Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

[Skribs]

Prosser, the two problems, as I stated...

1) The block is a 20% formula, whereas the standard for testing against human flesh is 10%. Therefore, it is not an accurate measure of penetration inside human tissue, anymore than sheet metal is a good measure for how something will do against plywood. So you can't base penetration numbers off of that video.

Along the note of penetration, this is a round (.380 ACP) on the low-end of what most consider acceptable for use in SD, and some people even consider too weak. Go to something like the 9mm JHP you posted, and it goes all the way through the block. I did say earlier that with lower power rounds, a FMJ may be required to reach adequate penetration.

2) The majority of what you see in this video is the temporary wound channel. Slap your arm and watch the fat/muscle jiggle. It moves maybe a quarter-inch to a half inch, then it settles back into place. I'd hardly say that I have a half-inch wound because of that.

If you watch the video for the 9mm (because I have that one up), compare the wound tract at 0:19 to the one at 0:22. It is smaller at 0:22, because the gel is bouncing back from the elasticity.

For looking at the PWC, these videos are very poor. The reason is that they stop before everything settles into place.

 

[Prosser]

Skribs: They are used for one major purpose, they show how the bullet slows down, and how that is related to bullet expansion, and bullet design.

It's better that they use heavy gel, since they get the bullets to open up, perhaps as if they are hitting bone? It also provides resistance, which makes the bullets stop sooner, and their behavior is easier to test and capture, rather then having a 25" block of gello. I suspect most shots at human contact bone, and that's a lot harder then 10% gelatin.

One factor that's really forgotten that if the bullet maintains velocity through the target, it is much more likely to break, or shatter bone, and turn that bone into a secondary projectile. Breaking bone is also more likely to stop the bad guy, hard to shot with a broken arm, or charge with a broken leg.

 

[481]

Damn shame you can't get them anymore..... Glad I still have 100 or so...............

.45 ACP Aguila 117gr "High Power" Fragmenting Hollow Point

The Aguila .45 ACP 117gr High Power cartridge uses what appears to be a cast aluminum bullet, which has three external serrations, spaced at regular intervals, on the sides of the ogive to facilitate bullet fragmentation. The bullet has a straight-walled cavity 0.225" in diameter and approximately 1/2-inch deep.

We separately chronographed five rounds using an S&W 4506 handgun. The 4506 has a 5-inch barrel. Average velocity of the five rounds was 1498 fps.

We initially attempted to test the Aguila High Power cartridge using a gelatin block measuring 6x6x16 inches in size. Two test bullets were fired. The sharp angle of divergence between the fragments resulted in almost all of the fragments exiting the sides or top of the block. Both shots resulted in the capture of only one fragment.

In order to capture all the fragments, testing was performed using a gelatin block measuring 10x10x18 inches. We successfully tested four bullets in bare gelatin. Due to the bullet's deep cavity we felt it unnecessary to test it in denim covered gelatin because we believe the denim cloth will not affect terminal performance.

On impact with the gelatin block, each bullet penetrated about 1 inch and then fragmented into four pieces, consisting of three ogive/shank fragments and one base fragment. The three ogive/shank fragments separated from each other at marked angles, and came to rest at a distance of between 6-8 inches apart for all test shots.

med,

The alloy used in the manufacture of the .45 ACP Aguila 117gr "High Power" Fragmenting JHP is actually nearly pure zinc (it's way too heavy to be an aluminum alloy) and the tests that I've seen (run by Shawn Dodson over at http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number2/article2.htm) show that the design has the propensity to produce fairly shallow penetration (less than 7") in calibrated ordnance gelatin after shedding much of its mass (about 40% of the JHP's mass is in the petals).

Although I don't believe that ammo used by non-LE civilians must meet the FBI test protocols (minimum of 12" of penetration) to be considered satisfactory, less than 7" of penetrative capability introduces the possibilty of insufficient penetration on perfect frontal presentations where an individual's physique is clad in excessive fatty tissue or if it were to strike bone (ribs, sternum, what have you...).

Depending on your circumstances this may or may not matter to you, but it is something that you ought to be aware of.

 

[Skribs]

http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/terminal
This gives a good explanation of what I was trying to explain. I know its from a specific manufacturer's website, but reading through it I saw nothing that was specific to Hornady even mentioned in the text.

Just to toughen up one substance doesn't show a good substitute for bone. Brassfetcher has done bone plates in front of 10% gel, which is a much better test IMO.

As to it being a better test? I don't see how. Like you said, it changes the way the bullets respond. So it's absolutely useless for showing what it would do on a human target. Why do I want to know what a bullet would do in a target twice as dense as a human if my goal is to select a caliber to use in defense against a human?

 

[481]

1) The block is a 20% formula, whereas the standard for testing against human flesh is 10%. Therefore, it is not an accurate measure of penetration inside human tissue, anymore than sheet metal is a good measure for how something will do against plywood. So you can't base penetration numbers off of that video.

I really like JE223's tests, but I always wonder why he has started using the 20% concentration when he has in the past often used the standard 10% mix. As noted, it introduces difficulty in comparison and I would imagine that it would be a bit less costly to stick with the 10% concentration (uses less). I doubt that there is too terribly much difference between the two (10% vs. 20%), but it would be nice not to have to guess at it.

2) The majority of what you see in this video is the temporary wound channel. Slap your arm and watch the fat/muscle jiggle. It moves maybe a quarter-inch to a half inch, then it settles back into place. I'd hardly say that I have a half-inch wound because of that.

If you watch the video for the 9mm (because I have that one up), compare the wound tract at 0:19 to the one at 0:22. It is smaller at 0:22, because the gel is bouncing back from the elasticity.

For looking at the PWC, these videos are very poor. The reason is that they stop before everything settles into place.

That's what MacPherson's model is for!

 

[Prosser]

Good link:

I was stating the thicker gelatin is good for illustrating how bullets function, and compressing it into a easy to view, compact size for demonstration.

The illustrations are only valid for comparision with other tests using the same gello.
I've been looking at this stuff for a long time, and not much changes. Bullets, and their paths are consistent with certain rules. If you want a certain bullet for defense, then it's nice to know how it effects gello.

Real problem is 10% is just a guess. Humans don't have any areas that are really like gello. Everything has bone, gristle, and other junk in it. Every persons density is different.

Heavy muscle effects bullets differently then fat, etc. Skin soaks up energy, and is much tougher then gello.

A much better test is on an animal that resembles the humans you may have problems with.

I like Hornady XTP's. They tend to open up slower, and penetrate deeper then most HP's. Hawks also can be had with different jacket thickness, and therefore different expansion rates.

I really like the specs on this round: 400 grains, 1350 fps, and, when it expands, it's got enough bullet weight to maintain excellent velocity through the target. Don't generally stay in mouse.

 

[Skribs]

What round is that?

I will agree a slower-expanding HP is probably better, because the cavity is going to matter more a bit deeper beneath the surface.

 

[481]

Good link:
Real problem is 10% is just a guess.

Actually, that concentration is meant to duplicate the behavior swine muscle when subjected to ballistic impact.

Humans don't have any areas that are really like gello. Everything has bone, gristle, and other junk in it. Every persons density is different.

Of course we are full of all sorts of stuff, but calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is simply meant to provide a homogenous test analog that can be used to reliably reproduce test results. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand its intended purpose.

 

[Prosser]

Skribs:
.475 Linebaugh Hornady factory load.

The problem with the standard gelatin is it usually is done in 14" blocks. Don't know why that's the standard. Should probably be 20". But, everyone does 14", and with better penetrating rounds we don't get the benefit of finding out how they work past 14".

Swine flesh, hmmm? Seems that pigs are tougher then that, and filled with gristle, bone, and brisket that's hard to penetrate.

 

[Skribs]

481, the reason was stated in another thread - it looks better under slow motion camera.

IIRC, swine flesh is the closest to human flesh. It's why they use it a lot on Mythbusters.

What I would like to see is a reference guide from someone who does the testing on how to read the gel to say for certain what is TWC and what is PWC.

 

[481]

Swine flesh, hmmm? Seems that pigs are tougher then that, and filled with gristle, bone, and brisket that's hard to penetrate.

Yep. Somewhere, tucked away in all of my IWBA periodicals, IIRC, it is meant to reproduce swine thigh tissue when chilled (the gelatin, that is) to 4C.

See Skribs? I needed a unitary designation there. hee hee hee

 

[481]

481, the reason was stated in another thread - it looks better under slow motion camera.

IIRC, swine flesh is the closest to human flesh. It's why they use it a lot on Mythbusters.

What I would like to see is a reference guide from someone who does the testing on how to read the gel to say for certain what is TWC and what is PWC.

I would like to see something of that sort, too, however, given what it must take to do that, I suspect that such a pursuit may be more of an "art" than a "science".

 

[Skribs]

I know. But it would be nice for when people post pictures and say "look, the bulge is bigger here" I can say what guys have been saying for centuries - that it's not the size of the bulge that matters.

 

[Loosedhorse]

swine flesh is the closest to human flesh. It's why they use it a lot on Mythbusters.

Well, that, and it's cheap. And you get to take home the left-overs.

Thinking back to lost car keys: did you know that they used to light streets with lamps burning whale oil? That's like using pork as a ballistic test medium. And of course ballistic gel is our nice electric streetlight.

But when you select a certain caliber, is it because you expect some day to be attacked by butchered pork, or a big blob of gel? I wonder if the zombie craze may have something to do with the subconscious realization that we are designing and praising bullets that work awfully well on inanimate (or formerly animate) objects...

And we generally don't ask what the street results are; because that, I guess, doesn't really matter.

I'm glad that (for now at least) hunters are generally still old-fashioned enough to talk about how well certain calibers or bullets do in the field; and to consider such discussions important. However, such discussion seems to be a non-issue today for bullets that you'll stake your life on.

Just show me the gel, man! Oooo!

 

[481]

I know. But it would be nice for when people post pictures and say "look, the bulge is bigger here" I can say what guys have been saying for centuries - that it's not the size of the bulge that matters.

I can't believe that you just went there.

 

[Skribs]

I'm glad that (for now at least) hunters are generally still old-fashioned enough to talk about how well certain calibers or bullets do in the field; and to consider such discussions important. However, such discussion seems to be a non-issue today for bullets that you'll stake your life on.

That's because hunters are allowed to go out into the woods and shoot a deer and then see what the results are. From what I understand about the law, at least here in WA state, you're not allowed to do that with people. You have to wait for an incident to occur where you use a weapon in self defense.

 

[357SIG]

Pulmonary arteries and veins are included, and they transport blood directly to and from the heart and lungs. These begin in the hilar region of the lungs and connect to the right ventricle and left atruim of the heart. When ruptured, you get internal bleeding into the lungs, pleural cavity, and mediastinum, and lose the ability to exchange CO2 for oxygen. Obviously, it's a serious injury, and often leads to death. Try to look up "pulmonary artery pseudoaneurysms from penetrating trauma," or something like it.

 

[357SIG]

Most hunters couldn't care less what bullet they use to kill an animal. Most just buy a decent round and stick with it. When the store is out of stock, they just buy something similar. Most hunters don't obsess about the caliber of their gun either. If they followed the ideas people tend to follow for SD rounds, everyone would be hunting deer with. 300 WIN MAGs. Instead, you get everything from. 22 WMR on up.

Most experienced hunters also know that shot placement is king here too. Many deer have been struck with large belted magnums and ran off, while others have been dropped dead with a single. 22 Mag, :223, or. 243 round. The same ideas apply to both situations.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Most hunters couldn't care less what bullet they use to kill an animal.

Well, I guess you know different hunters. (Maybe ask in our Hunting forum, and see what they think, hmm?) The ones I hang out with know that some calibers, and some bullet types, are better than others. That a lost wounded animal is a shameful thing, and that the farther the animal runs, the more chance of that.

If it's a dangerous animal like feral pig, well, maybe there are more .22 Mag hunters out there than I thought.

Most hunters also know that a well aimed shot isn't the sure thing they try earnestly to make it. The deer moves, the winds shift...or you just make a human mistake. And some bullets do better 6 inches to the right of where you wanted it to go than others.

'Course, just the hunters I hang out with. Could be selection bias.

you're not allowed to do that with people

Sure you are: we're allowed to shoot people in the extremes of self-defense. Police are allowed to do so in the line of duty to safeguard innocent life. Either way, there's an autopsy. Happens just about every day.

But there is no database. No discussions. Because it has been decided it isn't worth looking at. Forget about it. After all, street results are just street results. But gel is GEL!

 

[Prosser]

Go to Iraq. However, you don't get to pick your weapon caliber.
Major problem is how are you going to come up with a bright line for data collection on autopsy?

First threshold:
Is the person dead? We can get that one right 100% of the time.
Did the bullet cause the death, or bullets?
Which bullet hit first, did what damage, and what was the actual cause of death?
What was the caliber used?
Just trying to think up the questions to quantify the data is giving me a headache. :banghead:

All your really going to get is data on LEO based shootings, and that will be with LEO issued weapons. They are all pretty much the same, with the same results. Why bother? The outside that box shootings are going to be statistically insufficient to provide a statistically valid conclusion.

As for hunters:
The guys I know not only know what they are shooting, but, they hang out together, hunt together, and guns and calibers are a very big deal. Heck, it's down to loads, not calibers.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Just trying to think up the questions to quantify the data is giving me a headache.

Couldn't ask for a better example of the attitude I was talking about. Can't do. Not worth it. Impossible. I know that all even before I try.

So let's play with gel instead.

Street results: can't possibly be valid; gel results? Ooooo! Collecting and analyzing street results: hard work, and people will criticize me. Pouring gel and shooting a bullet? Easy-peasy, and people will like it!

I guess, put that way, it's an easy choice. So, here we are.

Heck, it's down to loads, not calibers.

Just like my guys.

By the way: they do that load selection by gel-testing? I hope it's not by field results...how could they have enough data to be statistically valid?

 

[Skribs]

LH, I was referring to the fact that we can't hunt people, take pictures, post online, get advice for how to get a cleaner kill, go get a new load and try again. They kind of arrest you for that.

Prosser, no way I'd go to Iraq. I can't stand the weather anywhere outside of western WA.

 

[Loosedhorse]

LH, I was referring to the fact that we can't hunt people, take pictures, post online, get advice for how to get a cleaner kill, go get a new load and try again. They kind of arrest you for that.

I know. I apologize that my response obscured my point. I grant you that indivdual hunters have more personal bullet-results data than individual defenders (who almost always have zero results, thank G-d). But hunters generalize from statistically "meaningless" numbers, and from the anecdotal evidence they collect from others.

There is out there a lot of collective, collectible data on LE shootings and SD shootings (all of which will have extensive write-ups by LE), far more data in one year than almost any single hunter will have in a lifetime. But that data, we are told, isn't worth picking up off the ground.

 

[Skribs]

I think part of it, too, is that the individual hunter is making all the choices.

In the case of the LEO, I'm guessing it's administration who picks the regulations that govern which caliber you can get, the supply department who goes and orders whatever they can get the best deal on, Officer Smith who is actually involved in the shooting, internal affairs who investigates it, and someone else who compiles the department's results to send to yet another person who's compiling the data from all of the departments that are participating in the study.

While this yields a much larger test pool, the officers weren't going into the situation looking to see how the caliber worked. They were going into the situation to stop a threat, be it one they encountered, were called on, or were serving a warrant when the perp resisted. I doubt there are many cops who are saying "I can't wait to get into a gunfight so I can see how Hydrashock stacks up against Glaser."

On the other hand, back to the hunter, they go out hunting with the intent to use their firearm. One who is trying to find the best load for the game they're hunting will be looking for the effects of the bullet. It's not some afterthought by someone after the investigation is over, it's done at the scene.

 

[Prosser]

The internet has really helped, in that people can observe people's experience on different loads on different game animals. Also, with everyone having a movie camera in their cell phone, you get stuff like this:
This guy is an excellent shot, and a LOT of these are one shot stops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTeEmNUkjw
Wonder if this is what he's using?
http://www.hornady.com/store/44-Mag-240-gr-XTP/
Doesn't look like the recoil of a 300 grain load. Still, he's hunting buffalo. By the way all of those animals are 'pests' that need culling.