can tell you that target backdrop is a VERY BIG thing with police snipers. The 168 grain SMK 308 has been basically the gold standard for LE snipers for several decades now. I know there is currently a big push nationwide to retire that load because of over penetration concerns.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Rifles are not pistols. Their capabilities, and uses, are a wee bit different. Therefore their desired terminal ballistics are different.

 

[481]

Lemme guess, you took debate in high school.

Nope.

Third grade mathematics was all that was needed to refute the point.

 

[dweis]

Let’s put ballistic gel in its proper place. Its purpose is to provide a medium that approximates the the tissue density of a human body which can be used to compare performance between different cartridges/bullets. It does not approximate the damage a bullet would do in a human body. Accordingly the 12 to 18 inch penetration and the 1.5 x expansion are simply evaluation factors, not predictors of terminal performance against a human or animal for that matter.

‘Vincent DiMaio, a noted forensic pathologist, has done thousands of autopsies on corpses that were shot. He has as an expert witness reviewed numerous autopsy results. His book Gunshot Wounds is one of the few ‘bibles’ on the topic of gunshot forensics. He points out several interesting facts in his writing.

It is impossible to distinguish gunshot wound channels by mere examination because they vary so widely even with the same caliber. The only way to know what caliber did the damage is to find the bullet.

The amount of penetration needed to disrupt the nervous system, reach a vital blood vessel, or hit a a vital organ varies with the point of impact. For example, if an entry wound is just below the sternum no ribs will be encountered, but the bullet can hit the heart the center of which is lest of the entry wound. That’s less than 4 inches of penetration on the average man. A shot to the neck to hit the spinal column need only travel a few inches to hit the spine.

Many wounds through bone and hard muscle tumble and in doing so an FMK can do more damage than a JHP.
​

So lethality is dependent upon penetration, and if either of those two areas is hit expansion will not be very meaningful. A tumbling bullet will create a wound channel that is a factor of its length. That would mean a tumbling FMJ bullet can be as effective as an expanding JHP.

I am not knocking gel tests. All I am saying I’d that they are not relevant to actual wound damage.

​

 

[trackskippy]

Let’s put ballistic gel in its proper place. Its purpose is to provide a medium that approximates the the tissue density of a human body which can be used to compare performance between different cartridges/bullets. It does not approximate the damage a bullet would do in a human body. Accordingly the 12 to 18 inch penetration and the 1.5 x expansion are simply evaluation factors, not predictors of terminal performance against a human or animal for that matter.

‘Vincent DiMaio, a noted forensic pathologist, has done thousands of autopsies on corpses that were shot. He has as an expert witness reviewed numerous autopsy results. His book Gunshot Wounds is one of the few ‘bibles’ on the topic of gunshot forensics. He points out several interesting facts in his writing.

It is impossible to distinguish gunshot wound channels by mere examination because they vary so widely even with the same caliber. The only way to know what caliber did the damage is to find the bullet.

The amount of penetration needed to disrupt the nervous system, reach a vital blood vessel, or hit a a vital organ varies with the point of impact. For example, if an entry wound is just below the sternum no ribs will be encountered, but the bullet can hit the heart the center of which is lest of the entry wound. That’s less than 4 inches of penetration on the average man. A shot to the neck to hit the spinal column need only travel a few inches to hit the spine.

Many wounds through bone and hard muscle tumble and in doing so an FMK can do more damage than a JHP.
​

So lethality is dependent upon penetration, and if either of those two areas is hit expansion will not be very meaningful. A tumbling bullet will create a wound channel that is a factor of its length. That would mean a tumbling FMJ bullet can be as effective as an expanding JHP.

I am not knocking gel tests. All I am saying I’d that they are not relevant to actual wound damage.

​

The realization that you have to shoot them to the ground, with whatever you have, has to sink in at some point.

All the technical paper and gel data and statistics in the world arent going to impress your opponent, no matter how important you might think it is. Rapid, repetitive aeration and precision are "the way".

 

[Kleanbore]

[Quotig DiMaio]It is impossible to distinguish gunshot wound channels by mere examination because they vary so widely even with the same caliber. The only way to know what caliber did the damage is to find the bullet.

That was noted in the FBI paper recommending the 9mm.

the 12 to 18 inch penetration and the 1.5 x expansion are simply evaluation factors, not predictors of terminal performance against a human or animal for that matter.

True.

So lethality is dependent upon penetration, and if either of those two areas is hit expansion will not be very meaningful. A tumbling bullet will create a wound channel that is a factor of its length. That would mean a tumbling FMJ bullet can be as effective as an expanding JHP.

Lethality is not a meaningful measure of merit in this discussion, and wound channel parameters are not key factors in projectile effectiveness.

 

[golden]

I never took the FBI recommendations as more than what the FBI said they wanted for themselves and unrealistic for the rest of the world..

My own agency analyzed.our own shootings and decided 9 inches was the minimum. They saw no advantage to deep penetration. We were using revolvers in those days. They found that higher velocity rounds worked better and we went with the .357 magnum 110 grain jhp at 1300 fps as the base issue. It replaced the 110 grain +P+ jhp 38 Special issue load and the problems we had went away.
Thanks to premium bullets like the GOLD DOT, GOLDEN SABRE, HST and WINCHESTER PDX-1 rounds, you no longer have to worry about penetration or over-penetration.
I use PDX-1 130 grain.38 Special ammo in my .38 and .357 revolvers and FEDRAL 124 grain HST standard pressure in my 9m.m. pistols. I want expansion without dangerous over-penetration and can get it with ammo using previum bullets.

We did not care about penetrating windshields. Our training was to get out of the way of a car coming at us, not shoot at it and hope you can stop a 2 ton car by incapacitating the driver. That moving out of the way of an on coming car works much more reliably than shooting at a car.


Deep penetrating rounds are often used for hunting in the outdoors. However, when you are trying to down a deer, it is usually not inside your house, apartment, job or out on a street when over-penetrations can turn you into an unintended killer of innocents and leave you exposed to back breaking lawsuits as well as emotional problems from having hurt/killed someone who was just in the wrong place when you fired.

Jim

 

[JTHunter]

We did not care about penetrating windshields. Our training was to get out of the way of a car coming at us, not shoot at it and hope you can stop a 2 ton car by incapacitating the driver. That moving out of the way of an on coming car works much more reliably than shooting at a car.
Jim

IIRC, part of the problem with the windshield is twofold. The first is the angle that can (and does) deflect bullets hitting it. It is also stronger glass (thicker) than the side windows. You would be better off getting to the side and try to hit the driver through a side window. The glass is nearly vertical so less chance of deflection and, as it doesn't have to withstand either the wind forces hitting it while driving nor does it have to protect the driver from objects (rocks, trash, tire treads) thrown at it from vehicles ahead of it.

 

[golden]

IIRC, part of the problem with the windshield is twofold. The first is the angle that can (and does) deflect bullets hitting it. It is also stronger glass (thicker) than the side windows. You would be better off getting to the side and try to hit the driver through a side window. The glass is nearly vertical so less chance of deflection and, as it doesn't have to withstand either the wind forces hitting it while driving nor does it have to protect the driver from objects (rocks, trash, tire treads) thrown at it from vehicles ahead of it.

JTHUNTER,
Another problem is that if you shoot and hit the driver, the vehicle may now becomes an uncontrolled missile. It may come to a halt. It may run into traffic or strike a pedestrian. Looking back at it, the risks are pretty high when firing at a vehicle.

Jim

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Let’s put ballistic gel in its proper place. Its purpose is to provide a medium that approximates the the tissue density of a human body which can be used to compare performance between different cartridges/bullets. It does not approximate the damage a bullet would do in a human body. Accordingly the 12 to 18 inch penetration and the 1.5 x expansion are simply evaluation factors, not predictors of terminal performance against a human or animal for that matter.

Properly prepared and calibrated Type 250A ordnance gelatin does, in fact, accurately depict a bullet's wounding effects when the bullet penetrates soft tissues. There's a reason why Fackler called them "wound profiles".

The FBI doesn't count any penetration beyond 18 inches because the bullet will likely exit the body. It's not an upper limit, meaning bullets that penetrate deeper than 18 inches will be disqualified.