I’m “mathmatically challenged” (non-PC: simple minded :D) and technical papers are most often undecipherable to me, so I’ll ask what I hope to be a simple, particular question and hope for simple answers:
Have calibrated ballistic gel tests been done on .45 ACP LSWC bullets for SD use, and if so, how do they compare to RNFMJ and modern JHP (Gold Dot, Golden Saber, HST, e.g.)?
(Hardcast WFP tests, primarily for hunting (Buffalo Bore, etc.), don’t correlate, and I’m familiar with them).
I hope you get an answer, I would like to see this too.
The only time I’ve actually expected to use my 1911 on a human, it happened to be loaded with my IPSC load - 200 gr SWC hard-cast. No shots fired (by me), but it would have involved windshield glass. (Long story short, it was an attempted car jacking.)
“Have calibrated ballistic gel tests been done on .45 ACP LSWC bullets for SD use, and if so, how do they compare to RNFMJ and modern JHP (Gold Dot, Golden Saber, HST, e.g.)?”
Yes. Typical LSWC bullets don’t offer much of an advantage over FMJ in terms of wound profile. A full wadcutter, as used in revolvers, offers a better terminal effect than a LSWC or FMJ, but none of these are as effective as a modern robust expanding JHP.
The impression I’ve gotten from searching about this is that little such testing has been done and the question seems pretty much presumptively dismissed.
Do you know if these tests were of pure lead, some standardized alloy or what?
Seems it’d make a difference, given the accepted view of (pure lead) .45 LC & .455 Webley as “manstoppers”.
And can you tell us where we might find images of this sort of test?
The question is not presumptively dismissed, as quite a bit of testing was done with both .38 sp 158 gr LSWC and .45 ACP 185 gr and 200 gr LSWC back in the late 1980’s by Dr. Fackler at LAIR when these were popular bullet designs, readily available in many factory loadings. The LSWC bullets punch a simple hole in tissue much like standard FMJ’s; also like standard FMJ’s, LSWC’s also tend to penetrate deeper than the accepted 12-18" guideline since they do not expand or upset. LSWC’s might offer a slight benefit over a standard FMJ, but not enough to get excited about–both designs just tend to poke holes in tissue. If deep penetration is needed for hunting, a hard cast, big bore LSWC would not be a bad choice. However, for self-defense and duty use, both full wadcutters with sharp leading edges and robust expanding JHP’s crush more tissue; modern bullet designs also tend to handle intermediate barriers better than LSWC’s. Most of these LSWC tests were done before the advent of digital photography, so there is more factual numerical data available than pretty images.
“Most of these LSWC tests were done before the advent of digital photography, so there is more factual numerical data available than pretty images”
Thanks Doc - got it.
--------------------------
And thank you, wrinkles; I suspect McPherson’s work is one of the over-my-head technical reads.
I notice his formula gives a slight nod to round nose v. TC & SWC.
We must remember that there are many types of “round nose”, “flat point/TC”, “semi wadcutter”, etc., and the value will depend on the radius of round nose, if the ogive is compound like the normal 9 mm FMJ or blunt like a 9 mm mak, the relative size of the metplat compared to the full diameter, etc.
I suppose Round Nose as used here means some modification (such as Mil Ball) else would be the same as Sphere, since a true round nose would be of constant radius.
Perhaps any base form except another hemisphere makes the difference
But still, as Doc said and other sources I’ve seen agree, SWC is considered a bit better than FMJ Ball.
Odd.
Guess there’s more in the details than this simple formula addresses.
