testtest

Interesting theory on bullet performance

P

PieterCoetzee

Professional
I just saw an interesting video on ballistic gel and bullet performance.

FIRST ballistic get does NOT duplicate performance in humans or animals. It ONLY duplicates performance in ballistic get and shows a measurable response for bullets.
SECOND there are TWO types of ballistic get and then two densities. Synthetic gel (the clear stuff) and Natural gel made (usually from pig fat) Synthetic is only available in a 10% mix Natural the dark yellow stuff, can be either a 10 OR 20% mixture. Different organizations use DIFFERENT densities. Natural and Synthetic gels even of the same mixture DO NOT equate. So when you see/read test results be wary of the presenter.

ALSO the argument for Hydrostatic shock (temporary stretch cavity) from high velocity ammo is somewhat over rated. The human body has some stretch. Certain organs can tolerate it and some cant. So automatically atributating a temporary stretch to a wound has some issues.

Further bullets that tumble create a better wound "path" then ones that simply push through even those that expand

Submitted for your discussion
 
The problem as Chuck Haggard pointed out with the vast array of YouTube ballistic gel testers they base their “conclusions” on a one and done or a one bare one with denim and some. To get a good baseline a group of 5 is better.

Also some that somt do well in gel habe been really good stoppers in the street. The Fed 115 9mm 9BP (the standard 1,150 rod NOT the 9BPLE 1,300 FPS) so crappy in gel but did great in agency shootings as well as the 115 Silvertip (that gets the blame on the FBI but worked great on agencies that **** suspects straight on)

Anothwr one is the Speer 147 gr G2 Gold Dot the Border a patrol and LAPD dunp bad guys weekly woth it no matter of the tactical anatomy

As Bolke and Haggard both say shot placement and penetration matter more than expansion and caliber. One reason the Hornady Critical Duty works better the. A lot of YouTube gel testers thing as like mag capacity peolme get more emotionally attached to the more expansion the better but like the silver rop that did what it was designed to do in 1986 it came up short on a cross torso shot.
 
I'll play, even though my answer is somewhat in the vein of "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." I think that the natural gel test done under protocols the FBI came to adopt for consistency is a great "standard" that is repeatable and somewhat predictive of bullet performance on humans.

Where I stopped worrying was at the point that Doc Gary Roberts published his list of best performing ammo over in the Pistol-Forum Ammunition section. He's been extensively involved in the FBI and DOD testing of ammunition and his "recommendations" track closely with agency findings from places that have a fair number of shootings each year.

What I came up with as a personal standard is:

9MM: Any bonded bullet load of around 125gr that consistently comes in with a velocity at or near 1200fps.
My choice:Gold Dot 124gr +p+
.
.40: Any bonded bullet load between 135-180 grains that come in near 1100fps.
My choice: Gold Dot 155gr

.45: Any bonded bullet load between 180-240gr with a velocity of 900fps or more
My choice: HST 230gr +p+

.38spl snub: 148gr full wadcutter with Gold Dot short barrel 135gr in the speedloaders for easy reloads.

.357: When I carried this for defensive purposes it was with the 125gr Remington JHP and 158gr for camping.

.44: I have a couple of the old .44SPL Silver Tips for purely defensive use, though the new .44SPL HST are interesting.
If I were camping or hunting in bear or moose country, I'd take the Federal Barnes Expander, 44 Rem Magnum, 225 Grain.

556: Whatever the Feeb's are rolling with. I think that is the Federal 64gr soft-points but haven't paid a lot of attention. I bought a couple of the rounds from a govt. contract overrun a while back.

12GA: I have a couple of the old Federal Flight Control 8 pellet buckshot which I have personally noticed patterns better at distance than any other OOB. For slugs Brenneke Special Forces Maximum Barrier Penetration Magnum are fine.

The full wadcutter .38 may seem an odd choice. People that I trust have made mention of the full wadcutter taking down small game more decisively than hollow-point bullets out of a short barrel. Also if jacketed hollow points had never been invented or weren't around, I'd be very happy carrying a large caliber with semi-wadcutters that have a nice sharp shoulder.
 
Let me toss in a few more tidbits. We constantly hear argument about speed VS bullet weight and diameter (9mm vs 45acp and 556 vs 762). For handguns my thought is it doesnt matter and frankly neither does HP vs FMJ (but Im sure that will have a few folks twisting in their drawers). Id also suggest the penetration of FMJ in handguns is grossly over stated (but thats a whole new argument)

For rifles FMJ vs HP (expanding) matters but I think less than any of the experts would have us believe. What I do think matters is when you have a cartridge the supposedly excels because of speed (556) and you slow it down in a short barrel, as in 556 in anything less than a 12 in barrel.

Im a huge fan of any cartridge/bullet that tumbles in soft media (flesh). The tumbling creates a much larger and permanent wound UNLIKE the temporary stretch of high velocity cartridges AND by explanation the temporary stretch damage is greater or lesser depending which organs are effected; for example lings stretch more than say the liver or spleen

In my mind ultimately its a case of shot placement, which is why I keep saying Head shots solve problems that body shots create,
 
FNFAN said:
I'll play, even though my answer is somewhat in the vein of "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." I think that the natural gel test done under protocols the FBI came to adopt for consistency is a great "standard" that is repeatable and somewhat predictive of bullet performance on humans.

Where I stopped worrying was at the point that Doc Gary Roberts published his list of best performing ammo over in the Pistol-Forum Ammunition section. He's been extensively involved in the FBI and DOD testing of ammunition and his "recommendations" track closely with agency findings from places that have a fair number of shootings each year.

What I came up with as a personal standard is:

9MM: Any bonded bullet load of around 125gr that consistently comes in with a velocity at or near 1200fps.
My choice:Gold Dot 124gr +p+
.
.40: Any bonded bullet load between 135-180 grains that come in near 1100fps.
My choice: Gold Dot 155gr

.45: Any bonded bullet load between 180-240gr with a velocity of 900fps or more
My choice: HST 230gr +p+

.38spl snub: 148gr full wadcutter with Gold Dot short barrel 135gr in the speedloaders for easy reloads.

.357: When I carried this for defensive purposes it was with the 125gr Remington JHP and 158gr for camping.

.44: I have a couple of the old .44SPL Silver Tips for purely defensive use, though the new .44SPL HST are interesting.
If I were camping or hunting in bear or moose country, I'd take the Federal Barnes Expander, 44 Rem Magnum, 225 Grain.

556: Whatever the Feeb's are rolling with. I think that is the Federal 64gr soft-points but haven't paid a lot of attention. I bought a couple of the rounds from a govt. contract overrun a while back.

12GA: I have a couple of the old Federal Flight Control 8 pellet buckshot which I have personally noticed patterns better at distance than any other OOB. For slugs Brenneke Special Forces Maximum Barrier Penetration Magnum are fine.

The full wadcutter .38 may seem an odd choice. People that I trust have made mention of the full wadcutter taking down small game more decisively than hollow-point bullets out of a short barrel. Also if jacketed hollow points had never been invented or weren't around, I'd be very happy carrying a large caliber with semi-wadcutters that have a nice sharp shoulder.
Click to expand...


While nuke 38 special 138 wadcutter is an excellent choice and was popular in snubs when I started (tail end of wheelgun days) and I know 2 Officers that dumped felons the 135 Gold Dot will expand and penetrate out of a S&W 642. I have the pics of the bullets a good friend dirt napped a felon and one shot the torso one hit the thigh both expanded like on advertisements

The downside to the 135 gold dot is it does have blast compared to the wadcutter but both are solid choices
 
ECS686 said:
While nuke 38 special 138 wadcutter is an excellent choice and was popular in snubs when I started (tail end of wheelgun days) and I know 2 Officers that dumped felons the 135 Gold Dot will expand and penetrate out of a S&W 642. I have the pics of the bullets a good friend dirt napped a felon and one shot the torso one hit the thigh both expanded like on advertisements

The downside to the 135 gold dot is it does have blast compared to the wadcutter but both are solid choices
Click to expand...
That's good to hear. That's what's in it right now (it's also a 642 no-lock) I have more wadcutters enroute but shot the old stuff up.
 
I found a 148 grain wadcutter from a snub 38 revolver on the floor of a shooting I investigated. The bullet had gone through an ankle. The bullet was very slightly deformed.
 
BruceMc said:
I found a 148 grain wadcutter from a snub 38 revolver on the floor of a shooting I investigated. The bullet had gone through an ankle. The bullet was very slightly deformed.
Click to expand...

The endearing quality of a 38 wadcutter (any) is the flat that cuts full 38 diameter homes in paper for that next scoring ring also cuts 38 cal homes in a sternum and gets 14-16” to the goods and doesn’t need speed or blast to donut. And is generally POA/POI on J frames.

Even NYPD had successful stops with 38 SWC solid in the 79’s through the 90’s and As Pat Rogers RIP said they worked fine if you could shoot.
 
PieterCoetzee said:
Let me toss in a few more tidbits. We constantly hear argument about speed VS bullet weight and diameter (9mm vs 45acp and 556 vs 762). For handguns my thought is it doesnt matter and frankly neither does HP vs FMJ (but Im sure that will have a few folks twisting in their drawers). Id also suggest the penetration of FMJ in handguns is grossly over stated (but thats a whole new argument)

For rifles FMJ vs HP (expanding) matters but I think less than any of the experts would have us believe. What I do think matters is when you have a cartridge the supposedly excels because of speed (556) and you slow it down in a short barrel, as in 556 in anything less than a 12 in barrel.

Im a huge fan of any cartridge/bullet that tumbles in soft media (flesh). The tumbling creates a much larger and permanent wound UNLIKE the temporary stretch of high velocity cartridges AND by explanation the temporary stretch damage is greater or lesser depending which organs are effected; for example lings stretch more than say the liver or spleen

In my mind ultimately its a case of shot placement, which is why I keep saying Head shots solve problems that body shots create,
Click to expand...
I think I agree especially velocity is key for maximum performance and a tumbling bullet does inflict major tissue damage. I am going to try a tumbling type bullet in my 30.30 this year at the deer lease/friends ranch. Shot placement is key especially when multiple rounds are on target but a single to the forehead generally works too.
 
All the talk about the 38 wadcutters reminded me we used to load them backwards (exposing the hollow base). They still cut a nice hole in paper BUT the expansion was crazy for that time...and you could fill the cavity with high silver content solder for Vampires....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top