...what would you call it then?
Tissue damage.
...what would you call it then?
dogtown tom wrote: There is no such thing as "energy dump"
Okay, the short answer is the at the velocity of most handgun cartridges the energy involved is not sufficient to be an independent factor. The issue at those velocities is tissue damage attributable to the physical crushing effect of the bullet.Mike38 said:dogtown tom wrote: There is no such thing as "energy dump"
Interesting, I’ve seen that comment before. Please educate me.
Greg Ellifritz said:...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....
...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....
In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.
The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.
Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....
... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....
... the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....
And there is no way of telling if the result would not have been the same if JHP ammo was used.
With a sample size of only one you never know exactly how much difference it would have made, and in which direction. There are always statistical outliers, so that's why using one shooting as an example doesn't make much sense no matter what the results were.
Is there any evidence of that, in shootings were the NYPD have used JHP instead of FMJ.The Diallo shooting is merely one example of SEVERAL shooting incidents in which the poor terminal effects of 9mm FMJ convinced NYPD to change to JHP ammunition, specifically Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P, which has performed very well since.
In that particular case a FMJ bullet could have reached his heart. Penetration is the most important factor without it everything else is useless.
Is there any evidence of that, in shootings were the NYPD have used JHP instead of FMJ.
And it does so not because it's the best choice, but rather to comply with the Hague Accords.redhawk45 said:Does the US military still use 9mm FMJ ball ammo?
Like Frank said, the military uses FMJ ball, but not because it's the best choice. So what rhetorical point were you getting at?redhawk45 said:It was a rhetorical question.
Based on that analysis, yes, ball is okay to use for military, in theater applications. But those reasons don't really apply to the carrying of a sidearm by a private citizen (or an LEO) for self defense in a peacetime world.redhawk45 said:The Hague is OLD. The USA did not sign the Accords. The military keeps using ball ammo in pistols for many reasons including: From a practical standpoint for military use?
1. FMJ feeds more reliably under adverse conditions.
2. It penetrates hard cover, & helmets and vests better then JHP.
3. It is cheaper to make.
4. Pistols do not win wars, no matter what you shoot in them.
The point is FMJ is ok to use.
I usually see that myth in reference to the 5.56 round. Either way, it's complete nonsense. In the Marine Corps, they taught us to kill the enemy, not wound him. You'll never hear a Marine say, "One shot, one wound."JeffK said:Old saying, better to wound someone with FMJ then to kill him instantly, because then you take him and two of his buddies out of action.
I agree. All those are good reasons why the military uses FMJ, but none of those are good reasons for a civilian to carry FMJ.Frank Ettin said:Based on that analysis, yes, ball is okay to use for military, in theater applications. But those reasons don't really apply to the carrying of a sidearm by a private citizen (or an LEO) for self defense in a peacetime world.