interesting: 1987 FBI report on handgun ballistics - Page 2

interesting: 1987 FBI report on handgun ballistics

This is a discussion on interesting: 1987 FBI report on handgun ballistics within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Over penetration in a handgun round is largely a my much as hydrostatic shock and knockdown power as evidenced by the report itself. If the ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: interesting: 1987 FBI report on handgun ballistics

  1. #16
    Member Array mattbeals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46
    Over penetration in a handgun round is largely a my much as hydrostatic shock and knockdown power as evidenced by the report itself. If the report is to be believed at all then the statement about hollow point expansion reliability is to be considered. Therefore if the percentage of expansion is let's say 50% then the 50% that fails to expand very much acts in the same manner as ball. Not identically because of deformation. And the report fairly clearly states that penetration of at least 12 inches is critical to reach critical structures which is where the real incapacitating effects come from. And the only true incapacitating effects for a "one shot stop" comes from disabling the CNS or brain. Further that a significant amount of kinetic energy is dissipated in the body itself and that the elasticity of the skin at the rear of the entrance hole is sufficient to prevent over penetration.

    I believe the report itself states that there is no conclusive evidence or study of actual shooting incidents that would demonstrate anything to the contrary or that would support the common beliefs in JHP and expanding bullets. Otherwise the military would likely be using such ammunition, would they not?


  2. #17
    Member Array Archie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hastings, Nebrasksa - the Heartland!
    Posts
    315
    Matt, the U. S. military uses FMJ ammunition due to international laws and treaties. 'Effectiveness' has nothing to do with the choice; unless one wishes to include FMJ ammo works better in fully automatic firearms.

    Also, one must consider that a rifle (machinegun) round has much more velocity and therefore kinetic energy than a normal handgun round. A FMJ .30-06 or .308 Winchester round with 147/150 grain bullet at 2600-2800 f/s is a much better stopper than any .36 to .45 caliber expanding bullet round at 800 to 1200 f/s.
    Anyone Worth Shooting Is Worth Shooting Well
    Please take a look at my Blog: http://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Array Blue Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In the Gun Room
    Posts
    963
    This is all old information. Who has the latest information that can be posted. I have tons of Cor-Bon and Ranger T's to use in my "Social Ammo" guns. Both do a great job. The biggest issue is getting them. I have solved that issue for myself. Where do the rest of you folks get your "Social Ammo At"???
    Praise the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle --- Psalm 144
    NRA Endowment Life
    There are NO Silver Medals for Street Combat
    Blue Thunder, I smell Victory in the Morning!

  4. #19
    Member Array mattbeals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46
    So there is no science behind the NATO round, they just agreed on 9x19? It seems odd that of all the choices they threw a dart and hit 9x19. There must be some sort of data to support the choice. There must be some reason they opted to ban expanding bullets and stick with ball. But I have to think that if I can get deep enough that I am likely able to get to the depth of vital structures. Death is a side effect of the trauma caused by the wound. Incapacitation is a side effect of the trauma caused by the wound. If NATO ball is effective in incapacitating because it can reach vital structures then what's the problem? Incapacitation whether by ball or otherwise is the goal.

    War/armed conflict is generally governed by laws and there is usually a reason for what is adopted as law. But to think NATO, or non, ball is not effective seems to be folly. Why would they pick something ineffective?

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    So there is no science behind the NATO round, they just agreed on 9x19? It seems odd that of all the choices they threw a dart and hit 9x19.
    I believe that the 9x19 round being used as a NATO round started back during WW2,Germany had several machineguns/pistols that fired the 9mm luger round,so when the British manufactured the Sten Gun they made them in 9mm due to the fact they could use German ammunition if they ran out,other European Countries seemed to build guns around the cartridge and voila Nato adopted it,even when the US was still carrying 1911's for sidearms
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  6. #21
    Member Array mattbeals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46
    There certainly was a benefit in standardization. But what my point is, is that if I can penetrate deep enough with a 9mm ball round then what's the problem? There must be a reason why militaries with their vast budgets standardized on 9x19(+P) for pistols and (some) SMG's. There must have been some sort of ballistic, empirical, and other scientific data to support the choice. Their business is killing people. So they probably want to do it fairly efficiently. Which I would deduce would cause them to study some sort of measured, repeatable data and draw logical conclusions from said data.

    Is there hard physical science on hydrostatic shock or other trauma that is based on actual anatomical data that would draw a conclusion that hollow points are superior? If we follow the FBI report and take it at face value then I would have to say that there is no such scientific data. Science is hard facts, opinion is not. I respect opinions that don't follow mine. I'd just like to see some evidence. It's just ammo for me, it's not like I can't switch if I find something that is demonstrably superior.

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Where the deer and the antelope roam
    Posts
    3,175
    Well maybe unscientific, but in 9mm the 115 +P+ and 124 +p+ are very good stoppers in real life, 9mm ball is not. That is fact. To put all of your marbles into one bag because of any one set of data is flawed thinking.

  8. #23
    Member Array mattbeals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46
    I think there are a lot dead soldiers that would argue with you about the ball. But in the absence of any science it's all heresy. One data set would be better than none.

  9. #24
    Member Array mattbeals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46
    Can we at least agree to use the data in the FBI report and base conclusions on that since is at least a common data set. Whether it's accurate or not is of little consequence so long as we can agree to all work off of one data set.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ballistic report sample

,
ballistic reports ammo
,
ballistics report example
,
ballistics report sample
,
example of ballistic report
,
example of ballistics report
,
fbi ballistics
,

fbi ballistics report

,
fbi handgun ballistics report
,

handgun ballistics

,

pistol ballistics

,
sample of ballistic report
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors