I learned something today
This is a discussion on I learned something today within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The 1989 FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors & Effectiveness" states page 11:
The single most critical factor remains penetration. While penetration up to 18 ...
Post By Easy8
June 15th, 2013 02:18 PM
I learned something today
The 1989 FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors & Effectiveness" states page 11:
The single most critical factor remains penetration. While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use. FN36
Footnote 36 is:
Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
So I went and found the 1987 Workshop. Guess what? The workshop concluded something different. Near the end it says:
The single most critical factor remains penetration. A handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 10-12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. Penetration up to 18 inches would be even better. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.
I wonder how 10-12 inches in 1987 became 12 inches in 1989? Perhaps they wanted to hold the ammo manufacturers to a higher standard? Perhaps they worried if they said 10-12 inches, they knew it would be interpreted as 10 inches?
In any event, in the past I have looked at the 12" penetration standard as a pass fail test for my ammo selection. I don't think I am alone in that thinking. This discovery introduces shades of gray in the penetration standard.
And if 10-12 inches of penetration is minimally acceptable for law enforcement (per the 1987 FBI workshop), this can have enormous implications for certain ammo.
June 15th, 2013 02:56 PM
June 15th, 2013 03:52 PM
No doubt you're absolutely positively freakin' right Easy
Originally Posted by Easy8
I'm just a spoke in the wheel but not a big deal.
America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe.
You know that look women give you when they want some sugar? Me neither
June 16th, 2013 01:58 AM
I doubt people got substantially fatter from '87 to '89. I know I didn't!
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
“You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.” - Naguib Mahfouz
June 16th, 2013 02:15 AM
Most likely the the intent of the statement in the '89 paper was to urge a MINIMUM of 12" penetration floor. They obviously wanted closer to 18". Why give manufacturers wiggle room of 10" to 18" when they really wanted 12" to 18"?
I'm sure most of us here would agree. Deeper holes are better.
"Mind own business"
"Always cut cards"
Search tags for this page
10-12 inch bullet penetration
1987 fbi wound ballistics workshop test results
27 wound ballistic workshop: ?9mm vs. .45 auto?, fbi academy, quantico, va,
9mm vs. .45 auto fbi academy quantico va
bullets that offer 18 inches of penetration
wound ballistic workshop 1987
wound ballistic workshop: 9mm vs. .45 auto, fbi academy, quantico, va, september, 1987. conclusion of the workshop
wound ballistic workshop: 9mm vs. .45 auto, fbi academy, quantico, va, september, 1987. conclusion of the workshop.
wound ballistics workshop: 9mm vs .45auto,fbi academy
Click on a term to search for related topics.