Depth of Penetration

Both of those responses sound like you can't believe that tests have been made shooting through identical portions of anatomy. Live animal testing of ammunition is not new - even if it isn't going to be advertised. Where do you think theories like "temporary wound cavity" comes from to explain the performance of rifle rounds over pistol in the first place?

And talking about shot placement has nothing to do with this discussion. JHPs are not less likely to hit what they are aimed at than a solid. If they are both aimed at a lung, both will hit the lung. Anatomy is well enough known to make valid comparisons between two nearly identically placed shots.


Overall, the above two posts reflect a disbelief that anyone has ever studied exactly what bullets do to living tissue enough to understand anything about it, except through bad statistics. No medical studies, no military ballistic studies, no live product testing on similar mammals? We do not live in 1814.

It isn't a conspiracy that JHPs are used for handgun defense, or were banned from military use, or that we use soft points for medium game and solids for dangerous, large game. I wasn't attempting to explain why we should use JHPs for defense - I was explaining why we already do.

No police agency is about to switch back to solids or FMJ for duty loads. No cape buffalo is going to be hunted with JHPs. All this stuff was figured out long ago.
 
Last edited:
Shot placement and penetration are key for lethality. There are documented cases of humans taking all sorts of trauma that you'd think should kill them, and didn't. Photon beam through the brain, a large diameter crow bar, being shot through the head propelled from an accidental dynamite explosion.

You have to hit the 'off switch' and penetration in the right place is key for that. Expansion is secondary. If the cartridge you're shooting has enough power to do both, that's all the better, but penetration still comes first, IMO.

Expanding pistol rounds wont fix your poor shot placement, they just make slightly bigger holes. A high powered rifle round, with expanding ammo, there's a much greater chance of remote wounding effects from hydrostatic shock. A gut shot with a .45acp may go through and through, leave a nice hole but it's not likely going to cause the heart to stop beating, or the lungs to hemorrhage without a direct hit, like what can happen with a rifle round.

When facing a threat you potentially have to penetrate a good amount of material. Arm(s) rib bones, muscles, clothing, possibly even cover, before vitals are reached. Penetration is important, and calling a FMJ 'less lethal' could be straight up wrong. Here's an example.

LEO agent using 9x19 FMJ rounds (likely before expanding ammo was commonly used) facing two perps, takes them both down with one shot TOTAL.

The kill shot, entered the perp through the ribs, from the side. The bullet passed through the heart and exited out his armpit, the opposite side. Bullet kept going, and entered the second perp's head. Both dead on the scene.

Another example would be .22LR, .25acp, .32 acp. 3 low powered cartridges, that don't penetrate well, or expand well with HP ammo. IMO FMJ would be more effective in these calibers due to the poor penetration, and the fact that expanding ammo further limits penetration, you risk making shallow wounds that don't penetrate sufficiently.
 
Where did I say that? Both do different jobs. I never claimed either was better or worse and I never recommended for anyone to use one or the other...

You're putting words in my mouth.
:confused:
 
In simplest terms, what we want is a bullet that will always penetrate enough, and no more.

Unfortunately, we can't do that, yet, and maybe we never will. We do keep refining the "requirements" and getting closer though.'

The 9mm rnd that "stopped short" in the Miami Shootout was the approved round, and met all the requirements of the day. Yet, due to the specific factors of the shooting, did not end the fight.

Under slightly different specific circumstances, it might have, and had it done so, that load might have become idealized, rather than dropped, as it was.

Blame game. Anyone can play...

My point is that since there is no way to determine how much penetration will be needed having more is better than having less. This is not an endorsement of FMJ over JHP because FMJ generally penetrates better.

LEOs have to balance this against the risk to bystanders from overpenetration. Some citizens are in situations where they should, also. Others are in different situations, where the risk to others is not a major concern.
 
Both of those responses sound like you can't believe that tests have been made shooting through identical portions of anatomy. Live animal testing of ammunition is not new - even if it isn't going to be advertised. Where do you think theories like "temporary wound cavity" comes from to explain the performance of rifle rounds over pistol in the first place?
Click to expand...

A handgun bullet produces a maximum temporary cavity diameter about the size of a baseball - including high-energy fragmenting loads like MagSafe. Many rifle bullets produce temporary cavites over twice that diameter - many resilent soft tissues cannot tolerate this stretching which causes them to rip and tear. In addition lead core expanding bullets shed fragments which pepper soft tissues with holes that the temporary cavity also rip and tear open. This is the major difference between the damage produced by handgun bullets and rifle bullets.

And talking about shot placement has nothing to do with this discussion. JHPs are not less likely to hit what they are aimed at than a solid. If they are both aimed at a lung, both will hit the lung. Anatomy is well enough known to make valid comparisons between two nearly identically placed shots.
Click to expand...

Placement and penetration have EVERYTHING to do with rapid incapacitation and lethality. Putting a hole in a lung is not a structure that is critical to immediate survival. Lung tissue is very resilient and tolerates stretching well. Whereas if a bullet hits a major blood vessel in the lung then the severity (amount) of damage to that vessel will determine rapid incapacitation and lethality. An FMJ bullet that severs a major vessel in the lung will be more effective than a JHP bullet that merely grazes or nicks the wall of the same vessel because the damage produced by the FMJ bullet is more severe (producing greater volume and rate of blood loss).

What the bullet hits and damages as it penetrates is the key to rapid incapactiation and lethality.
 
For the1mu

The arguments/opinions expressed so far are a bit like my threads on stopping power. I will write more on that subject in about 5 weeks. This thread is about penetration so. I gave you what you needed (no reply). if you want a weapon to penetrate 16" of gell after hitting a barrier of say 1" pine YOU CAN CALCULATE IT with reasonable accuracy. You have made little contribution to the thread you started, I wonder why.

WITHOUT MATHS I will tell you: You need a high velocity preferably non deforming projectile.

.22MHR 1480ft/sec 40gr from a 6.5" barrel will probably do it.
30cal Luger 1220ft/sec 93gr from a 4.5" barrel will do it.
30cal Broomhandle Mauser 1410ft/sec 86gr from the standard military pistol will do it.
30cal Carbine 1400ft/sec 110gr will do it in SPADES.:D
 
Placement and penetration have EVERYTHING to do with rapid incapacitation and lethality. Putting a hole in a lung is not a structure that is critical to immediate survival.
Click to expand...
Which misses my point: Shot placement is not impacted by bullet choice.

If anything, JHPs will hit what solids just missed, since they have a larger diameter. But that is beside the point - if the round goes into the same organ, the JHP will do more damage to that organ than the solid.



JDO, I do not understand the point of your last post. Either JHP are the correct choice for general pistol carry because they wound the most, or they aren't. Talk about shooting multiple people with one shot has nothing to do with the topic.
 
If one doesn't have a lot of penetration, they won't get the blow out the back of the bad guy's jacket and overcoat like in the movies where it even goes all over the camera lens but he still soaks up 9 or 10 rounds without keeling over. ;)
 
From all my researches about wounding and lethality and they recommend 12" minimum but 18" is ideal. I hope y'all realize that 18" penetration in test media is not the same as 18" penetration in human body. The human body is tougher including the bone and muscle as well as tissue.

18" of penetration means it can go quite deep in the body, better chance of incapacitating. I guess it depends on the size of the perps but hardly any of them are pee wees, instead they are brutes.

I chose the middle ground on weight and velocity of the bullet. I know heavier is better but in the case of 40sw the 180 are weaker charged as protection against setbacks. For my 40 I use 165 FTX and for my 9mm 135 FTX, both Hornady CDs.
 
If anything, JHPs will hit what solids just missed, since they have a larger diameter.
Click to expand...

To quote you earlier:
Anatomy is well enough known to make valid comparisons between two nearly identically placed shots.
Click to expand...

I just showed you circumstances in which "two nearly identical wound paths" can produce different results.

But that is beside the point - if the round goes into the same organ, the JHP will do more damage to that organ than the solid.
Click to expand...

Not if the expanded JHP encounters that organ near the end of it's wound path (where it's velocity has slowed) compared to a solid wadcutter or keith-style semi-wadcutter, both of which will contact and crush more tissue in that organ at the same penetration depth (as the JHP bullet near the end of its wound path) because they have greater retained velocity. Bullet shape and velocity are important factors.
 
From all my researches about wounding and lethality and they recommend 12" minimum but 18" is ideal.
Click to expand...

IWBA recommends a mean penetration depth of 12.5 - 14" in bare gelatin and a mean penetation depth of 13 - 16" in gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth. See - http://www.firearmstactical.com/iwba.htm

I hope y'all realize that 18" penetration in test media is not the same as 18" penetration in human body.
Click to expand...

Several studies (FBI, CHP, San Diego PD, US Military, etc.) have shown that average bullet penetration depth in the human body mirrors the penetration depth observed in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin. See the section titled "Wound Ballistics Misconceptions" near the end of this web page - http://www.firearmstactical.com/iwba.htm

I know heavier is better but in the case of 40sw the 180 are weaker charged as protection against setbacks.
Click to expand...
The velocity of .40 S&W 180gr is approximately 950-980 fps from a full size pistol. It hasn't changed since the genesis of this load.
 
From all my researches about wounding and lethality and they recommend 12" minimum but 18" is ideal.
Click to expand...
The 12" to 18" specification comes from an FBI study authored by Patrick Urey entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness. Although it is somewhat dated (it was published a quarter of a century ago) it does contains some good information. Unfortunately it is commonly misquoted. It does not say that 18" of penetration is ideal. The exact quote is:

"While penetration up to 18" is preferable, a handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12" of soft body tissue at a minimum..."​

Up to 18 inches does NOT mean that 18" is ideal, it means that 18 inches is the upper limit of what is preferable.
I hope y'all realize that 18" penetration in test media is not the same as 18" penetration in human body. The human body is tougher including the bone and muscle as well as tissue.
Click to expand...
First of all, muscle is considered to be soft tissue for the purposes of penetration figures.

Second, no, human tissue is not tougher than test medium, at least in terms of soft tissue. In fact the ballistics gelatin is specifically designed to replicate the toughness (for the purpose of penetration measurements) of human soft tissue--INCLUDING muscle.

Third, going back to the quote from the FBI study, it's important to note that the minimum penetration figure of 12" is specifically stated to be penetration in "soft body tissue", which would certainly include muscle but probably not bone.

The FBI penetration specs are, in reality, very stringent when they are taken in context. I don't know of anyone with any credentials or credibility that suggests that the FBI penetration specs are conservative and that we should be trying for more penetration than the FBI recommends. In fact, to the contrary, most experts suggest that the FBI specs are overly aggressive in terms of what is required/recommended for civilian self-defense.
 
I just showed you circumstances in which "two nearly identical wound paths" can produce different results.

Not if the expanded JHP encounters that organ near the end of it's wound path (where it's velocity has slowed) compared to a solid wadcutter or keith-style semi-wadcutter, both of which will contact and crush more tissue in that organ at the same penetration depth (as the JHP bullet near the end of its wound path) because they have greater retained velocity. Bullet shape and velocity are important factors.
Click to expand...
What you did not show is why, on average, a well designed JHP, having the desired 12-18" penetration, is going to miss a vital that a solid will hit.

And, what is the likelihood of a good JHP hitting a vital with its wide 12-18" wound path vs. the narrow and unnecessarily extended wound path of a solid?

The anwer is: The JHP is more likely to damage something vital. Again, this isn't theory. Cops don't use JHPs because of some PC policy thing. They just kill better.


Like so many discussions around here, people seize on the less likely scenarios to bolster arguments that don't match up with observable fact. Not to overuse it, but it is just like the people that say they are against seat belts because they won't be able to get out of a fire, ignoring how much more likely a deadly collision is than a deadly post collision fire.

Modern JHPs built to FBI and similar guidelines do, on average, the most amount of tissue damage in the penetration depth range that human bodies are likely to present. What is there to argue about in that?

What's especially funny is that this thread is based on excerpting ideas lifted directly from JHP test protocols and applying them retroactively to other bullet types. It really is absurd.
 
To the OP...

Look for the term "bonded"..in the hollow point type, where the jacket and core are kinda locked together.... these type hollowpoint bullets usually achieve what you are looking for.:)
 
For mes228

I have read some real rubbish/garbage written about guns. It is nice to read an underlying fact backed up by experience.:cool:
 
Notice that even with the 12-18'' of penetration in gel, that LEO pistol ammunition rarely exits humans.

IMO exit wounds are more effective than holes that don't go all the way through. Before someone starts crying 'wasted energy' there's not much energy 'wasted' if you can get a HP to expand and also exit it will likely give you this most lethal, discouraging wounds.
A bullet that stops short in the target and 'dumps' 8% more energy isn't guaranteed to do more damage, in a pistol cartridge. I'd rather have my holes go all the way through.

And before someone comments about some 'over penetration' nonsense, it should be noted that during the Boston Marathon Bombing 200 shots were fired by LEO's. Of those 200 shots, 5 shots hit.

With that type of accuracy, 'over penetration' is the least of your concerns and IMO sounds ridiculous to worry about. Know what's behind your target at all times. Anyone with any useable brain matter knows that a complete miss is far more dangerous to bystanders than a bullet that MAY 'over penetrate.'
 
And before someone comments about some 'over penetration' nonsense, it should be noted that during the Boston Marathon Bombing 200 shots were fired by LEO's. Of those 200 shots, 5 shots hit.

With that type of accuracy, 'over penetration' is the least of your concerns and IMO sounds ridiculous to worry about.
Click to expand...
Even with misses, overpenetration is a concern and here's why.

A premium expanding handgun round that misses, can certainly kill one innocent bystander, but it's quite unlikely to cause a second fatality although it may cause a second injury. In a worst case scenario, a single non-expanding handgun round that misses its initial target has enough penetration to cause 2-3 bystander fatalities and perhaps even a fourth injury.
 
Like so many discussions around here, people seize on the less likely scenarios to bolster arguments that don't match up with observable fact.
Click to expand...

There are many variables in wound ballistics that come into play that make generalizations difficult to apply - for example, claiming an expanded JHP bullet always damages more tissue than a solid non-expanding bullet. The amount of damage produced and severity of the wound depends entirely on the particular circumstances involved from the time the bullet exits the muzzle until it comes to rest or exits the body. A JHP bullet that enters the body from the front, passes thorough bowel tissue and comes to rest in the kidney will damage the kidney less than a Keith-style semi-wadcutter following the same exact wound path but passes completely through the kidney and exits the body (not an unlikely scenario) (or a bullet that first passes through an arm, enters the torso and penetrates vital structures). Look at any JHP handgun bullet wound profile depicted in ordnance gelatin and the last third of the wound track is very small in diameter. This is because the bullet has slowed to the point where soft tissues are able to stretch around the bullet as it passes by rather than being crushed outright.

This narrowing of the wound track doesn't happen with wadcutter and Keith-style semi-wadcutters because the bullets have a sharp shoulder and better retained velocity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top