I read that it is fairly likely that rounds to the center of mass will hit bone. I also saw some non-scientific tests out there that put a bone simulate in front of ballistic material and virtually all handgun rounds didn’t expand at all. I don’t but too much faith in the tests but it got me thinking.
Is the FBI protocol missing an important factor here? Do we have any stats on how bone will effect bullet expansion, etc.? How would we accurately create an accurate, repeatable test and have such tests been conducted?
Considering that projectiles recovered from autopsies and surgeries match those fired into properly calibrated gelatin, I would believe that it is not a significant enough factor to require another variable.
Heavy clothing and intervening barriers, however, do need to be replicated.
Of course, this is simply what has been told to my by forensic ballistic experts and corroborated by the data and gel shots I have seen compared to autopsies and recovered projectiles.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
At least for unobstructed frontal and frontal/quarteringl shots, the thorax has relatively weak bone structures: the ribcage, sternum, etc. Bullets zip through this. When you reach the back of the body the damage to the main organs is done.
The tests you saw were flawed, and you can tell because bullets removed from very real bodies don’t look like the bullets recovered in that testing.
Every modern generation JHP I have seen recovered at autopsy or from surgery looks pretty much exactly like what you see from the heavy clothing/4 later denim testing.
I’ve seen a few actual rounds recovered from bodies and, as Jack (F2S) and Tpd stated, they look virtually indistinguishable from ones fired into calibrated ballistic gelatin.
This also mirrors my experience with bonded rifle rounds fired into animals like feral hog in Central FL.
Some great answers above. Lightweight handgun bullets have faired poorly in regards to penetrating long bones as noted in Dr. Lane’s FBI experiments; on the other hand, ribs do not tend to significantly alter bullet terminal performance as demonstrated by Dahlstrom and Powley’s RCMP testing. As discussed above, almost all the projectiles I have seen recovered at autopsy or surgery from unobstructed shots look like ones from a 4LD or heavy clothing test into 10% ordnance gel.
So DocGKR based on your experience,
What is more desirable based on heavy clothing criteria?Ex 40S&W Gold Dot 165 gr pen 18". exp .618 .
180 gr pen 13.25". exp .709.
Thanks
Without seeing the wound track, the 165gr is getting more pen because it is either expanding later in the track (longer neck length), and/or over-expanding later in the track and the pedals fold back so far that they actually reduce in overall diameter from their peak-expanded (optimal) diameter.
I have seen that the 180gr GDHP’s tend to penetrate a little deeper in real life and still maintain excellent expansion.
“The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation.” (Martin L Fackler, MD, Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 1994; 12-19)
The test of the wound profiles’ validity [as observed in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin] is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile’s course. Shots traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close approximation to the wound profiles.
The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency…a good reason was found and when the exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a valid tissue simulant.
The above should be added to the thread regarding the article printed aboutordnance gel not being valid.
180gr will have a larger hollow point cavity, which generally is more resistant to plugging and thus…expands more reliably. Bullets that I have seen that have not expanded in OIS have generally been lighter high velocity bullets which have smaller hollow point cavities. 9mm 115+P+ or .40S&W 155gr. That being said, I feel that the 165gr Gold Dot offers a little more versatility than the 180gr load. Particularly when handloaded, the 165gr is capable of better accuracy with a wide range of powders and pressures. It also isn’t as prone to accuracy problems with dirty barrel rifling as the 180gr GD. Gold Dots have soft jackets in comparison to Ranger Talons or HSTs.
I while back, I was attending an autopsy and looking at the initial X-rays, I said to the tech, “Oh, looks like a Hydra Shok” and it was. Even on the X-ray, it was a perfectly shaped 40 cal Hydra Shok. Once removed, it looked just like the ones I have shot into water.
Most of the rounds I saw were FMJ and smaller cal…