The 9mm vs 45 ACP Debate: A Visual Aid...

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.
What I reported someone else to have said was that the .40 PDX1 and .40 Ranger bullets are of the same generation as those in the 9MM PDX1. Nothing about the designs per se, which could , of course, vary in detail among bullet diameters and weights.

I do not know that to be factual.

Do you?

Do you think it very important?
 
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.

Big difference between the statement "JHP work better than FMJ" that I agree with and "Expanding projectiles create very different wound tracks and wounding effects from non-expanding projectiles even when the final diameter of the two rounds is quite similar" that I disagree with to a large extent.

Given similar momentum, energy and diameter of the bullet there will be very little difference in the wound tracks, certianly not enough to measure in soft tissue.

What I reported someone else to have said was that the .40 PDX1 and .40 Ranger bullets are of the same generation as those in the 9MM PDX1.
Yes that is true and it's at odds with your original post about the 40 PDX/Ranger Bonded being old technology.
Nothing about the designs per se, which could , of course, vary in detail among bullet diameters and weights.
I really wouldn't consider things like changing the jacket thickness or changing the compound of lead used to tweek expansion new technology.
 
Last edited:
What I reported someone else to have said was that the .40 PDX1 and .40 Ranger bullets are of the same generation as those in the 9MM PDX1.
Yes that is true and it's at odds with your original post about the 40 PDX/Ranger Bonded being old technology.

I see where you got that. I said "The FBI standard load for .40 cal. pistols is the .40 PDX1. It is very good, but at least when it came out it did not have new technology bullets. It was the same as the .40 Ranger Bonded. But it is very good." What I meant to say was the the .40 PDX1 technology, as reported by one reviewer, was no newer than that in the .40 Ranger.

I cannot attest to the accuracy of that statement--nor do I really care very much, since I do not have a .40.

I really wouldn't consider things like changing the jacket thickness or changing the compound of lead used to tweek expansion new technology.
Okay.
 
Big difference between the statement "JHP work better than FMJ" that I agree with and "Expanding projectiles create very different wound tracks and wounding effects from non-expanding projectiles even when the final diameter of the two rounds is quite similar" that I disagree with to a large extent.

Given similar momentum, energy and diameter of the bullet there will be very little difference in the wound tracks, certianly not enough to measure in soft tissue..
Interesting. Am I to understand that you don't believe there's a relationship between temporary cavity and expansion? You have argued that temporary cavity creates noticeable wounding effects. So if you believe that's true, then the only way you could also believe that expanding and non-expanding ammo make no difference in the wound channel would be to believe that expanding ammo and non-expanding ammo create identical wound channels--i.e. there's no relationship between expanding ammo and temporary cavity.
 
Am I to understand that you don't believe there's a relationship between temporary cavity and expansion?

in so much as temporary cavity is closely tied to the projectiles diameter and energy and expansion controls the diameter of the projectile.

Am I to understand that you don't think non expanding bullets cause temporary cavities?
 
Am I to understand that you don't think non expanding bullets cause temporary cavities?
Not at all. They do cause temporary cavities, but that's not to say that they create identical temporary cavities as expanding ammo.
...in so much as temporary cavity is closely tied to the projectiles diameter and energy and expansion controls the diameter of the projectile.
It's more accurate to say that temporary cavity size is closely related to the rate of change of kinetic energy within the target medium. Expanding ammo creates a much more rapid rate of change of energy within the target medium than non-expanding ammo.
 
Although I no longer practice, I was a general and vascular surgeon for many years and also spent a good amount of time staffing ERs, and was also a staff trauma surgeon at a Level II trauma center. Spent a fair amount of time as a medical student on the trauma service at Cook County Hospital back in the late 70s.

I am not claiming I have seen everything, but I have seen a fair number of gunshot wounds in and out of the operating room. Personally, I have never seen any evidence of significant wounding resulting from secondary cavities with handgun wounds of any caliber. I suppose there might be some bruising of soft muscle tissue adjacent to the crush channel, but nothing that causes tissue necrosis or is likely to result in more rapid incapacitation. I can't say whether a projectile with higher kinetic energy is more likely to result in some type of psychological incapacitation or disability.

Although handgun caliber projectiles are sometimes deflected by tissue planes of varying densities or by bone, by and large, handgun projectiles wound by drilling cylindrical holes through tissues, including solid organs. With very occasional exceptions like those noted above, or in the case of projectile fragmentation, when a surgeon sees a handgun entrance wound and an exit wound, or the location of the projectile on an X Ray or CT scan, one can draw a line between the two and be fairly confident that the injury is going to be limited to the direct path between the two.

High velocity rifle wounds are a different kettle of fish. They can result in solid organ fracture or injury remote to the projectile path, although somewhat less frequently in my experience than some people seem to think.
 
Expanding ammo creates a much more rapid rate of change of energy within the target medium than non-expanding ammo.

Yes a .452 projectile that expands to .8 will and create a much larger temporary cavity than a unexpanded .452 projectile , but a .358 projectile that expands to .452 will not change the rate of transfer from the .452 projectile and the temporary cavity of the expanded .358 projectile and the unexpanded .452 will make very similar sized cavities (given similar velocity and weight). Since it's widely accepted that you can't tell diameter from and entry wound in soft tissue what makes you think they would be able to tell the expanded .358 from a .452?
 
Pblanc...

Thank you for your first hand experience and sharing of that knowledge.

Unfortunately, some people refuse to listen to the science and facts. Instead, hanging onto old myths and Hollywood visuals.
 
Personally, I have never seen any evidence of significant wounding resulting from secondary cavities with handgun wounds of any caliber.

So you're saying you've never seen wounding extend outside of the bullets path, in other words the diameter of tissue damaged is always equal to the projectile's diameter?
 
Unfortunately, some people refuse to listen to the science and facts.

This implies that you have a host of data from well designed, controlled, and repeatable experiments. You don't because such an experiment would violate the Nuremberg code and any sense of human decency.

Instead what you have to back the argument (that all service calibers are similar) is the failure to find a statistically significant difference between them. Even given a sample size of a thousand considering the vast differences in shooting situations, the amount of different loads available, and countless confounding variables that is not surprise.

The credence you are giving the evidence that supports the argument is high enough to be approaching the level of hyperbole. The lack of consideration of potential weakness in that evidence makes the entire argument seem to be a card-stacking argument.

The argument for 9MM (or 45, or 10MM, or anything else) requires inference. As such the argument is always up for debate.
 
This implies that you have a host of data from well designed, controlled, and repeatable experiments. You don't because such an experiment would violate the Nuremberg code and any sense of human decency.
You are making unjustified assumptions about what data are available and what are needed.

We have penetration data in surrogate media--well designed, controlled, repeatable, and meaningful.

We have shooting data---training range, FoF, and simulations. Repeatable and meaningful.

And we have a lot of each.

We also have forensic medical evaluations about what it takes in terms of physiological damage (not bullet diameters) to effect physiological stops.

There is tremendous variability in the results, for good reason. But those data do tell us a lot.

Instead what you have to back the argument (that all service calibers are similar) is the failure to find a statistically significant difference between them.
More accurately, that part of the analysis depends upon the conclusion that all service calibers using the best ammunition available today are not significantly different in terms of the physiological effects of terminal ballistics.

The combination of the ballistics testing results and informed forensic medical judgment seems sufficient to support that conclusion.

And the real world observations that we have are more than sufficient to dispel Hollywood myths and legends, should that be necessary for anyone.
 
Did you even bother to listen to the link? Or to the trama Doc that has seen the ACTUAL results of bullets into humans?

Have you read any meaningful reports that contradict that experience?

We never actually PROVED the world was not flat until space fight occurred, but the science showed that it was round long before that happened. Its all a matter of if you want to hang on to what you WANT to be true and what really is.
 
So you're saying you've never seen wounding extend outside of the bullets path, in other words the diameter of tissue damaged is always equal to the projectile's diameter?

Yes, for handgun gunshot wounds that has pretty much been my experience. When I said "significant" wounds, I meant wounds that likely would have had an effect on immediate or early lethality or incapacitation. Handgun velocity projectiles passing in near proximity to blood vessels or solid organs do not tend to disrupt those blood vessels or fracture the capsules of those organs the way high velocity rifle projectiles sometimes do. An exception to the rule sometimes occurred when a projectile struck bone resulting in bone splinters or fragments that caused secondary injury.

It may be that handgun projectiles sometimes cause some tissue bleeding immediately adjacent to the bullet path but not anything that would be likely to result in increased lethality or quicker physiological incapacitation. It may be that a high kinetic energy projectile causes more pain due to the cavitation effect, but pain is near impossible to quantitate and that would be an impossible experiment to do.

Human tissue does not behave like ballistic gelatin. Not only does it contain bone, it is not homogeneous. The closest thing to ballistic gelatin would be muscle tissue. But muscle and other human tissues contain elastin and collagen fibers that hold the structure together. Ballistic gelatin does not. Based on my experience, those sometimes impressive secondary wound cavities seen in ballistic gelatin do not have any counterpart in human tissues when it comes to handgun wounds.

When I was still a lowly medical student at Cook County Hospital the Chicago police were still carrying revolvers and most of them were loaded with .357 Magnum. Pretty much all the police shootings in the city came to CCH so we saw a fair number of .357 Magnum wounds. I don't think many would argue that .357 Magnum carries a pretty high kinetic energy when it comes to handgun wounds.

Back then was just a year or two after the end of the Vietnam war and high velocity military rifles, M-16s and AK 47s, were making their way into the hands of the criminal element in increasing numbers. So I saw a fair number of those as well. I did see remote wounding with those high velocity rifle wounds such as a fractured spleen or liver capsule or even ruptured bowel loops remote to the projectile's path. But I also saw 5.56 mm rifle wounds that had just drilled a nice, neat path through soft tissue with no significant adjacent injury as well.

Based on information passed on sometimes third hand from Vietnam trauma surgeons, the inclination back then was to routinely do extensive soft tissue debridement and make huge laparotomy and thoracotomy incisions to explore penetrating abdominal and thoracic wounds from high velocity rifles, searching for remote organ trauma. As time went on, surgeons became rather more conservative when they found that remote trauma from cavitation was not invariably seen, and in fact, often was not present.

Here is a brief extract from a peer-reviewed medical journal discussing that issue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15017186
 
Or to the trama Doc that has seen the ACTUAL results of bullets into humans?

Hearing from someone with a lot of experience in the morgue would probably be even better. Hearing from short-range, large game handgun hunters is also valuable, I think.
 
Great - then there is experimental data correlating this surrogate material to actual human anatomy?
To major elements of the man anatomy, yes, but as pblanc says, the body is not homogenous. There is muscle tissue; fat; skin, including the skin of an arm that must be exited during a bullet's flight into the torso; bone; lung tissue; organs filled with fluid.

One shot may penetrate a particular distance in the real world. Another identical projectile entering the body in a different place at a different angle will perform differently.

So what? One does not design ammunition to perform a particular way in a particular wounding scenario.

The ballistic gel with fabric and barriers tests serve to test and evaluate different ammunition, once informed judgment has given an idea of what level of performance can reasonably be expected to be adequate in the real world.
 
Hearing from someone with a lot of experience in the morgue would probably be even better.

That limits our data to folks that have DIED. Not everyone that is shot with handguns die. In fact, MOST survive.
 
That limits our data to folks that have DIED. Not everyone that is shot with handguns die. In fact, MOST survive.

But if, for the deaths, there is a significantly higher percentage of them in which a certain specific caliber was used, compared to the percentage of that caliber in the emergency room survivals, THEN that WOULD tell us something. Also, my comment was motivated by the fact that physicians working in the morgue can do a lot more exploring on their "patients" than physicians in the emergency room can do. That's also why I think some of the comments by handgun hunters on different observed wounds for different calibers can be useful.
 
Back
Top