natedog
Member
Do any of the popular JHP (Cor-Bon, Gold Dot, Gold Sabers, SXT) loads in 9mm, .45ACP, or .40 give enough penetration to regurarly penetrate a torso and exit?
JHP penentration .40, 9mm, and .45ACP
- Thread starter natedog
- Start date
- Status
Snowdog
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,608
All of the cartridges you listed have the potential to send a bullet completely through a torso and exit, but some bullet/weight combinations have a greater potential than others. As Krept pointed out, these are usually the heavier of the bullet selections within a caliber.
However, over penetration is a bit overrated. It's best just to use whatever your pistol shoots best rather than select a round that yields sloppy accuracy with the promise of offering shallow penetration.
However, over penetration is a bit overrated. It's best just to use whatever your pistol shoots best rather than select a round that yields sloppy accuracy with the promise of offering shallow penetration.
natedog
Member
Actually, I think that two holes bleed better than one (commonly referred to in gun rags as "overpenetration issues".
sjtalon
Member
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
What's a torso measure? 
Some folks I know, a .25 auto would spear two or three of them in a row. Others (like me) would be hard pressed to yield to a JSP.
If it's a concern, stick to lighter weigh bullets.
Some folks I know, a .25 auto would spear two or three of them in a row. Others (like me) would be hard pressed to yield to a JSP. If it's a concern, stick to lighter weigh bullets.
stans
Member
I would think the heavier JHP's would penetrate better. In 9mm that would be 147 grains, in 40 S&W it would be 180 grains and in 45 ACP it would be the 230 grain bullets. But, velocity and bullet construction play a role. Most hollow point ammo is designed to expand and do so rapidly. The Hornady XTP bullets, at least some of them, seem to be designed with an eye towards penetration.
cratz2
Member
For the love of christ, one bullet that doesn't bounce around inside the torso, only leaves ONE HOLE, people! One hole that bleeds from to points, but just one hole.
As to penetration, I'd suspect 158 and 180 Gr 357s would penetrate the most in relatively soft tissue but since we're in autoloaders, I'd expect 147 Gr 9mms to penetrate the most with 180 Gr 40s following. 230 gr 45s have a similar sectional density, but less frontal area so assuming similar bullet constructions and similar velocities (relative to caliber) a smaller bullet will penetrate more. Of course, all this goes out the window once you start comparing different bullet designs and the slower the bullet is going (within reason) the more pentration there will be. Rounds that open up less reliably will penetrate more at a given veolocity than bullets that really tend to open up such as CorBon, Gold Dots and Rangers.
As to penetration, I'd suspect 158 and 180 Gr 357s would penetrate the most in relatively soft tissue but since we're in autoloaders, I'd expect 147 Gr 9mms to penetrate the most with 180 Gr 40s following. 230 gr 45s have a similar sectional density, but less frontal area so assuming similar bullet constructions and similar velocities (relative to caliber) a smaller bullet will penetrate more. Of course, all this goes out the window once you start comparing different bullet designs and the slower the bullet is going (within reason) the more pentration there will be. Rounds that open up less reliably will penetrate more at a given veolocity than bullets that really tend to open up such as CorBon, Gold Dots and Rangers.
Ivy Mike
Member
The amount of blood you see isn't as important as the amount you don't see. If they are bleeding profusely on the inside, your bullet did a good job. If they are bleeding profusely on the outside, your bullet did its job, but not as well as it could have. Either way, your shot was intended to kill and if they don't get medical attention soon, your shot will have suceeded. Get the round that functions the best in your gun, and has the best chance of expanding and ripping into important parts of your target.
On that note, practice practice practice! Location is the key if you are using the latest wunder-bullet or a common kitchen knife.
On that note, practice practice practice! Location is the key if you are using the latest wunder-bullet or a common kitchen knife.
jAK-47
Member
In most cases, an exit wound means some of the bullet's energy was "wasted" on a wall, a bystander or thin air. Unless a bullet comes out the back of a BG's head, spine or heart, I would prefer that my bullet stays put and delivers its energy INTO the BG.
Just my 2 cents,
jAK-47
Just my 2 cents,
jAK-47
IMO and many other opinions too, the effects of
"Energy Transfer" from handgun calibers is a myth, has been debunked and is not a factor in stopping a BG!
Go here and read about it!:banghead:
"Energy Transfer" from handgun calibers is a myth, has been debunked and is not a factor in stopping a BG!
Go here and read about it!:banghead:
jAK-47
Member
:banghead: Doesn't that hurt?
Anyway, I'm not into flames but I've read that energy transfer myth site before. If you put cyanide in a person's food, it will kill them more surely than a .357 magnum to the torso. And I agree that the cyanide imparts less kinetic energy and I agree that the knife that cut Nicole Simpson's throat imparts less kinetic energy but I don't agree that less energy is better than more energy when it comes to an object (bullet) striking an attacker. Ask any major league baseball player who has had a fastball GLANCE off their head or shoulder rather than hitting them square. Ask any boxer about being punched "going away" vs. "stepping into it".
Shooting a 300 pound person in a HUGE abdomen ALREADY lying on the ground at a bad angle is not a good example to use when trying to debunk the value of energy transfer. I'd still rather have a tree limb glance off my shoulder rather than come down directly on top of my shoulder.
Comparing a .22 round that MIRACULOUSLY strikes a vital organ to a .357 fired into a tub of lard on the ground at a bad angle doesn't sound very scientific to me.
I agree 100% that shot placement is really the most important element in putting an attacker down, maybe followed by caliber and energy transfer, etc. If a round goes THROUGH a person and takes a HUGE chunk out of a cement wall behind the person, I gotta believe that if the bullet stayed INSIDE the person, that person would suffer more trauma or at least be pushed back or down further.
The best possible thing is to hit a vital organ and have the bullet stick around to transfer ALL of its potential energy into the BG. Again, I'm just expressing MY opinion. No need to pop a hemorrhoid!
YMMV,
jAK-47
Anyway, I'm not into flames but I've read that energy transfer myth site before. If you put cyanide in a person's food, it will kill them more surely than a .357 magnum to the torso. And I agree that the cyanide imparts less kinetic energy and I agree that the knife that cut Nicole Simpson's throat imparts less kinetic energy but I don't agree that less energy is better than more energy when it comes to an object (bullet) striking an attacker. Ask any major league baseball player who has had a fastball GLANCE off their head or shoulder rather than hitting them square. Ask any boxer about being punched "going away" vs. "stepping into it".
Shooting a 300 pound person in a HUGE abdomen ALREADY lying on the ground at a bad angle is not a good example to use when trying to debunk the value of energy transfer. I'd still rather have a tree limb glance off my shoulder rather than come down directly on top of my shoulder.
Comparing a .22 round that MIRACULOUSLY strikes a vital organ to a .357 fired into a tub of lard on the ground at a bad angle doesn't sound very scientific to me.
I agree 100% that shot placement is really the most important element in putting an attacker down, maybe followed by caliber and energy transfer, etc. If a round goes THROUGH a person and takes a HUGE chunk out of a cement wall behind the person, I gotta believe that if the bullet stayed INSIDE the person, that person would suffer more trauma or at least be pushed back or down further.
The best possible thing is to hit a vital organ and have the bullet stick around to transfer ALL of its potential energy into the BG. Again, I'm just expressing MY opinion. No need to pop a hemorrhoid!
YMMV,
jAK-47
Marshall
Member
One reason two holes are better than one is that the exit wound is many times larger than the entrance wound. If your bullet has expanded to it's fullest, it's taking out and damaging more inside the body the longer it travels though it. If it stops traveling halfway through the body, it's leaving much area undamaged. Also, if shot in the front, the chances of taking out some spinal colume are much better if the bullet travels all the way through the body instead of being stopped somewhere short.
Kind of some nasty stuff huh? Anyone hungry?
Kind of some nasty stuff huh? Anyone hungry?
natedog
Member
Recieving kenetic energy doesn't kill a person- bleeding, and destruction of the CNS does.
Just a quick thought on the whole "knockdown power" conversation. I shoot a lot of bowling pins as targets. One thing that surprised me, the first time I shot one, was how little reaction that a bowling pin has to being shot. Besides not taking it real personal, they don't move much either. When you are talking about 9, 40, 45 or even 357, the rounds seldom penetrate and yet the pin only moves a foot or so. That's an object that only wheighs a few pounds and that absorbed all of the bullets energy.
I watched a video of a guy demoing his bullet-proof vest. He shoots himself point blank in the chest with a 357, then turns the gun on several targets. Here again, all of the energy was absorbed, yet the man was not noticeably moved.
Obviously no standard autoloading pistol cartridge can knock a man down (unless you hit him in the ankle maybe ), but I do get where jAK-47 is coming from. If the bullet stays inside of your target, then any and all possible bullet expansion will have taken place inside of your target, probably creating a larger wound channel and more damage.
Just my $0.02
I watched a video of a guy demoing his bullet-proof vest. He shoots himself point blank in the chest with a 357, then turns the gun on several targets. Here again, all of the energy was absorbed, yet the man was not noticeably moved.
Obviously no standard autoloading pistol cartridge can knock a man down (unless you hit him in the ankle maybe
), but I do get where jAK-47 is coming from. If the bullet stays inside of your target, then any and all possible bullet expansion will have taken place inside of your target, probably creating a larger wound channel and more damage.Just my $0.02
Holes in the skin are irrelevant, unless you're tracking deer.
It's well known that in auto accidents, where people get a strong blow to the chest, it's common for the big blood vessel, the Aorta, to get torn, swell up, and finally burst in the course of a few hours. When the vessel finally fails, blood pressure drops to zero, you pass out instantly, and are dead in two minutes. This condition can occur naturally, and is what killed actor John Ritter.
The lungs and other body spaces can easily hold all your blood, so external leaks really don't cause bleed-out to accelerate.
It's well known that in auto accidents, where people get a strong blow to the chest, it's common for the big blood vessel, the Aorta, to get torn, swell up, and finally burst in the course of a few hours. When the vessel finally fails, blood pressure drops to zero, you pass out instantly, and are dead in two minutes. This condition can occur naturally, and is what killed actor John Ritter.
The lungs and other body spaces can easily hold all your blood, so external leaks really don't cause bleed-out to accelerate.
jAK-47
Member
An exit wound is a FLESH wound. The real damage is always done internally. There are no organs on the outside of your back, unless you hang around ringing the bells at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.
It's NOT JUST about receiving kinetic energy (although that increases "shock" in a person and maybe knocks them down), it's about the bullet STAYING where it BELONGS - IN the target, not hitting someone or something else. Because the bullet stays IN the target, the energy is expended by bouncing around OR hitting a vital organ OR opening up the wound channel OR just ripping blood vessels to shreds.
Hunters like to talk about the huge exit hole in the game. BUT, the bullet doesn't suddenly expand because it hits a millimeter of skin at the back or side! The bullet has ALREADY expanded INSIDE the animal and THAT'S where the damage is. It DOESN'T bleed to death because of a nasty looking exit wound; it bleeds to death from the damage DONE INTERNALLY BEFORE the bullet exits. It is IRRELEVANT that the blood from an exit wound ends up on the ground instead of staying inside a cavity. Death occurs from the INTERNAL damage.
If the bullet hits the spinal cord, it's probably not going to go much further. If it's an expanding bullet, the wound channel will be much larger, thus increasing the shock/trauma/bleeding and chance of hitting a vital organ.
TWO HOLES SHOW more blood because we don't have X-Ray vision, they don't necessarily mean there is more bleeding. Maybe that's why everyone breathes a sigh of relief when the hero of the movie is shot but the bullet went clean through and there's an exit wound. "Yer gonna be OK pardner, the bullet went clean through!" Even Hollywood gets something right once in a while...
HOWEVER, ahem, having come off sounding like I think everyone will die if the bullet doesn't exit, let me say that the bullet MUST penetrate enough to hit something important. I'd rather have a bullet that makes an exit wound rather than a bullet that's stopped by a wool sweater. Like everything else, it's a matter of balance. But everything else being equal, a bullet that penetrates adequately but delivers all it's kinetic energy into the target is usually better than a bullet that loses a lot of its potential in a wall or innocent bystander.
BUT the main point is, like real estate, what matters is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION! So, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. Then you can roll the BG over to see if there's an exit wound - if that's what floats your boat! Then again, if you're standing and the BG is down, chances are there is NO EXIT WOUND!!
jAK-47
It's NOT JUST about receiving kinetic energy (although that increases "shock" in a person and maybe knocks them down), it's about the bullet STAYING where it BELONGS - IN the target, not hitting someone or something else. Because the bullet stays IN the target, the energy is expended by bouncing around OR hitting a vital organ OR opening up the wound channel OR just ripping blood vessels to shreds.
Hunters like to talk about the huge exit hole in the game. BUT, the bullet doesn't suddenly expand because it hits a millimeter of skin at the back or side! The bullet has ALREADY expanded INSIDE the animal and THAT'S where the damage is. It DOESN'T bleed to death because of a nasty looking exit wound; it bleeds to death from the damage DONE INTERNALLY BEFORE the bullet exits. It is IRRELEVANT that the blood from an exit wound ends up on the ground instead of staying inside a cavity. Death occurs from the INTERNAL damage.
If the bullet hits the spinal cord, it's probably not going to go much further. If it's an expanding bullet, the wound channel will be much larger, thus increasing the shock/trauma/bleeding and chance of hitting a vital organ.
TWO HOLES SHOW more blood because we don't have X-Ray vision, they don't necessarily mean there is more bleeding. Maybe that's why everyone breathes a sigh of relief when the hero of the movie is shot but the bullet went clean through and there's an exit wound. "Yer gonna be OK pardner, the bullet went clean through!" Even Hollywood gets something right once in a while...
HOWEVER, ahem, having come off sounding like I think everyone will die if the bullet doesn't exit, let me say that the bullet MUST penetrate enough to hit something important. I'd rather have a bullet that makes an exit wound rather than a bullet that's stopped by a wool sweater. Like everything else, it's a matter of balance. But everything else being equal, a bullet that penetrates adequately but delivers all it's kinetic energy into the target is usually better than a bullet that loses a lot of its potential in a wall or innocent bystander.
BUT the main point is, like real estate, what matters is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION! So, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. Then you can roll the BG over to see if there's an exit wound - if that's what floats your boat! Then again, if you're standing and the BG is down, chances are there is NO EXIT WOUND!!
jAK-47
jAK-47:
I don't think anyone is talking about holes in skin regarding stopping power.
The point is, if a bullet exits a body and if it went through a vital organ, than it has left two holes in that organ! One in the front of the organ and one in the back of the organ.
If the bullet does not exit a body, it may no have even reached an organ!
As far as shock. Hand gun calibers do not have enough energy to produce enough shock to be a factor.
Tests have shown that at the very minimun 1000 lbs of energy is needed before energy transfer becomes a factor.
Don't believe what you see in the movies, "Knock down power" does not exist in a hand gun!
For a perfectly logical explantation regarding knock down power in handguns, go to the link in my previous post.
I don't think anyone is talking about holes in skin regarding stopping power.
The point is, if a bullet exits a body and if it went through a vital organ, than it has left two holes in that organ! One in the front of the organ and one in the back of the organ.
If the bullet does not exit a body, it may no have even reached an organ!
As far as shock. Hand gun calibers do not have enough energy to produce enough shock to be a factor.
Tests have shown that at the very minimun 1000 lbs of energy is needed before energy transfer becomes a factor.
Don't believe what you see in the movies, "Knock down power" does not exist in a hand gun!
For a perfectly logical explantation regarding knock down power in handguns, go to the link in my previous post.
jAK-47
Member
I don't think anyone is talking about holes in skin regarding stopping power.
kokapelli,
Uh, yeah they are. Marshall said:
One reason two holes are better than one is that the exit wound is many times larger than the entrance wound.
And that's exactly what I'm addressing. Ya gotta read the posts if you are gonna debate!
I can only answer posts exactly the way they are written. Now you're changing your statement to say that an exit wound refers to the exit hole out the back of a VITAL ORGAN and not the back of a person. I can only debate what you and others say, not what you may have meant to say or what you add or change in future posts.
An exit wound does not scientifically prove that an organ was struck. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is true. The more things that a bullet strikes, the less likely there will be an exit wound! GeezMCrow!
I went to the site you posted and read it. The evidence is based on shooting a 300 pound man in his huge, fat gut WHILE HE'S ALREADY ON THE GROUND AT A FUNKY ANGLE! I already addressed this! Remember - cyanide? Nicole? Neck? Kinesis?
I'm starting to feel like I'm doing this :banghead: so I think I'll move on to more productive debates and info-sharing.
Toodles - Time to EXIT(and I don't mean wound ,
jAK-47
kokapelli,
Uh, yeah they are. Marshall said:
One reason two holes are better than one is that the exit wound is many times larger than the entrance wound.
And that's exactly what I'm addressing. Ya gotta read the posts if you are gonna debate!
I can only answer posts exactly the way they are written. Now you're changing your statement to say that an exit wound refers to the exit hole out the back of a VITAL ORGAN and not the back of a person. I can only debate what you and others say, not what you may have meant to say or what you add or change in future posts.
An exit wound does not scientifically prove that an organ was struck. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is true. The more things that a bullet strikes, the less likely there will be an exit wound! GeezMCrow!
I went to the site you posted and read it. The evidence is based on shooting a 300 pound man in his huge, fat gut WHILE HE'S ALREADY ON THE GROUND AT A FUNKY ANGLE! I already addressed this! Remember - cyanide? Nicole? Neck? Kinesis?
I'm starting to feel like I'm doing this :banghead: so I think I'll move on to more productive debates and info-sharing.
Toodles - Time to EXIT(and I don't mean wound
,jAK-47
BluesBear
member
There is that flawed logic of being shot while wearing a bullet resistant vest again. Yes you do absorb all of the energy but the vest spreads it over a wider area. That's what makes the vest work.
I used this exercise in my safety classes.
I told my students to hold their right elbow close to their side with the forearm extended straight forward.
Moving only your forearm, open the palm and bring the hand around and slap yourself on the breastbone. Do this twice.
Now repeat the same action, with the same force/speed only this time form your hand into a fist.
Then I'd hand them a 230gr FMJ .45acp round.
Place that in your fingers bullet pointing at a right angle to your arm.
Swing your hand around with the same force.
Feel the difference? It's essentially the same energy.
I used this exercise in my safety classes.
I told my students to hold their right elbow close to their side with the forearm extended straight forward.
Moving only your forearm, open the palm and bring the hand around and slap yourself on the breastbone. Do this twice.
Now repeat the same action, with the same force/speed only this time form your hand into a fist.
Then I'd hand them a 230gr FMJ .45acp round.
Place that in your fingers bullet pointing at a right angle to your arm.
Swing your hand around with the same force.
Feel the difference? It's essentially the same energy.
When ever I get into this kind of discussions I always end up reverting to this_(Click Here)_ solution!
My only point about the bullet proof vest was that the impact of the bullet into the vest barely moved the man. Whether a target absorbs 500 ftlbs on the outside of a vest or internally, it's still absorbed 500 ftlbs and from what I've read and seen, 500 ftlbs -being delivered through a bullet- is not enough energy to knock a man over.
I'm curious about something regarding a bullet impacting/entering a body.
Aren't human bodies around 80% water/fluid? (been a long time since I took anatomy...)
I ask because water does not compress. When a bullet enters a human torso, for the most part it's entering a fluid filled cavity. Of course there's other things there like ribs, and the spine to make things interesting, but when the bullet's energy is transferred to the internal tissue, the energy is transmitted to the surrounding organs and most certainly would disrupt or damage those organs, and if near the heart, which is fluid filled for sure, wouldn't the energy transfer from the bullet disrupt it's, (the heart's), function enough to cause immediate problems for the person shot, as in their ability to continue fighting? Seems like it would to me.
That is the other side of the coin in addition to the destruction/displacement of tissue that is the other intended result of the bullet's performance.
I still subscribe to the school that wants maximum enengy transfer of the bullet into the intended target. Two holes bleed better than one most likely, however, I don't plan to be tracking the bad guy thru the bush to find him as would be the case during a hunting scenario.
Aren't human bodies around 80% water/fluid? (been a long time since I took anatomy...)
I ask because water does not compress. When a bullet enters a human torso, for the most part it's entering a fluid filled cavity. Of course there's other things there like ribs, and the spine to make things interesting, but when the bullet's energy is transferred to the internal tissue, the energy is transmitted to the surrounding organs and most certainly would disrupt or damage those organs, and if near the heart, which is fluid filled for sure, wouldn't the energy transfer from the bullet disrupt it's, (the heart's), function enough to cause immediate problems for the person shot, as in their ability to continue fighting? Seems like it would to me.
That is the other side of the coin in addition to the destruction/displacement of tissue that is the other intended result of the bullet's performance.
I still subscribe to the school that wants maximum enengy transfer of the bullet into the intended target. Two holes bleed better than one most likely, however, I don't plan to be tracking the bad guy thru the bush to find him as would be the case during a hunting scenario.
BluesBear
member
No but a solid hit in a vest will put a slight hitch in your giddy-up. And it can knock the breath out of you.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked