OldMarksman
Staff
I seriously doubt that the relatively slow filling of a lung with blood would likely impair anyone quickly enough to stop a violent criminal attack timely at close range.
The 9mm vs 45 ACP Debate: A Visual Aid...
- Thread starter Joshua 2415
- Start date
Tactical Jackalope
New member
This is why I don't fight with my lawyer friends on matters I know they know better than me. Like laws......
OldMarksman
Staff
I don't think you "know" that at all.
It is an interesting argument. Remember in this discussion it has already been advanced that, at the velocities of normal service handgun rounds, temporary wound cavities are inconsequential. What advantage then can a bullet that is expanding to get to diameter X have over one that starts (and stays) at diameter X?
Crickets.....
I'll take a stab at answering that question. Im not an expert on that bullet design, but i did get a pretty thorough education on bullet design and construction when my Agency was adolting the 40s&w and we needed ammo for those guns. We ended up adopting Speer Golddot as our duty ammo. Ive spent time at the Speer Factory in Idaho and got pretty well spun up on those bullets.
Hollow points have gone thru generational evolution.
We started with basic lead HP's like the old FBI load which was a semi-wadcutter hollow point made out of soft lead (.38spl)
When auto started being used as defensive guns and somethin other then FMJ was called for the ammo companies started making Lead bullets with copper jkts formed around their bases and a hollow point in the nose.
The problem with those was jacket separation on impact. FREQUENTLY the lead core and the copper jacket would come apart after impact and thereby reduce the retained weight of the projectile..this limited penetration and therefor effectiveness.
Lots of different ideas came up for holding the bullet together. Interlocked cores...partitioned bullets...bonded jackets...etc.
The next thing that was tried was different jacket material. "Instead of copper, lets try..." Remingtons "Golden Saber" and the Win "Silvertip" are good examples of these. "Golden Saber" used Brass as the jacket materiel AND heavy scoring of that jacket to allow expansion of the harder Jacket. The "Silvertip" went the other way and tried to use thinner aluminum as a jacket to promote expansion...and it DID. That bullet would expand if you looked at it funny. Problem was it didnt penetrate very well.
Today, most high end JHP rounds use a plated jacket (holds together) along with CAD/CAM scoring of that jacket to allow "Controlled expansion". The "controlled" part is whats not commonly understood.
We need a bullet that holds together and retains weight. We need a bullet that expands to reduce over penetration. We need a bullet that still drives deep in spite of the expansion.
The current solution is "controlled expansion" bullet technology. The bullet expands in a very consistent and repeatable fashion. Shoot 100 of em into gel and they pretty much look identical.
They just open like a flower at the same depth every time. The petals open so far and stop. The jacket and core stay together...perfect expansion AND penetration everytime its tested.
Now, gel blocks are NOT flesh. So, we get variations in bullet performance in people. Cant eliminate that variable. But the bullets themselves are about as consistent in performance as we can make em.
I think the PDX round has all of these features.
Whew...my thumbs are tired (on my Iphone
)OldMarksman
Staff
The difference in the permanent wound cahnnel , possibly. Elmer used to tell us that the .38 158 LRN made a wound that was smaller than .38--the ogive pushed flesh aside . He preferred the old blunt .41 LC, and his own .38 semi wadcutter.
Would the difference really amount to much? I don't know. Probably not that often.
First I meant specifically what technology exists in a PDX1 9mm that isn't present in the PDX 40?
And second you're time line is off a bit.
cup and core existed long before autos became prominent with LEO as did Hornady's interlock.
The first problem with cup and core was actually getting them to open up on impact which lead to bullets like the silvertip that had thin jackets or bullets like the old Speer 200gr 45 flying ashtray that had a caverness opening and would open very easy.
Worrying about separation didn't really occur until after the Miami shootout and the subsequent reserch that gave us HWFE in '89.
controled expansion is another idea the well predates HWFE and Nosler Partitions have been around since the '50s.
Scoring of the jackets is also much older technology (silvertip's had scored jackets) and really don't do much to control expansion the big leap is the reverse taper of the jackets so that they have an easy place to bend then stop and bonding of the jacket to keep the jacket and core together.
I was pretty sure all PDX1's used reverse tapered scored jackets and were bonded, which is why I asked
For what it's worth, I've not said that it is inconsequential. I have said that it is a unreliable wounding mechanism which is true. Sometimes it works as a wounding mechanism, as mavracer's anecdote notes, but it doesn't work reliably as more than one person has said.
Also, I've mentioned that in my opinion, the most consistent effect of temporary cavity is in providing a "notification" effect to the person who is shot. It provides a hard to ignore effect that is very similar to blunt trauma to enhance the potentially lethal effect of a small penetrating injury which the recipient may not notice or may not initially recognize as a gunshot wound.
In other words, even though not a reliable permanent wounding mechanism, it's not inconsequential. Fackler wanted to reduce things to ONLY what could be proven to produce reliable permanent wounding effects and it resulted in oversimplifications which were easily proved to be inconsistent with real-world observations.
Yeah, that's not it at all.
You've spent time on this thread arguing the (valid) point that temporary cavity can cause permanent wounding in some cases. According to your own eyewitness evidence, you state that temporary cavity wounding can be easily visible in an autopsy/necropsy. You also understand that expansion and temporary cavity size are closely related, especially so during the initial portion of bullet travel. So tell me why it would make sense for me to try prove to you that expanding ammo makes wound channels that are easily distinguishable from non-expanding ammo?
Nope that's really more to the point.
you said
I asked how do you know this and how do you measure it.
And you responded
Now where is this real world data that shows expanded hollow points work better than FMJ when the final diameter are similar?
and how do you measure permanent wound channel in soft tissue?
OldMarksman
Staff
The comment was that .40 Cal. PDX1 bullets were the same as .40 Ranger Bonded, and that 9MM PDX1 ammunition was based on new technology as compared to 9 MM Ranger Bonded, its 9MM predecessor.
The first comment came from one review. Another tester said that the .40 PDX1 perfumed about the same as the Ranger Series T and better than the Ranger Bonded. In 2010, someone else said this: "Current production Ranger Bonded 9mm is still using the second generation of their bonded bullet. The 40 and 45 have switched to the third generation (PDX1) bullet. DOJ 9mm is the PDX1 bullet. In time the RA9B and BA will use the PDX1 bullet."
When asked, Winchester said, quite expectedly. that the information was proprietary.
I'm sure you understand that if I or anyone else here knew the specifics, we would not be able to tell you anymore than has been publicly released by the manufacturer.
That is the nature of trade secrets.
Here's what they say about it:
See that's the problem with a parrot, they just repeat stuff and don't really understand what they're talking about.
Yes the 40 PDX1 and 40 Ranger bonded are the same design and the 9mm PDX1 is a newer design than the 9mm Ranger bonded. The issue is the 40s are both the same newer design as the PDX1 9mm.
turtlehead
New member
The only +P I'll ever need is my PPQ.
It comes in 45 now, too.
It comes in 45 now, too.
I don't. I know how the FBI estimates it, but then so do you.
I'm not sure why you think asking this question is pertinent. If you've read my responses, you should have a pretty good idea of what I think about the usefulness of permanent wound channel as an indicator of effectiveness when comparing the service pistol calibers & premium self-defense ammo.
You've as much as stated that you're aware of more than one study that provides that data here:mavracer said:
Besides that, as I pointed out in my last post, you've made enough comments on this thread that when taken together indicate you understand the mechanism by which expanding ammo performs differently then non-expanding ammo and how such things can be seen in a necropsy/autopsy.mavracer said:
I thought the wrapup sentence in my last post was pretty clear, but after re-reading it, perhaps I could be more explicit.
So tell me why it would make sense for me to try prove to you that expanding ammo makes wound channels that are easily distinguishable from non-expanding ammo when you've already pointed out the differences on this thread.