marine6680
New member
I was thinking about rifle round terminal ballistics after watching a few gel tests.
In the tests, and pretty much every gel test of rifle ammo that I seen that had a self defense slant to it... All used the FBI pistol round testing to discuss effectiveness of the round. With the 12-18 inches of penetration being considered key.
Now, for pistol rounds, it has always been stated that due to the fact that they only really do effective damage through direct contact destruction of tissues... That was the reason for the minimum penetration of 12 inches. You needed the penetration to reach vital areas, as there is no secondary wounding present in pistol terminal effects.
People doing gel tests on rifle rounds, and people on forums also use the 12-18 inch range to determine the worth of rifle rounds for defensive use.
But with rifle rounds we also talk about things like cavitation and hydrostatic shock... Secondary wounding methods present in rifle rounds.
To me it seems that if we hold those two effects as relevant to the round's performance, then maybe the 12 inch minimum is not as important with a rifle round.
The 18" maximum might be a good thing to consider, for the same reasons as it is with pistol rounds.
So am I off base thinking that a round that does not meet the 12" minimum could still be very effective in defense use?
I'm not saying a round that only penetrates 5-6 inches is good, but maybe one that can do 8-10 inches, especially if it dumps a lot of energy and causes large wound paths. These do tend to be 223/556 rounds in the 50-55gr range, hollow point or ballistic tip type.
It may even be worth considering due to the much lowered chance of over penetration, definitely not of any fragments that would continue to pose mortal wounding capabilities.
I have noticed that rounds in this range of penetration, when tested for barrier penetration, tend to break up quickly when passing through typical interior walls, to the point of being several small fragments by the time it passes through one wall.
So are we using the FBI pistol standard of 12-18 inches simply because we have no comparable standard for rifle rounds, or because it is actually important/relevant?
In the tests, and pretty much every gel test of rifle ammo that I seen that had a self defense slant to it... All used the FBI pistol round testing to discuss effectiveness of the round. With the 12-18 inches of penetration being considered key.
Now, for pistol rounds, it has always been stated that due to the fact that they only really do effective damage through direct contact destruction of tissues... That was the reason for the minimum penetration of 12 inches. You needed the penetration to reach vital areas, as there is no secondary wounding present in pistol terminal effects.
People doing gel tests on rifle rounds, and people on forums also use the 12-18 inch range to determine the worth of rifle rounds for defensive use.
But with rifle rounds we also talk about things like cavitation and hydrostatic shock... Secondary wounding methods present in rifle rounds.
To me it seems that if we hold those two effects as relevant to the round's performance, then maybe the 12 inch minimum is not as important with a rifle round.
The 18" maximum might be a good thing to consider, for the same reasons as it is with pistol rounds.
So am I off base thinking that a round that does not meet the 12" minimum could still be very effective in defense use?
I'm not saying a round that only penetrates 5-6 inches is good, but maybe one that can do 8-10 inches, especially if it dumps a lot of energy and causes large wound paths. These do tend to be 223/556 rounds in the 50-55gr range, hollow point or ballistic tip type.
It may even be worth considering due to the much lowered chance of over penetration, definitely not of any fragments that would continue to pose mortal wounding capabilities.
I have noticed that rounds in this range of penetration, when tested for barrier penetration, tend to break up quickly when passing through typical interior walls, to the point of being several small fragments by the time it passes through one wall.
So are we using the FBI pistol standard of 12-18 inches simply because we have no comparable standard for rifle rounds, or because it is actually important/relevant?