Author Topic: Wound ballistic misinformation DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-13-2000 00:04 I was recently asked to review some ballistic data which was posted on the Glock Talk Caliber Forum. Most of what was posted was pseudoscience, misinformation, and pure falsehood. I was, however, surprised to find information from Marshall & Sanow given widespread credence. I did not realize that the Marshall & Sanow "data" was still confusing people. Several years ago, I was tasked with reviewing their book. That review was published in the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners forensic journal, AFTE Journal, 24(4); 10/1992. Although I have not specifically placed it on the web, I have discovered the review available several places, including: http://www.afte.org/Trnsmgfd.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm. The July 1992 Law and Order has several letters to the editor, as well as a statement by the magazines’ editor, further illustrating the lack of truth and serious errors in the Marshall and Sanow "data". Several papers have been published in the peer reviewed IWBA Wound Ballistics Review which have discussed the lack of credibility of Marshall and Sanow. It was clear in our review and in from the investigations by others that Marshall & Sanow had lied, fabricated data, and did not follow scientific protocols. Their information is fraudulent and meaningless. Please do not stake your life on this garbage. IP: Logged belisarius

Member posted 09-13-2000 18:28 Doctor: Do you know of any studies which performed statistically correct multiple-regression analysis on firearm "stopping power?" If so, what kinds of "r-squared" correlations were found between the independent variables (subject's physical size, shot placement---given a numerical value, ammunition weight, ammunition velicocity, etc., etc.) and the dependent variable (subject being "immediately" incapacitated)? Given the number of user-friendly statistical analysis programs available (such as POM and StatPro---both of which I use almost every day to analyze currency fluctuations), it would appear to this layman that there is no excuse for the gross mathematical errors found in the Marshall/Sanow texts (and others). IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-13-2000 23:54 Dear Sir, You are quite correct when you state that there is no excuse for the gross mathematical errors found in the Marshall/Sanow texts and others of a similar pseudoscientific nature. I am unaware of any statistically correct analyses of "stopping power". I am not at all sure that it is possible to design such a study. While modern computers and software could be used to create a formula which correlates such measurable physical criteria as bullet weight, striking velocity, and diameter, as well as the victim’s physical size, volume of crushed tissue, estimated blood loss, etc… the greatest variable in actual, real world incapacitation is that approximately 50% of shooting victims are incapacitated due to psychological factors which are independent of all quantifiable physical and physiological characteristics. There are people who are completely uninjured or only superficially wounded, yet they are incapacitated and unable to continue their actions. There may be a way to model this erratic, irrational, chaotic, and completely unmeasurable human response, but it is beyond my skill level and I know of no researchers who have successfully accomplished this task to date. Since psychological incapacitation is extremely variable, most wound ballistic research analyzing incapacitation focuses on how to most rapidly and reliably physiologically incapacitate a determined attacker. As I am sure we all understand, the only way to cause IMMEDIATE physiological incapacitation is through wounds which destroy or disrupt the brain or upper spinal cord. Barring CNS trauma, circulatory system collapse from severe disruption of the vital organs and blood vessels in the torso is the only other reliable method of physiological incapacitation from small arms. If the CNS is uninjured, physiological incapacitation is delayed until blood loss is sufficient to deprive the brain of oxygen. An individual wounded in any area of the body other than the CNS may physiologically be able to continue their actions for a short period of time, even with non-survivable injuries. Therefore, in a situation requiring the use of lethal force, the most reliable and rapid way to physiologically incapacitate the threat is to create a large a wound in a critical anatomic location as quickly as possible, despite any intermediate obstacles or thick superficial tissue caused by hypertrophied muscle, excessive adipose tissue, or a transverse or oblique angle through the body. This generally translates into a requirement for the projectile to be able to penetrate at least approximately 12 inches of tissue, while creating as large a hole as possible. IP: Logged belisarius

Member posted 09-14-2000 16:41 Doctor: Thank you for that extremely erudite reply. I have saved it in my "Favorites" file. I was really interested in any correlation between shot placement and the "caliber" of the weapon employed. If such a relationship exists, it would help to confirm a pet theory that I have regarding average skill levels and weapon-choice issues. In order to construct a model which spoke to the psychological factors that you described, one would have to somehow place numerical values on tenacity, bravery, intoxication, native resistance to pain, anger, and the other intangibles. I agree with you that this is impossible---who can state unequivocally what psychological attributes a given "wound ballistics statistic" brought to the fight? I enjoy your commentaries and hope you will continue to post your comments. IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-15-2000 23:55 There are several possibilities which occur to me regarding your question of any correlation between shot placement and the "caliber" of the weapon employed. Anecdotally, there appear to be numerous documented law enforcement shootings in which multiple 9mm JHP bullets were fired at suspects with less than desirable hit ratios. There appears to be less shots fired and greater effects on the target when .45 ACP is used. Is this related to bullet caliber? There is a strong possibility that other factors may be at work. Many departments issue 9mm handguns and give officers the option to purchase their own .45 ACP and carry it if they qualify. That was my department’s policy when I was assigned to patrol. Often times the officers who choose to purchase their own weapon are more "tactically aware", spend more time at the shooting range practicing, and are more likely to seek professional instruction on tactics and weapon use. In short, these officers are better trained and more likely to be successful if confronted with a situation requiring lethal force. It may be that the caliber of the weapon is not as relevant as the officer’s level of tactical awareness, ability to operate under stress, and training in weapon skills. As for direct caliber comparison. I am aware of the CHP’s better shooting results using their current standard issue .40 S&W 4006 pistols with 180gr JHP’s of Winchester and Remington manufacture compared to their results using their older .357 magnum weapons. San Diego PD has extensively documented their greater success using 9mm 147 gr JHP (2/3 Winchester Q4217 and 1/3 Federal 9MS) in over 130 shooting compared to their older 9mm 115 gr JHP shootings results. I believe LAPD and LASO have had similar greater success with the 9mm 147 gr JHP’s compared to their previous 9mm 115 JHP’s. The average officer is probably best served by a .40 caliber handgun, as it offers a reasonable compromise between adequate bullet performance, enhanced magazine capacity to compensate for a poor hit ratio, and good ergonomics for smaller statured officers. I believe you will note that most military SOC units prefer the .45 ACP compared to 9mm weapons systems after having to have used them in real combat environments. The USMC MEU-SOC 1911 is my current favorite U.S. Military issue handgun. I have heard that the Army unit at Fort Bragg (Det Delta) is also using a 1911 variant, although I have not used it myself. I also note the LAPD SWAT D Platoon is using .45 ACP 1911’s, as is FBI HRT. Whenever possible, the handgun should be merely a backup for a long gun. While the MP5 is one of the funnest shoulder fired weapons to shoot, I feel much more comfortable with an M4 or a 16" barrel AR15 with 75 gr Hornady TAP while on patrol. If I know I am going to be in a serious incident likely to require lethal force , I would prefer a Rem 870 or 1187 with 1 oz Brenneke slugs or an M14 with 155gr Hornady TAP. While .22LR probably has killed more people than any other handgun, for LE backup, a .38 sp J-frame is far superior to any .380 ACP, .32, .25, or .22. The 147 gr +P Winchester JHP, Remington +P 158 gr LSWCHP, or a plain standard pressure wadcutter are all good choices for .38 sp.

[This message has been edited by DocGKR (edited 09-15-2000).] IP: Logged z187

Novice posted 09-17-2000 21:52 DocGKR, Thank you for your posts. After my first year dealing with violent street gangs in Arizona, I quickly became a fan of my 16 inch A3 with the Federal 69 gr. boatail hp. The G22, while a very capable weapon, was in fact my "backup" weapon. I often see that departments or officers who have read the Street stopper set of books still favor the medium weight (155 and 165 gr 1000+ fps) fodder for their duty weapons. My department is currenty changing duty weapons to Glock 35. Our issued gun now is the Sig 220. During recent live fire tests against various vehicles, the 165 gr. and 155 gr. duty type rounds compared vey favorably to the .223 from our A3's. The .45 out of the Sig was not even close. With the threat of vehicles being used in crimes, I consider these kinds of test invaluable to a police officer. Deflection through the glass, even at extreme angles does not seem to be an issue, however, I know that shooting paper targets on a range is not the real world. So, DocGKR, are there any tests that have addressed the velocity/energy loss through common barriers? I have studied the FBI information, any more you could give would be great. IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-18-2000 01:09 I am not sure if you were discussing barrier testing with the .223 or your handgun. In either case, there is quite a bit of barrier testing information available. One of the biggest questions a department needs to answer is what barriers are most common in their shootings. Bullets which will effectively penetrate barriers are an asset to many law enforcement missions such as car stops and when engaging suspects who are firing from cover; the opposite is also true, as bullets with limited penetration of barriers may be ideal for CQB, Tactical Entry, Raid, and Hostage Rescue missions, since stray bullets which exit a room or building pose a significant downrange hazard to innocent bystanders. Limited obstacle penetration may also be beneficial in crowded urban environments to reduce the risk of errant bullets entering a building and harming an innocent person.



The FBI tests which you mentioned have a plethora of barrier tests against different materials with a wide variety of ammunition types. The new INS testing protocol also uses barriers. Both of these test protocols have procedural problems, in my opinion. In the FBI tests, bullets are analyzed in bare gelatin and after passing through multiple intermediate barriers, such as clothing, glass, wood, and steel. The FBI correctly ignores temporary cavity effects of handgun bullets and emphasizes bullet penetration depth and crush cavity. Unfortunately, the FBI testing scores are flawed as the scoring formula incorrectly rewards bullets which needlessly travel beyond 18" (45.7 cm) while penalizing superior performing bullets which punch a larger hole in the critical 12 to 15" (30.5 to 38.1 cm) depth range. In addition, all of the barrier tests are ranked equally, despite the fact the some are less important. I believe the INS testing simplifies and improves on the FBI barrier testing protocol. In addition, the crucial elements of functional reliability and acceptable accuracy in the duty weapon are measured by the INS. Sadly, the INS testing protocol has several serious scientific flaws which echo the ill-conceived RII, including setting too shallow a minimum penetration depth of 9" (22.8 cm), accepting handgun bullet fragmentation as a possible wound enhancement factor, and considering the temporary stretch cavity as a significant mechanism of incapacitation with handgun bullets. Nonetheless, the raw data on barrier penetration offers good information. Generally auto glass is one of the most difficult barriers to successfully defeat, especially for handgun bullets. Duncan McPherson’s superb book on wound ballistics has several sections dealing with this phenomena. In testing done at the CHP Academy, bullet deflection through auto windshields with .40 S&W and .45 ACP JHP bullets appeared to be random in magnitude and direction and generally caused less than 2 degrees of deflection when fired at auto glass with an angle of incidence of between 34 and 90 degrees. This translates to less than 2 inches of bullet deflection within an automobile and suggests that officers ignore any possible deflection and aim directly at their intended target when firing through an auto window. There were minimal differences between the .40 S&W and .45 ACP in the CHP testing, although the .40 S&W 180 gr JHP’s exhibited the best performance by a small margin.



House walls are also difficult, especially for JHP handgun bullets, as the hollow point almost invariably gets plugged and the bullet then acts like a FMJ, with extremely deep penetration. All of the 5.56 mm/.223 bullets we have tested have exhibited LESS penetration after passing through wall replicas than 12 gauge shotgun projectiles, handgun/SMG bullets, .30 caliber carbine, & .30 caliber rifle bullets. Since all of the 5.56mm/.223 bullets fired through the walls had significantly less penetration than 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 12 ga. shotgun projectiles which were fired through an interior wall, stray 5.56mm/.223 bullets seem to offer a reduced risk of injuring innocent bystanders and an inherent reduced risk of civil litigation in situations where bullets miss their intended target and enter or exit structures. 5.56mm/.223 caliber weapons may be safer to use in CQB situations and in crowded urban environments than 9mm, .40 S&W, or 12 ga. weapons. The IWBA has published quite a few papers in their journal which analyze bullet terminal performance through barriers. In my testing, I have often needed to test interior wall barriers because of the intended use of the ammunition—entry, CQB, HR. I have also looked at auto glass for car stops and plate glass for LE snipers. Dean Dahlsrom and Kramer Powley at the RCMP have done nice work on terminal ballistics, including some barrier testing. Gunsight has done some testing as well on barrier penetration, especially with .223. In many shooting scenarios, the medium weight .40 S&W bullets will function quite well. Unfortunately, there are situations where the greater mass of the 180 gr JHP designs will prove superior, especially from transverse and oblique angles and through intermediate obstacles. Given the superb track record of the .40 S&W 180 JHP’s with the CHP, I can see no down side to their use and no advantage to the lighter weight bullets in .40 S&W. Finally, while velocity/energy loss will occur when bullets pass through barriers, I am most interested in what damage a bullet produces after passing through a barrier and the velocity/energy changes are more of an incidental finding. Remember, velocity and kinetic energy are not measures of wounding effectiveness. If you need to get in contact with me for further information or copies of papers, please let me know. You can also contact me through Giles Stock. IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-18-2000 21:30 One other thing which I should mention, when looking at the FBI barrier test results, make sure you are reviewing the actual test data as published by the FBI-FTU. Some commercial web sites have posted unauthorized incomplete information purportedly from the FBI tests; the actual results are NOT available online. They are available for LE only from the FBI-FTU at Quantico. IP: Logged barbrady

Member posted 09-19-2000 13:24 DocGKR,

Any thoughts on 5.56mm windshield glass and sheet metal penatration? My current loads are M193, Rem. 55gr. HP, Win. 64gr. PP (Supreme, moly-coated, crimped), and, occationally, M855. The various magazines are color coded for easy change of load-out in the field. -M193: general purpose and what the rifle is zeroed with

-Rem. 55gr. HP: entries and other low penatration stuff.

-Win. 64gr. PP: vehicle take-downs

-M855: just to have around Everything is from a 16", 1x7 twist barrel. Any thoughts? Also, given the choice of these three 9mm loads which do you feel is best (very opinion based, I know)? -Win. 127gr. +P+ Ranger SXT Talon

-Win. 147gr. Ranger SXT Talon

-Fed. 147gr. Hydra Shok All will be fired from a Sig P228. Any particular advantages to any of the previously mentioned loads, either generally or for specific scenarios (vehicle take-downs, etc.)? I understand that they are all pretty close to each other and that there are no magic bullets but I may as well use the best of what's available to me. IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-20-2000 00:26 Barbrady, I wrote an earlier post detailing 5.56mm ammunition performance which may be useful-- http://www.tacticalforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000116.html. In specific reference to your questions, unless I had a .223 with a 1/12 twist barrel and as a result had no option except the 55 gr bullet weights, I would not choose ANY 55 gr .223 bullet for use in a lethal force situation. We tested the Remington 55 gr JSP at the California Highway Patrol Academy and found its performance disappointing. Since you are using a carbine with a 16", 1/7 twist barrel, you can avail yourself to the better performing .223 loads which are all of 60+ gr weight. The lighter weight bullets do not offer any advantage when discussing overpenetration issues in entry situations. In fact, in our testing, the bullets which offer the most reduced risk of downrange hazard in the event of a missed shot are the 62 gr M855 FMJ and the 69 gr Winchester JHP ((S223M). Remember, however, that since ALL of the 5.56mm/.223 bullets we fired through interior walls had significantly less penetration than 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 12 ga. shotgun projectiles, 5.56mm/.223 may offer a reduced risk of injuring innocent bystanders and an inherent reduced risk of civil litigation in situations where bullets miss their intended target and enter or exit structures. In respect to penetrating glass, the best civilian .223 bullets are the Federal Tactical loads which use the Trophy Bonded bullet. The downside to these bullets, is their decreased permanent crush cavity as a result of no synergistic fragmentation effect. As an aside, keep in mind that .223 AP loads are not needed to penetrate soft body armor, as ALL .223 loads penetrate soft body armor and kevlar helmets up to and including Level IIIa. Rather than fooling around with different loads in different magazines for different tactical situations, it is probably best to choose one standard duty load which offers excellent all round performance, with perhaps one special load for deep penetration of hard targets if absolutely tactically necessary for your circumstances. If I had to choose a .223 load for lethal force situations, the current clear choice is the Hornady 75 gr TAP load. This load is extremely accurate and offers the greatest potential in .223 for rapidly incapacitating a violent aggressor. When given the choice, this is what I carry in my 16" 1/7 twist AR15. Unfortunately, this load is rather expensive. While not quite as effective as the Hornady 75 gr TAP, the knurled or crimped Winchester 64 gr JSP (Q3246) load still offers acceptable performance for law enforcement use. In California, the knurled Winchester 64 gr JSP (Q3246) load is available on our state ammunition contract. This is the standard load for the CHP; it has developed a good track record around the state in actual shootings. The main advantage of this load is cost, we can purchase three to four times as much of this ammunition for the same cost as the Hornady 75 gr TAP load. The SWAT team with which I work has used the Winchester 64 gr JSP (Q3246) load as the standard issue .223 load for the last several years.

-------------------

With respect to your choices in 9mm, in our testing at the CHP Academy, the following average results were noted: --Winchester 9 mm 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9SXTP) at 1224 f/s, 12.5" penetration, 0.65" expanded diameter.

--Winchester 9mm 147 gr JHP SXT Ranger (RA9T) at 983 f/s, 13.5" penetration, 0.61" expanded diameter.

--Federal 9mm 147 gr JHP Hydrashok (P9HS2) at 982 f/s, 12.7" penetration, 0.68" expanded diameter. All of them offer acceptable terminal performance for law enforcement use. Although providing good terminal performance, due to adverse publicity in the popular press and media, the original Winchester SXT bullets, the "Black Talon" are no longer in production. A variety of bullets labeled "SXT" are available from Winchester, but their performance is quite variable. Generally, the civilian SXT loads have sub-standard penetration and/or expansion and should not be relied upon in lethal force situations. The law enforcement Ranger SXT bullets generally offer adequate terminal performance for law enforcement use. If you want to delve more deeply, the Winchester 127 gr +P+ is the only 9mm bullet less than 147 gr which has demonstrated adequate penetration and expansion. This bullet gained notoriety as it can penetrate soft body armor made of Spectra, although it is stopped by Kevlar vests. The downside to this bullet is the increased muzzle flash and blast and increased wear on the weapon due to the higher pressure loading. The lighter weight may be a disadvantage when intermediate barriers are present. JHP handgun bullets often fail to expand when passing through heavy clothing due to the hollow point getting plugged, and the he bullet then acting like a FMJ. The Winchester RA9T load gives more robust expansion and is less likely to exhibit expansion failure when passing heavy clothing While the Federal P9HS2 "Hydra-Shok" has the largest expanded diameter of the bullets listed above, the blunt, rolled deformed edges are not as effective at cutting tissue and enhancing the permanent crush cavity as the sharp deformed surfaces of the Winchester RA9T. You mentioned that you are using a Sig P228; this is the same as a M11 military pistol. During the ammunition trials for the M11 conducted by Navy Weapons Center Crane Indiana, the Federal 147gr JHP (9MS) was selected as the issue load for the M11, beating a variety of other 9mm JHP loads, including both standard pressure and +P pressure115 gr and 124 gr JHP’s. In our testing at the CHP Academy, the 9mm Federal 147 gr JHP (9MS) average results were: 961 f/s, 12.3" penetration, 0.61" expanded diameter. The Federal 9MS load does not have a post, is about 1/2 the cost of the Hydrashok, and exhibits sharp edges when deformed. It has been used with great success by the San Diego PD. A senior criminalist with the San Diego P.D., Mr. Eugene J. Wolberg, has analyzed their 9 mm 147 gr JHP performance in 10% ordnance gelatin and compared the laboratory results with the actual terminal effects produced in human tissue in nearly 150 officer involved shootings with the San Diego Police Department. When I last checked, the majority of their bullets have penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. When I carry a 9mm, my first choice is the Winchester 9mm 147 gr JHP SXT Ranger (RA9T). [This message has been edited by DocGKR (edited 09-20-2000).] IP: Logged nyeti

Member posted 09-20-2000 03:35 Finally, some people who know what the heck they are talking about. I was on Glock Talk, and there are still people out there quoting Marshall and Sanow....Its good to be home with the real professionals. I work for an agency that has had a large number of officer involved shootings...In our experience we have found that the heaviest bullet in a good hollow-point in any caliber (handguns) driven at a moderate velocity seems to be the formula that works out the best. We have had good luck with the 230jhp .45, the .225 .45 Colt, the 147gr. JHP 9mm's. We have never reported to Marshall or Sanow anything, and I find there data very questionable. ------------------

He who advances is sure of heaven, he who retreats is sure of eternal damnation. IP: Logged z187

Novice posted 09-24-2000 18:20 DocGKR, Thanks again for your reply. After much investigation and deliberation, we are going with the Federal 69 gr. bthp Match round for deployment in our A2 rifles. If you have any comments on this round, I would be grateful. Also, as I posted earlier,we are looking into duty ammo for our G35 duty weapons. Your knowledge and information is appreciated. Please excuse my tardy reply, due to illness. IP: Logged Brian Bilby

Novice posted 09-24-2000 20:15 Doc, Thanks for your information. It's nice to know someone who knows the real goods and is willing to share them. My question is that I have a 1 in 9 twist on my 16" tactical carbine and was wondering what if any effect this would have on the info you gave, in relation to the 1 in 7 twist? Thanks Brian IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-25-2000 01:02 .223 1/9 twist weapons will usually stabilize bullets up to 70 gr and often 75 gr, although the longer length 75 gr VLD bullets are not usually stabilized in 1/9 twist barrels. I have accurately fired up to 87 gr bullets out of the 1/7 twist barrels. The Federal 69 gr JHP is a fine .223 load for both 1/9 and 1/7 twist barrels. Accuracy is outstanding--the USAMTU has used the Federal 69gr JHP-BT Match load successfully for several years as their standard 200 yard ammunition for high power competition. Terminal ballistic performance is acceptable. Average test results into bare gelatin using a 16" 1/7 twist barrel were: vel=2646 f/s, pen=14.7", Max TC Diam=10.0 cm, RD=0.40", frag=60.2%, BB gel calibration shot =10.5 cm@588 f/s. The G35 is kinda big, any reason you guys didn’t go with a 22 or 23 model? In any event, from a terminal performance perspective, the advantage of the .40 S&W cartridge is that it was designed after improved knowledge of wound ballistics had occurred. As a result, there are probably more good loads in .40 S&W than any other handgun caliber. In our testing, the following .40 S&W 180gr JHP loads all exhibited adequate penetration and expansion characteristics: CCI Gold Dot 53966, Federal 40SWA, Federal P40HS1 "Hydra-Shok", Hornady #9136 "XTP", Remington Golden Saber GS40SWB, Winchester RA40180HP, Winchester SXT S40SW "Black Talon", Winchester SXT S40, Winchester RA40SXT, and Winchester RA40T. All of the 135 gr to 165 gr .40 S&W bullets either failed to meet minimum penetration (12") or expansion (0.65") guidelines. Many of the lighter bullets also exhibited detrimental core-jacket separation, loss of bullet weight, and inability to successfully defeat intermediate barriers. Overall, CHP has had outstanding success with 180 gr JHP's fired out of their S&W 4006's. Autopsy results have generally mirrored expected performance as tested in the laboratory. The 4006's have proven to be a very durable and reliable pistol with 50,000+ rounds commonly fired without any problems. IP: Logged z187

Novice posted 09-25-2000 13:45 DocGKR, The G22 was my first choice. After the officers in my department tested the G35, they liked it. We only have six patrol officers and sometimes only one officer is working. Back-up is going to be ten to fifteen minutes, at best. The larger gun may have some kind of mental feel good attribute, not to mention the improved ballistics and more ammo than our current Sig 220's. We will see if the size becomes an issue. About the tests on the 155 and 165 gr. loads conducted, Did those include the "bonded" loads? I am speaking of the 165 gr. Speer gold dot and the 165 gr. Rem. Golden Saber. How long ago were the CHP tests conducted? I know that some of these loads are "new and improved" from the original 155 and 165 gr loads. Thanks for your test results on the Federal 69 gr JHP. Being the rangemaster and responsable for the new load selection are duties I do not take lightly. I am trying to make my choices accordingly. Also, my Chief of Police and two of my officers are firearms instuctors, I have to be able to back my choices with information and reason. We, of course, do not have the funding to test the ammo/guns ourselves. The information you have supplied is very important to us.

[This message has been edited by z187 (edited 09-25-2000).] IP: Logged EchoFiveMike

Member posted 09-25-2000 21:52 I'd have to say avoid the 75gn loads in the 16ich 1:9 twist barrels. Stability is very touchy with the reduced velocity. My M4 clone does not shoot 75gn Hornady's well at all(try 4-foot groups at 200yds). The roughly 200fps velocity difference is critical. Use the 69's and you should have no problems. Maybe max loaded 75's might work, but why bother? You are going to be using factory stuff, I assume, so this isn't even an option. Semper Fi...Ken IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-26-2000 00:22 Z187: You are NOT gaining any improved terminal ballistic advantage by switching from a .45 ACP Sig P220 to a .40S&W Glock 35. You are gaining an increased magazine capacity and a smaller grip. Some examples are noted below: .45 ACP Win 230 gr JHP RA45T, vel=826 f/s, pen=12.6", RD=0.74"

.40 S&W Win 180 gr JHP RA40T, vel=953 f/s, pen=13.7", RD=0.68" How about this comparison: .45 ACP Fed 230 gr JHP 45D, vel=841 f/s, pen= 12.0", RD= 0.79"

.40 S&W Fed 180 gr HSHP P40HS1, vel=953 f/s, pen=12.4", RD=0.70" In each case, since the .45 ACP makes a larger hole, it clearly has the terminal ballistic advantage. Our last handgun tests of .40 S&W were on 12/2/99; most of our testing in 2000 has focused on .223, .308, and 12 gauge. The following lightweight .40S&W loads were tested: Fed 135 gr JHP "Hydrashok" P40HS4, CCI 155 gr JHP Gold Dot 53961, Horn 155 gr JHP-XTP 9132, Win 155 gr JHP X40SWSTHP, Corbon +P 165 gr JHP, Fed 165 gr JHP "Hydrashok" P40HS3, Win 165 gr JHP SXT S401. I will try and shoot a test with the165 gr. Rem. Golden Saber JHP and the 165 gr. Speer Gold Dot JHP by the end of the year and post the results, as we have not yet tested them. Both the 180 gr JHP Golden Saber and Gold Dot offered acceptable performance: .40 S&W CCI 180gr JHP Gold Dot 53962, vel=1009 f/s, pen=13.4", RD=0.66"

.40 S&W Rem 180gr GSHP GS40SWB, vel=936 f/s, pen=12.3", RD=0.65" Again, why would an agency prefer the lighter weight 155 gr & 165 gr JHP’s when the superior performing 180 gr JHP’s are available? NYETI’s comment above is absolutely correct: "In our experience we have found that the heaviest bullet in a good hollow-point in any caliber (handguns) driven at a moderate velocity seems to be the formula that works out the best.".

IP: Logged z187

Novice posted 09-27-2000 15:22 Sometimes, combat has nothing to do with terminal ballistics, the fact that we are alone an patrol with 21 rounds of pistol ammo is insane, .45 or not. On the street, the advantages of the .40 with 45 rounds of avalible ammo is much greater than the mathmatical performance of a caliber on a sheet of paper. I think that you would agree. The reason that I need all relivant information is because when I go to the Chief I have and say, "this is what we should carry.". He is not going to accept "Because the CHP (or anybody else for that matter) tested the 180 gr ammo for the .40 and this is what they said...". He is going to want info on even the 135gr. and reasons why we should not use it. I have to be informed on all thats out there. I need to be able to support or refute any published information, including the Sreet Stopper set of books, or the FBI tests, or even the information I get form you. Thats just the way my Chief is. I am trying to make an educated and studied choice. While I respect the opinions of those more learned than I, I will make my choice baised on all the facts I can find. Again, thanks for all. IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-28-2000 02:22 z187, I am sorry if my comments were misconstrued. I fully agree with you and would say that combat most frequently has very little to do with terminal ballistics. Psychological motivation, training, and weapons system reliability are all far more important than what ammunition is utilized. Whether I am carrying a 9 mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP handgun is not terribly important to me, as adequate performing ammunition is available in all three calibers, and I have used each at one time or another while on duty. Regardless of what caliber primary handgun I am carrying on duty, I prefer to have around 50 rounds of ammunition with me for that weapon. Nonetheless, this thread is a discussion of wound ballistics. Since our comments will hopefully be based on objective scientific observation and not subjective feelings or popular folk lore, I felt it important to clearly articulate that while the .40 S&W has many fine attributes, improved terminal ballistics over equivalently constructed .45 ACP bullets is not one of them. Based on repeated scientific measurement, the .45 ACP makes a larger hole in tissue, despite the presence or absence of intermediate barriers, and by definition, offers superior terminal ballistics. Fifty bullets of well designed .45 ACP will crush more tissue than 50 bullets of .40 S&W. If I was forced to chose between 45 rounds of .40 S&W and 21 rounds of .45 ACP, I would unhesitatingly choose the .40 S&W. As I stated earlier in this thread, the average officer is probably best served by a .40 caliber handgun, as it offers a reasonable compromise between adequate bullet performance, enhanced magazine capacity to compensate for a poor hit ratio, and good ergonomics for smaller statured officers. The hallmark of good science is that an experiment is reproducible by others. All of the leading wound ballistic researchers share information and publish not only the testing results, but also the test methodology, so that other investigators can replicate their experiments. There are no secrets…. I would never want anybody to deploy a weapon system based on my or any other person’s comments. I want everyone to do their own scientific, reproducible testing. Several smaller agencies can often join forces in order to more cost effectively test. Best of all, would be if your Chief could get involved and help with testing and observe the results with his own eyes. If interested, contact the IWBA for information on ammunition testing protocols—they have a great video done with LAPD SWAT showing the proper method for gelatin fabrication. If gelatin testing is not possible, water tank testing offers an inexpensive method to roughly test for both penetration and expansion of handgun bullets. Your local crime laboratory will usually have a water trap which can be used for bullet testing. Handgun bullet penetration in water is approximately 1.6 to 2 times that in living tissue and bullet expansion is near equivalent to the maximum that occurs in tissue. Let me know if I can help. IP: Logged EchoFiveMike

Member posted 09-28-2000 12:45 I don't normally carry 9mm, but on the rare occasions that I do it's with Speer 124+P Gold Dots. I have been thinking of going to Triton 135's since they have been recommended to me as a good alternative to the Gold Dots, which are hard to find locally in +P. Opinions? Comments? Semper Fi...Ken IP: Logged z187

Novice posted 09-28-2000 12:49 DocGKR, I will get with the IWBA. With the information I have already collected from the FBI, NTOA, yourself and other sources, I can now narrow our testing in water or ballistic Jell-O. I can justify or testing of three or four loads based on the facts. My Chief is at the FBI academy right now and I would like to have this process done by the time he gets back in three months. I read the entire thread again last night. You have posted exellent information throughout. I understand that you have done this and answered our questions without compensation. Thank you again for the time and energy you have put into this. I don't know if you are a hunter or not. If you are, you are always welome to come out here. There are deer, elk, bear, coyote, mountian lion and just about anything else you can hunt within an hours drive of my front door. Your always welcome. IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-29-2000 00:12 We have not tested the 9mm Speer 124 gr +P JHP Gold Dot loading, however, the standard pressure 9mm Speer 124 gr JHP Gold Dot data averaged: vel=1091 f/s, pen=13.2", RD=0.52; this is somewhat substandard performance. I am not a big fan of +P cartridges, except in .38 Special. In most cases, the extra pressure tends to cause excessive and premature weapon wear, increased muzzle flash and blast, with no significant gain in terminal performance. Why not design the bullet to work effectively at the standard pressure? There are so many effective standard pressure 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP loads available now, I fail to see why a +P loading in these calibers is desirable or necessary. None of the agencies with which I work has ever requested testing of Triton ammunition. I did take a look at their web site this evening. The material that they have posted leaves me extremely skeptical of their bullet designs and ballistic engineering accumen. Extensive data is offered regarding the unimportant velocity and kinetic energy of their loads, but I did not see the crucial penetration and expansion data. They posted a photograph of one of their deformed bullets compared to other designs. No measuring scale or data was shown, so my subjective observation is that the Triton bullet appeared to have significant overexpansion and would likely have had insufficient penetration characteristics based on the visually observed ratio of recovered bullet diameter compared to length. While the Triton advertising suggests handgun bullet fragmentation increases wounding effectiveness, the reality is that when handgun bullets fragment, the permanent crush cavity is significantly reduced and less tissue is crushed. Their video of a Triton Quick-Shok .40 S&W 155 gr bullet being shot into gelatin is particularly damning and aptly illustrates the folly of handgun bullet fragmentation: -- No length scale is included in the photo—this is a major breach of scientific protocol.

-- It is obvious from the gelatin video, that the projectile fragmentation reduces the size of the permanent crush cavity, reducing bullet effectiveness.

-- Subjectively, the bullet penetration appears extremely shallow when compared to the temporary cavity diameter. Based on the above, I would be extremely hesitant about using Triton ammunition. The Triton emphasis on velocity and kinetic energy is somewhat reminiscent of Cor-Bon--among the worst ammunition we have tested, ammunition which I feel has no place in a situation requiring the use of lethal force. Several effective 9mm JHP loads were discussed in the above thread. I have felt very comfortable using both the Federal 9mm 147 gr JHP (9MS) and Winchester 9mm 147 gr JHP SXT Ranger (RA9T) while on duty.

[This message has been edited by DocGKR (edited 09-29-2000).] IP: Logged dano

Novice posted 09-29-2000 23:24 I thought the whole weight vs. velocity arguement was dying down... Most of the above posts rely heavily on the FBI tests, and the work of Doctor Fackler, which decry the use of as high velocity, lighter handgun round; these high velocity rounds are usually described as "ineffective", and the Doctor even states that high velocity rounds made by Cor-Bon are the worst rounds he's ever tested. The low velocity arguement is fairly represented in this thread, but I would advise those interested in the subject to look at all the data, and not take someone's word as gospel. Several agencies have gone away from (or never used) low velocity rounds with great success: Illinois State Police, Secret Service, Texas Dept. of Public Safety, etc. Based on what independent criteria, can the assumption be based that terminal velocity and relative kinetic energy are not factors in bullet performance? Personally, I wouldn't use a 147gr. subsonic, as the velocities aren't high enough to promote reliable expansion. When common sense prevails, I would not want to be shot with anything, either from a 147gr. sub. or a 135gr. high vel round. I believe that faster is better, with good penetration, and round fragmentation also a plus. A big factor, also, is round reliablity in the weapon, the ability to shoot the round in the gun accurately (incl. shot placement, rapid target re-acquisition, etc). Marshall and the boys may have skewed numbers, but there are people out there who will choose a round over another because it's .09% greater in "stopping power" which is a ludicrous way of thinking. The human body's psychological/physiological reaction to a bullet cannot be quantified. IP: Logged DocGKR

Moderator posted 09-30-2000 02:57 Dano, I fully agree with you that the human body's psychological/physiological reaction to a bullet cannot be quantified. You are also quite correct when your refer to choosing a bullet based on its supposed "percent stopping power" as being a ludicrous way of thinking. The third post of this thread discussed this issue. I also fully agree that psychological motivation, training (including the ability to shoot accurately under stress), and weapons system reliability are all far more important than what ammunition is utilized. I also don’t desire to be shot, whether by a high or low velocity bullet. I am curious about how handgun bullet fragmentation is an advantage. In every autopsy and laboratory test I have conducted or observed, when a handgun bullet in the commonly used law enforcement pistol calibers, such as 9 mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP has fragmented, the resulting tissue damaged has been decreased since the bullet diameter has been reduced. The fragments have generally been found strung out behind the bullet in the primary wound track and have not increased the amount of tissue damage. How does this enhance wounding and promote more rapid incapacitation? You state that you personally wouldn't use a 147gr. subsonic, as the velocities aren't high enough to promote reliable expansion. Yet the largest independently verified study of bullet penetration and expansion characteristics in living human tissue has shown the exact opposite. As noted in a previous post in this thread, the 9mm 147 gr JHP subsonic bullets used by the San Diego Police Department in nearly 150 officer involved shootings have generally penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. This appears to be ideal performance from a 9mm. San Diego PD switched to the 9mm 147 gr JHP when their high velocity 9mm 115 gr JHP bullets had several failures to penetrate deeply enough to create damage to vital organs in the torso and cause rapid incapacitation. Other large users of the 9mm 147 gr JHP, such as LAPD have had similar results. Terminal velocity and kinetic energy are not very important factors in assessing damage to tissue, as they are not mechanisms of wounding. What is important in analyzing injury, is what anatomic area has the bullet damaged and how severe is the damage. There are two mechanisms of damaging tissue: tissue in the projectile's path is permanently cut and crushed by direct contact with the bullet as it pushes through tissue and tissue surrounding the projectile's path is briefly stretched and displaced by the passage of the projectile. The effects of the Permanent Cavity, or hole created as the projectile cut and crushes the tissue in its path are reliable and consistent based on what anatomic structures the bullet disrupts and the severity of the tissue damage. Since larger projectiles crush more tissue, they create a larger hole and damage more tissue. The Temporary Cavity is the empty space briefly formed by the transient, radial displacement of the tissue surrounding the projectile's path. The tissue that is stretched by the Temporary Cavity is analogous to an area of blunt trauma surrounding the Permanent Cavity and like all blunt trauma injuries Temporary Cavitation effects are extremely variable and erratic. The severity of any injury resulting from Temporary Cavitation is highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. For example, elastic, flexible soft tissues, such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to temporary cavity stretch injuries, while inelastic tissues, such as brain, liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs are highly susceptible to severe splitting, tearing, or rupture due to Temporary Cavity stretch insults. Unlike many rifle bullets, the relatively small diameter temporary cavity created from typical law enforcement handgun bullets, such as 9 mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP, does not reliably damage tissue and is not usually a significant mechanism of wounding. I am not attempting to represent a "low velocity argument" any more than a high velocity theory; rather, I am reporting what we have found during our independent testing of ammunition. I do not care what velocity or weight a particular bullet possesses, as long as it has appropriate penetration and expansion characteristics; at this point in time, however, I have observed that moderate velocity, heavier weight handgun bullets appear to offer the most effective combination of penetration and expansion, although this may change as technology improves. I heartily concur that a person should look at all the data, and not take someone's word as gospel. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, I would never want anybody to deploy a weapon system or specific ammunition based solely on my or any other person’s comments. I want everyone to do their own scientific, reproducible testing. My comments regarding Cor-Bon ammunition are based on their terminal performance compared to other bullets, rather than their velocity. For example: .40 S&W +P Cor-Bon 165 gr JHP, vel=1115 f/s, pen=17.4", RD=0.47’, RW=96.2 gr

.40 S&W Win 180 gr JHP RA40180HP, vel=949 f/s, pen=14.5", RD=0.67", RW=181.0 gr This is a typical Cor-Bon performance. Which bullet is more effective? Obviously, the slower bullet which did not fragment created a larger hole, would damage more tissue, and result in potentially more rapid incapacitation. I am perplexed by your assertion that the posts in this thread, "rely heavily on FBI tests and the work of Dr. Fackler"? All of the test results I have posted above were garnered in independent testing that myself and other healthcare, law enforcement, and military personnel conducted at the CHP Academy. Neither the FBI nor Dr. Fackler was involved with these evaluations. Dano, I invite you and any other sworn law enforcement officers in the San Francisco Bay area to come and participate in our testing. Observe the results yourself…let me know your decision. IP: Logged KODB

Moderator posted 09-30-2000 08:03 Interesting thread. DocGKR: Great data and very rational analysis; this mirrors my frequently observed clinical observations especially with respect to "it's bullet placement". I have seen now 3 torso shoots in the last 12 months with lighter weight 40sw JHPs that were non incapacitating with one individual strapped down to a guerny and still fighting us during resuscitation to the point requiring paralysis and intubation. His chest wound was explored because of continued but NONINCAPACITATING hemorrhage and he was found to have 2 wounds to his right middle lobe of the lung. The bullet was found, fully expanded (approx .7")and subcutaneously. I measured the track and found said round to be stopped after about 10" total length not counting outer clothing (tshirt and lightweight flannel shirt). This case highlights several of the above pertinent notes/observations in this thread: 1. Handguns are notoriously poor stoppers even with COM wound(s) when compared to rifle 2. Rapid exsanguination is still probably the most reliable incapacitating mechanism outside of a CNS hit; slow & steady hemorrhage will kill people or make them have operations over time but not necessarily STOP them in the rapid and TIMELY fashion required for either LE or self defense. 3. Even though anectdotal this illustrates a POTENTIAL shortcoming of lightweight 40SW bullets. Many agencies have changed to 40 over 9mm because of potential differences in performance. This illustrates that that change of caliber in and of itself is not going to magically improve anyones performance. 4. This was a single wound on COM. Without detracting from DocGKR's very well written and researched terminal ballistics data, I am sure that multiple COM hits would have had a very different outcome. My personal druthers is to use what is the best system not necessarily determined by caliber. Thus, I am more of a believer in the more mature and well developed 9mm or 45ACP weapons vice the 40SW line. For me personally, (nonduty and CCW) this means a compact 9mm with an effective load. I think that this discussion is very useful and informative and applaud all who have contributed. One question for DOC: What testing protocols would you recommend doing for water trap type shoots to check non-commercially available or custom hand-loaded ammunition. I'm interested in comparing performance with some of my handloaded rounds using a variety of bullets especially the newer bonded/plated HP's commonly available to reloaders. Regards, Bob IP: Logged