10mm or 40 S&W ?

[operator81]

Perhaps he should stick to cooking chili and weight lifting and leave ballistic testing and hypothesizing to the experts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

[tpd223]

That the leading edge/meplat area of a handgun bullet does all of the work has been proven for years, pretty much when people started trying to see if SWCs actually did anything with the supposed "cutting shoulder".
Facts turned out to be that the shoulder doesn't even touch the tissue due to being in the wake of the temp cavity.
Same-same with thingys that dangle behind the bullet and get dragged along in the wake.

[wrinkles]

Those petals looks strangely over extended as if they met no resistance when going through whatever medium was used to expand HP.
What were they shot at?

[Wolf Spyder]

I think your sarcasm will not be well received.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I am just trying to paint a picture using an analogy thats all.

Dr Roberts has YEARS of experience in this field. He knows what works. How many shot up bodies have YOU dissected/performed surgery on to determine what works? Or are you speculating? How deep into 10% gel does your 1.25" diameter bullet penetrate? How does it perform after going through auto glass?

I don't get to dissect bodies. As an EMT my job is to keep them alive long enough to get them the help they need at a level 1 trauma center.

My whole goal is to get the Underwood / Gold Dot loads tested so that the uneducated masses like myself will have solid data and pretty pictures to dwell on. Instead of listening to some one on the internet telling us it will preform less than a typical factory 40 S&W load. I am also holding out for high speed footage.

When someone routinely chooses a letter size larger than normal, perhaps it is a sign of his own ego?

I do have a rather large ego, what is wrong with that? Do you charge into a burning building with only a half an hour of air strapped to your back?

I really do it so it is easier to read and easier to find my posts.

lol! It's because his magic handloaded 10mm rounds expand larger than all others when shot into water...

How did you guess?

I mean, we have a firefighter who has seen MRI imagers in use by other medical professionals, shoots 10mm better than 9mm, thinks shooting competitions are "just games", and believes that handguns create temporary cavities... he MUST know more than someone who has spent years researching the subject using scientific methods right?

Good Grief, my point with the 3D imager is that we don't have that tech for the guys who are studying bullet development. I think it would be great if we did. Hence my comment about being in the dark ages.

Please, try and keep up. (Ok, that was sarcasm)

[RiflemanBobcat]

Well, if your trying to tell me that everything outside of the green circle doesn't count, then I think your an idiot. Well, idiot might be a harsh word. I'm not sure what a good word to use might be, but at the very least I disagree with you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...rontalArea.jpg

Seriously? You're going to sit here and repeatedly tell us that DocGKR, who has quite literally spent years studying this stuff firsthand, including what part of the expanded bullet is doing the most "work" on the impact site, is completely wrong?
That his years of studying the subject and testing the theories in discussion here, are all meaningless?
Is that really where you're going? One of the world's leading terminal ballistics authorities is wrong, and your preferred 10mm overexpansion loads, fired into a non-standard mix of ballistic gel and/or water, are actually The Very Best choice out there, a fact of which we were all heretofore ignorant?

Sure...

[Wolf Spyder]

Perhaps he should stick to cooking chili and weight lifting and leave ballistic testing and hypothesizing to the experts.

I'm better at photography than cooking... But hey, way to stereotype.

That the leading edge/meplat area of a handgun bullet does all of the work has been proven for years, pretty much when people started trying to see if SWCs actually did anything with the supposed "cutting shoulder".
Facts turned out to be that the shoulder doesn't even touch the tissue due to being in the wake of the temp cavity.
Same-same with thingys that dangle behind the bullet and get dragged along in the wake.

Come-on now, which is it? Is there a temporary crush cavity or not? I wish you guys would get your stories straight.

Those petals looks strangely over extended as if they met no resistance when going through whatever medium was used to expand HP.
What were they shot at?

I don't have access to 10% gel, so I use water. It is a poor substitute, but you use what you have... Right?

And again with the temp cavity innuendo? (Ok that was sarcasm as well)

[RiflemanBobcat]

To the best of my knowledge from what's been posted thus far (and what I've read before):

The temporary cavity matters for what parts of the bullet are doing the work, he said. The temporary cavity prevents trailing petals from doing any cutting; they're just dangling back in empty space.
That's why bullets that you think don't expand as aggressively are actually leaving larger permanent cavities.
The temporary cavity is just that--temporary! It doesn't cause injury by itself, except (IIRC) under some very specific circumstances. The major injury cause is the permanent crush cavity, while the temporary cavity is causing your beloved "petals," or "rotors" or whatever descriptor you like, to not have much if any effect upon the permanent cavity.

That clear it up some?
(and to those more knowledgeable than me, did I just make it worse, or am I near the right track here?)

[Wolf Spyder]

Seriously? You're going to sit here and repeatedly tell us that DocGKR, who has quite literally spent years studying this stuff firsthand, including what part of the expanded bullet is doing the most "work" on the impact site, is completely wrong?
That his years of studying the subject and testing the theories in discussion here, are all meaningless?
Is that really where you're going? One of the world's leading terminal ballistics authorities is wrong, and your preferred 10mm overexpansion loads, fired into a non-standard mix of ballistic gel and/or water, are actually The Very Best choice out there, a fact of which we were all heretofore ignorant?

Sure...

Look, I didn't say he was completely wrong... I was saying that I don't understand his logic and I was offering my opinion that they might be missing something seeing as we are still in the dark ages of studying ballistics. In the post I'm sure you are reffering to, I was actually calling you an idiot. That was of course before I thought it might be a bit too extreme and took it back.

However, sinse your like 20 posts behind, I'll give you a chance to catch up.

[RiflemanBobcat]

Look, I didn't say he was completely wrong... I was saying that I don't understand his logic and I was offering my opinion that they might be missing something seeing as we are still in the dark ages of studying ballistics. In the post I'm sure you are reffering to, I was actually calling you an idiot. That was of course before I thought it might be a bit too extreme and took it back.

However, sinse your like 20 posts behind, I'll give you a chance to catch up.

I caught up. I thought it was still a cogent point. I saw that others raised the "leading edge does the work" bit again, and you ignored it again in favor of "well, I think" lines, and repeating things to the effect of "well, I'm not saying the experts are wrong, but..."

In short, what I said was something that had been said in a different form before, and has been said since, and you keep not getting it.

Since you're the one having trouble grasping how this works, and why the experts (notably DocGKR) keep saying you're wrong based on years of actual, scientific research...who would be the idiot then? The guy who tries to outline a repeated but missed point that has actual evidence backing it, or the other guy who responds with "well, I think you're dumb because of my photo," hmm?

[Wolf Spyder]

To the best of my knowledge from what's been posted thus far (and what I've read before):

The temporary cavity matters for what parts of the bullet are doing the work, he said. The temporary cavity prevents trailing petals from doing any cutting; they're just dangling back in empty space.
That's why bullets that you think don't expand as aggressively are actually leaving larger permanent cavities.
The temporary cavity is just that--temporary! It doesn't cause injury by itself, except (IIRC) under some very specific circumstances. The major injury cause is the permanent crush cavity, while the temporary cavity is causing your beloved "petals," or "rotors" or whatever descriptor you like, to not have much if any effect upon the permanent cavity.

See there, nice of you to catch up so fast. (sarcasm)

Any way, I understand the argument that is being stated. I am simply saying,

"Hey, what if your missing something? Have you tested a Gold Dot traveling at 1430 fps / 750 ft lbs to actually see what happens or are you just guessing?"

Is that plain enough for you, RiflemanBobcat?

By the way... when did it become a sin to question the status quo?