10mm or 40 S&W ?

[vicious_cb]

I would suspect if you shot those bullets at those velocities through a denser media like ballistics gel those petals would have sheared off or folded back against the shank of the bullet.

[Wolf Spyder]

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?

Ya, and for hundreds of years everybody knew the word was flat.

New technology changes preconceived ideas every stinking day. As far as I know we are still shooting blocks of gel and then putting a bright light on one side and staring at the finished product from the other... all in the hopes of making a guess.

Am I wrong? Are we using some sort of 3D Imaging Technology? Can we "Air Gage" the cavity created by the bullet? Have we been using High Speed Cameras to show us at 200 frames a second what really happens to a bullet as it travels through the gel?

You don't have a clue. Why? Because your in the same boat I am, you don't know crap about this stuff, you have read the work of others and are accepting it at face value. I, on the other hand, am asking a few questions. So don't be so testy.

[Wolf Spyder]

I would suspect if you shot those bullets at those velocities through a denser media like ballistics gel those petals would have sheared off or folded back against the shank of the bullet.

And like everybody else, your just guessing. Lets get these loads tested in gel, sound good?

Oh Ya, Don't forget to take lots of pictures !!

[vicious_cb]

And like everybody else, your just guessing. Lets get these loads tested in gel, sound good?

Oh Ya, Don't forget to take lots of pictures !!

Wow. No need to a ****ing asshole about it. There's a reason I began my sentence with "I suspect". Not to mention I do my own backyard testing with wetpack and have posted the results right here if you bothered to look. At this point you're not even bothering to have a reasonable discussion, now you are just trolling.

[TiroFijo]

Wow, now we have a tought guy, big ego, daring firefighter that also likes bikes to teach all of us about ballistics, the world is not flat anymore! Wolf Spyder is the Galileo of terminal ballistics!

Why don't you READ post #78, and at least TRY to understand your real situation. Act accordingly later

A big ego may be useful when going into a fire, but also gets in the way of learning things. Humility, respecting professionals in the field, and civility works better.

Nobody denies the power and terminal effects of the 10 mm, but your assesment is not correct, and as stated before for a combat caliber there are other issues involved.

[MegademiC]

Ya, and for hundreds of years everybody knew the word was flat.

New technology changes preconceived ideas every stinking day. As far as I know we are still shooting blocks of gel and then putting a bright light on one side and staring at the finished product from the other... all in the hopes of making a guess.

Am I wrong? Are we using some sort of 3D Imaging Technology? Can we "Air Gage" the cavity created by the bullet? Have we been using High Speed Cameras to show us at 200 frames a second what really happens to a bullet as it travels through the gel?

You don't have a clue. Why? Because your in the same boat I am, you don't know crap about this stuff, you have read the work of others and are accepting it at face value. I, on the other hand, am asking a few questions. So don't be so testy.

No, you have no clue what you are talking about. All your points have been hashed out previously. We are not going to explain the whole terminal ballistics subforum to you. Its there, read it. All of your questions can be answered by reading. You dont need spoon-fed info, you are a grown-ass man. Also the work of others is HEAVILY supported by clear, scientific evidence. Your speculation has been shown to be incorrect. Knowledge is power.

The 25 tacked threads would be a good start.

[DocGKR]

Given all the wound ballistic data that has been published over the past two decades, I am surprised regarding the continued amount of misinformation being perpetuated about this subject, especially in light of the voluminous results available from CONUS OIS incidents, as well as OCONUS combat results. Anyone who has actually taken the time to read the research (not just peruse the internet) will clearly realize that far from being the "dark ages" we are now in the "Renaissance" of wound ballistics.

A variety of equally important methodologies are used for terminal performance testing, including actual shooting incident reconstruction, forensic evidence analysis, and post-mortem data and/or surgical findings; properly conducted ethical animal test results; and laboratory testing—this includes the use of tissue simulants proven to have correlation with living tissue. Both diagnostic imaging (radiograph, CT, MRI) and high speed video are frequently used tools. Some individuals seem to be under the mistaken impression that one of these areas is more important than others--this is not the case, as each category provides important information to researchers.

The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents.

The last decade of OCONUS military operations have provided a tremendous amount of combat derived terminal performance information. The U.S. government gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to form the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in combat the past few years. The test protocol that was found to be correct, valid, and became the agreed upon JSWB-IPT “standard” evolved from the one first developed by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the 1980’s, promoted by the IWBA in the 1990’s, and used by most reputable wound ballistic researchers.

The JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data. The whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Physiological damage potential is the only metric that has been shown to have any correlation with field results in actual shooting incidents, based on law enforcement autopsy findings, as well as historical and ongoing combat trauma results. In other words a damage-based metric has relevance to and accurately reflects the real world, while other measures of "lethality" and "incapacitation" are elaborate fantasy games of mathematical calculations and engineering statistics that fail to truly reflect the fact that in the gritty realm of face-to-face combat, incapacitating the enemy is about rapidly inflicting sufficient physiological damage to the enemy’s critical anatomic structures in order to stop that opponent from continuing to be a lethal threat. The FBI BRF, NSWC Crane, USMC, and USSOCOM are all using physiological damage based metrics.

Folks who choose to ignore these documented and verified facts may not like this, but based on all of this carefully collected, independently validated, real-world derived data the wounding characteristics an optimal combat/LE/personal defense rifle projectile are well known.

As the old adage states, it is hard to have a rational argument with folks who simply don't know what they don't know...

[Meth0d]

And that should close this thread.

Given all the wound ballistic data that has been published over the past two decades, I am surprised regarding the continued amount of misinformation being perpetuated about this subject, especially in light of the voluminous results available from CONUS OIS incidents, as well as OCONUS combat results. Anyone who has actually taken the time to read the research (not just peruse the internet) will clearly realize that far from being the "dark ages" we are now in the "Renaissance" of wound ballistics.

A variety of equally important methodologies are used for terminal performance testing, including actual shooting incident reconstruction, forensic evidence analysis, and post-mortem data and/or surgical findings; properly conducted ethical animal test results; and laboratory testing—this includes the use of tissue simulants proven to have correlation with living tissue. Both diagnostic imaging (radiograph, CT, MRI) and high speed video are frequently used tools. Some individuals seem to be under the mistaken impression that one of these areas is more important than others--this is not the case, as each category provides important information to researchers.

The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents.

The last decade of OCONUS military operations have provided a tremendous amount of combat derived terminal performance information. The U.S. government gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to form the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in combat the past few years. The test protocol that was found to be correct, valid, and became the agreed upon JSWB-IPT “standard” evolved from the one first developed by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the 1980’s, promoted by the IWBA in the 1990’s, and used by most reputable wound ballistic researchers.

The JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data. The whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Physiological damage potential is the only metric that has been shown to have any correlation with field results in actual shooting incidents, based on law enforcement autopsy findings, as well as historical and ongoing combat trauma results. In other words a damage-based metric has relevance to and accurately reflects the real world, while other measures of "lethality" and "incapacitation" are elaborate fantasy games of mathematical calculations and engineering statistics that fail to truly reflect the fact that in the gritty realm of face-to-face combat, incapacitating the enemy is about rapidly inflicting sufficient physiological damage to the enemy’s critical anatomic structures in order to stop that opponent from continuing to be a lethal threat. The FBI BRF, NSWC Crane, USMC, and USSOCOM are all using physiological damage based metrics.

Folks who choose to ignore these documented and verified facts may not like this, but based on all of this carefully collected, independently validated, real-world derived data the wounding characteristics an optimal combat/LE/personal defense rifle projectile are well known.

As the old adage states, it is hard to have a rational argument with folks who simply don't know what they don't know...

[Alaskapopo]

All I know from having to shoot critters in the line of duty is it matters a lot more where you hit them than what you hit them with. I bet its the same for human attackers as well.
Pat

[RyanB]

All I know from having to shoot critters in the line of duty is it matters a lot more where you hit them than what you hit them with. I bet its the same for human attackers as well.
Pat

I've shot 30 or so big game animals with everything from 90 gr 243 to 300gr 375s. Used 9mm ball in a pinch once.

Shots to the brain and spine were instantly effective. Shots to the heart and lungs or major blood vessels resulted in death within minutes.

Everything else, the botched shots, were a cluster****. Some were never recovered. Even with rifles capable of putting a half inch permanent cavity through the length of the animal.

There's a lesson there.