Depth of Penetration

The 185grain jhps 45acp +p+ I shoot out of my 625 close to 1300 fps go clean through dead pigs and expand to over .9 inches. 18+in penetration easy. I have some 255 grain hard cast that will do even better.
 
The best way to take the fight out of someone is to put a big hole through and through someone. 12in just is not going to cut it. I want a good 20 inches so I can go through and through shoulder to shoulder.
 
jason iowa said:
The best way to take the fight out of someone is to put a big hole through and through someone.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory. Any studies, tests, or practical experience to back up your assumptions?

I would think it should be pretty obvious that penetration is a trade-off for less expansion. Do you envision semi-wadcutter or ball ammo as the ultimate way to "take the fight out of someone"? Do you see yourself as one of the few capable of realizing that those millions of dollars spent on improving hollowpoint ammo in the last 50 years were totally wasted?
 
Penetration in handguns

Hard cast bullets are your best bet. The is a group that gathers at "The Linebaugh Seminar" that participate in bullet penetration tests in wet newspaper. There are some loads that feature 3-4 FEET of penetration. We are talking max loads, heavy bullets, and heavy framed revolvers. The event is some kind of pilgrimage to hand gunners.
 
Hard cast bullets sound like a good way of making a clean, minimally damaging through-and-through wound. Not sure what the point of that would be, aside from killing lots of newspaper.
 
Modern expanding bullets have the benefit of making a hole larger than the caliber with their controlled expansion. However nothing works the same under all conditions. Various clothing, barriers, body mass, bullet velocity, etc, etc; all effect performance. It is interesting that many bullet manufacturers still recommend using or at least having ready some non-expanding, deep penetrating solid bullets for hunting dangerous game that can kill them. These are animals that may have to be killed right now quick to save the hunter's own butt. They must have faith in the deep penetrating, non-expanding bullet for anchoring dangerous game. I can still understand why Elmer Keith liked the deep penetrating "Keith Type" SWC. The good thing is there are so many choices available to us now that we can all find what we like.
 
Wonder? What does the original poster want to do with a handgun?
Is it for ccw, home defense, gunfight as in security work of some kind?
( did I miss that somehow?)
There are no magic bullets, calibers, handguns.
From the world view of self defense in ones home 18" penetration is probably a bit much.
Even for ccw defense it's probably too much.
Realistically speaking a self defense shot is more than likely going to be a frontal shot. 18" penetration and maximum tissue damage is asking a lot from a handgun bullet in most all home defense and ccw defense applications.
I'm retired now and not as risk on a daily basis as Ionce was.
For personal & home defense it's hard to beat most good premium controled expansion bullets in most popular cailbers.
I've seen way too many people shot d.r.t. with weapons in calibers none of us would choose for self defense. This includes accident, homocides and suicides.
I've assisted in at least 7 autopsies and photographed more.
My .45s are loaded with Federal premium 230 grain hollow points.
My .40's with Federal premium 165 grain hollow points.
My AR is loaded with mil spec hardball.
My 12 bores with either 00 or #4 buck, std. loads.
I live alone in the country with no close neighbors which means NO CLOSE HELP either. Over penetration isn't an issue at home. I could care less if I blow out some windows or drywall.
If I lived in a town or apt. I'd be very concerned with over penetration.
I have & still do both plastic gallon water jugs & b-gel tests of expanding bullets in favored calibers because I like doing it.
I have found only 2 claimed expanding bullets that did not expand at all in anything. Niether are generally available. ( Prvi .40 180 h.p. & PMC .41 mag 210 h.p.)
ALL the premium ammo in 9mm, 4.0, .45, .357 & .38 spl expanded very nicely and penetrated from 10 tp 14 inches. I'm quite happy with that performance.
I've taken 2 deer with a .45 auto, one with a .38 spl. all dropped dead real quick.
On the other hand I shot a large groundhog in my garden with a .45 Colt (Vaquero) loaded kinda nasty with 265 grain LBT hard cast bullets at over 1100 f.p.s.
It ran off with a solid chest shot. It stopped under a log so I shot it again to which it promptly ran off to get hit a 3rd time & simply bled out.
I opened the critter up and found very, very, little comparitive tissue damage at all.
Go figure.
I would not trade off expansion for penetration.
And NO, I've never shot a human for which I'm greatful.:D
 
Hurryin' Hoossier said:
If you're really hung up on the idea of "penetration", get a Tokarev (suggestably a Zastava M57) or a Česká Zbrojovka vz.52 pistol, both of which are chambered for the 7.62x25 Tokarev round and a box of Sellier & Bellot or Prvi Partizan FMJ. Those things will go through the first guy plus the two standing behind him.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem with too much penetration. Ideally -- assuming we hit the bad guy -- we want the round to stop in the bad guy, and expend 100 percent of its energy in the bad guy. 16 inches or more of penetration will go through many (most?) people, wasting energy and potentially wounding people who are behind the intended target.

In fact, that's one of the classic reasons for using hollow-point ammunition for self-defense as opposed to ball ammo. FMJ ammo is more likely to shoot through a human than JHP.
 
Hard cast bullets sound like a good way of making a clean, minimally damaging through-and-through wound. Not sure what the point of that would be, aside from killing lots of newspaper.
Click to expand...

This has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.
 
This has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is to the point and addresses what has been discussed in this thread. To wit: bullets that don't expand and pass through, don't do that much damage. That's why they keep going so deep - they aren't creating much resistance.


May I suggest that if you want to call someone ignorant you post a little bit more than the insult? It keeps you from sounding like your feelings are hurt but you don't have anything constructive to actually offer.
 
.. it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.
Click to expand...

This is the key thing you have to keep in mind about all the various studies done by/for the FBI, or other law enforcement groups.

One must bear in mind that while what the LEO community chooses (assuming they get a choice, and not one forced on them by political masters) will be something that works, their criteria for choosing what is best, or even suitable, is not necessarily the same as what will work for you or I. Meaning, that there are a lot of calibers and loads that will do the job, that are excluded from LEO use by the criteria they choose.

Penetration is needed, BUT overpenetration is a big bug-a-boo to police agencies. Why? well, because of the risk to innocent bystanders! Right? Ok, fine, I can understand that easily enough. Particularly when you add in the fact that police agencies shoot a lot of people every year. And while I don't have statistics, I can see where officer involved shootings could run as high as hundreds of times a year, in our largest police agencies.

Those kinds of numbers, and the fact that the bulk of the shootings will be in cities, towns, or "urban" areas, where other people are very likely to be in close proximity makes the choice to be concerned about overpenetration a rational one. FOR THE POLICE.

You, I, or the guy in the next county may be in a much different situation. I know I am. For me, overpenetraion is of NO concern at all. Personally, I much prefer a bullet that will completely penetrate to one that may have insufficient penetration.

Using a police, or a military standard as the best possible, or the best practical choice works fine, if you are in their situation. If you are in a different situation, something else may also give entirely satisfactory performance.

To wit: bullets that don't expand and pass through, don't do that much damage.
Click to expand...

I feel this statement is misleading. "that much damage" is what? exactly? Lots and lots of men and beasts have been stopped DRT with non-expanding bullets. "Solids" are the bullet of choice for large beasts that have a danger potential. They certainly do work.

Saying that they don't do "that much damage" gives (me, at any rate) the impression that they don't do any serious or significant damage, and that is clearly not the case.

And what does one say when their picked JHP round DOES completely penetrate, even when its paper/gelatin performance indicates it shouldn't? Yes, it DOES happen. Probably more often than people realize.

"this bullet should only be used for hunting..." Ok, I've heard that too,...often
And I disagree with the implied meaning, that the hunting load isn't useful for defense. its a matter of semantics, I suppose, but I think that any load used for hunting will work the same way if used on people.

It may not be the most suitable load for self defense, but that is a much different thing than not being useful.
 
A 45 wad cutter is going to take a half inch core out of someone. I would hardly call that minimal damage. Its going to cause much more damage than a 45 hollow point going half way through someone. Hard cast will also plow right through bone where as a hollow point will likely deflect off and out of the body especially light ones.

The hollow points I use are likely going to go right through people because I use both fairly heavy and fairly fast rounds. One of the many advantages of carrying a 45 you can have the best of both worlds.

I was not insulted by his comment and my comment on his ignorant statement is not an insult either. His comment was ignorant. There are plenty of things that I'm ignorant of. I could not fix my cars motor if my life depended on it.
 
Sorry I have to go out, post me if you can't handle the maths. With these formula you can calculate expected penetrations of different materials.

10%_GELL PENETRATE = MOM / DIA^2 * 6.625 / EF^2
WETPACK PEN = 10%_GELL * 0.6 (NO TUMBLE, NO EXPANSION)
WEIGEL WOOD PEN = VEL ^ 1.5 * WGT / (7000 * 32.174) / DIA ^ 2 * .044643
HATCHER WOOD PEN = ENERGY / (3.5 * AREA * 120), 120 = RND NOSE BULLET FACTOR
KRUPP IRON = VEL ^ 1.5 * WGT ^ .75 / (7000 * GRAVITY) / DIA ^ 1.25 / 254 , [INCHES]
BONE = 70.35 * CON * ((WGT / 7000) / DIA) * ((VEL - 197) / 328.08) ^ 2
( CON = .3 FOR RND NOSE, .15 FOR WADCUTTER )

MOM = VEL * WGT / (7000 * 32.174)

I will be back in 3-4 hours I will help with the maths if you need it.
Hatcher formula uses pine wood Weigel uses fir.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP,

What you said about LE bullet selection cuts both ways. LE demands rounds that not only expand, but can go through windshields and other barriers, then expand. For CCW purposes, that's all overkill, and even less penetration might be preferred - like frangible ammunition. Is anyone going to argue that Magsafe isn't very lethal? But "overpenetration sensitive" LEs do not use them.

You also seem to be confusing lethality with the reason solids are used for dangerous game. We use solids because it is the ONLY round that will get to the vitals of many thick bodied, heavy boned animals. If you wanted a round that would penetrate that much bone and meat, THEN expand, you'd have a real design challenge, and an incredible amount of muzzle energy.

Energy is work. When we say that a round produces 400 foot pounds of muzzle energy, that's potential work. The work we want to accomplish is destroying tissue. If a JHP enters the torso and stops 10 inches later, we know it has expended all 400 ft/lbs of work destroying things in that torso.

If a solid bullet starts with 400 ft/lbs and exits the torso with enough energy to penetrate another 20 inches, we KNOW the round expended less than half of that 400 ft/lbs of work on the target. Which is more lethal, a wound caused by 200 ft/lbs of energy, or 400 ft/lbs?

This notion is generally supported by the fact that more powerful FMJ rounds are notably less lethal than many lower power JHPs. The JHPs do more damage to the target, and waste less energy on unneeded penetration.

Luckily, very little of this is opinion. Terminal ballistic testing on animals structured similarly to humans, like goats, has been going on for decades. The FBI tests aren't there to determine whether JHPs work, just which ones work best. Solids aren't even close.
 
Its going to cause much more damage than a 45 hollow point going half way through someone.
Click to expand...
Not unless the hollowpoint round doesn't expand much.

If the hollowpoint expands to a diameter of 0.639" then the damage (measured in terms of wound volume) would be about equal. The wound track would be half as long but the volume of the wound track would be about the same since the frontal area of the bullet is twice as large in its expanded state.

If it expands to a diameter greater than 0.639" then the damage from the hollowpoint (again measured as wound volume) would be greater than from the non-expanding round.

0.639" is actually sort of on the small side for an expanded .45ACP round. In the test of the Hornady ammunition I posted in my earlier response, four out of the six .45ACP test results had an average expanded size greater than 0.639". Only the rounds from the glass and steel intermediate barrier tests failed to expand to 0.639" or greater.
And what does one say when their picked JHP round DOES completely penetrate, even when its paper/gelatin performance indicates it shouldn't? Yes, it DOES happen. Probably more often than people realize.
Click to expand...
It can happen, but the result is not the same in terms of the downrange danger.

Both .45ACP FMJ and 9mm FMJ penetrate about the same distance in ballistic gelatin--about 2 feet. Let's assume, purely for the sake of argument that it takes 16" to create a through-and-through wound through a human.

That means that either a .45ACP or a 9mm non-expanding round can exit a threat after penetrating through-and-through with the potential to penetrate another 8" of tissue.

Compare that to the test results I posted earlier for the Hornady Critical Duty expanding ammunition. Only 3 of the test results (across all calibers, all tests) show penetration exceeding 16" (16.5", 17.75" and 17.75") which would give us through-and-through penetration on the basis of our assumption.

HOWEVER, if you look at the figures, the rounds would exit with the potential to penetrate, at most, another 1.75" of tissue.

So even when you do get an exit wound with an expanding round, the potential for downrange penetration tends to be much reduced compared to a non-expanding round in the same caliber. In this particular example, the difference between another 1/2" to 1 3/4" of penetration potential vs another 8" of penetration potential is significant in terms of the danger to innocent persons downrange of the threat.
 
Energy is work. When we say that a round produces 400 foot pounds of muzzle energy, that's potential work. The work we want to accomplish is destroying tissue. If a JHP enters the torso and stops 10 inches later, we know it has expended all 400 ft/lbs of work destroying things in that torso.
Click to expand...

400 ft/lbs has been expended - not all of it destroying tissue. Energy is expended when the bullet deforms. Energy is dissipated in producing a temporary cavity - which may or may not produce additional tissue damage, depending on the tissues involved.

If a solid bullet starts with 400 ft/lbs and exits the torso with enough energy to penetrate another 20 inches, we KNOW the round expended less than half of that 400 ft/lbs of work on the target. Which is more lethal, a wound caused by 200 ft/lbs of energy, or 400 ft/lbs?
Click to expand...

Which is more lethal? The bullet that penetrates a vital structure. Which is able to more quickly produce incapacitation? The one that penetrates a vital structure and causes more damage.

How much energy is "transferred" to the target is irrelevant. The bullet's path through the body and what structures it encounters and damages is far more important than energy.
 
You also seem to be confusing lethality with the reason solids are used for dangerous game.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I am confusing anything, but I might not be clear in my explanation, so I'll try a slightly different angle.

ANY bullet that gets where it needs to go is lethal. Expanding or not.

I think one of the things not be considered in the discussion is bullet placement.

This notion is generally supported by the fact that more powerful FMJ rounds are notably less lethal than many lower power JHPs.
Click to expand...

Really? Think about this for a moment. Less Lethal? I don't see that.
I think you are falling into a statistical trap.

As far as I know, there are no studies about shootings that take into account (other than in the most general terms) where the victim was shot, how the bullet performed on its way through the body or what damage it did.

These things are able to be known, in some individual cases, but when you are dealing with large numbers of shootings, these factors are simply not known (and likely cannot be known) and are not able to be used as a factor.

As a result of this, we get statistics that say things like (for example)
"people shot with .30 cal FMJ (picking a "more powerful FMJ); 58% died"
"people shot with 9mm JHP (a "lower power JHP); 73% died.
"conclusion: higher power FMJ is less lethal"
(numbers used for illustration only)

Really?
I don't think that's a valid conclusion, particularly when based on those kinds of figures alone.

Now, if that study said something like "people shot through the heart" XX% died, that would have more ...accuracy. And therefore would be a much sounder basis for drawing conclusions.

I'm talking lethality here, not stopping power. While seriously intertwined, they are not the exact same thing. Rounds that miss major organs and blood vessels are counted in the data as well. What medical assistance was obtained, and how soon after the wounds? This has a huge effect on the lethality numbers, but isn't info that can be figured in.

All these factors do matter in the track record of a round, but are they the right ones to use judging the performance of the round? And using that to compare against other rounds?

You can say "this is better than that", based on overall history. But if you are going to say "this is better than that because it penetrates X inches and that penetrates XYZ " (or whatever) then you better have data from at least highly comparable, if not identical situations.

The general track record simply has too many factors involved to support such a specific claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top