Posted by
mavracer:
Actually that shouldn't take any shots a remote understanding of anatomy and a little common sense should take care of that. It's easy to see in "hindsight" where more penatration or a larger cavity would have been benificial and distinguish that from one where it wouldn't have made a lick of difference
That wasn't the issue.
If one
were able to analyze the behavior of individual shots in shootings of real people (the operative word was "actual"), one would find that total penetration would depend upon, for example, whether they first strike an extremity and then have to create an exit wound, where they enter the rest of the body and at what angle, and what it is that is critical that they happen to strike. Then there is the matter of how the individual reacts.
That's a lot of variables, and when one take into account the number of types of bullets, it is clear to anyone with any degree of scientific background at all that John is right.
Thousands.
But, of course, it is not possible.
That would be the second law F=MA
If you have more mass (M) or more acceleration(A) then you'll have more Force(F)
Well,
almost. Force is very important. But before the collision, the acceleration of the bullet in flight is essentially zero.
When combined with his third law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction a bullet with more force will require more tissue to be moved out of the way to stop it, hence a larger hole left behind
The Third Law has nothing to do with it. It tells us about recoil, and about how fast the target will move after having stopped or slowed the bullet.
But that resultant velocity is virtually zero, except in the movies, and it is meaningless anyway.
But in this case all other things aren't equal...
True, and that's why John is correct when he says thousands.
... and just the same additional penatration could make a difference
Yes, additional penetration
could make a difference, unless of course there had already been
enough penetration.
This thread and the FBI's latest "conclusion" are based on reports that ER Drs and statistics show little difference in effectivity in service pistol calibers, these same reports and statistics show little difference between 380 and 9mm you can deny it all you want but it's fact.
The "conclusion" (recommendation) is based on (1) the results of testing in calibrated media and (2) measurements of the speed of controlled fire.
Do you see anything in the test results about the .380?