TexasCHLforum.com

Say Paladin,

If I decide I want to be ready to deal with an Arroyo Sr situation, and keep the 357 Sig for its potential against armor, what strategy would you recommend. I have a carrier for two spare mags:

1) Load all FMJ's. While not optimum for a non armored threat, they'd be good enough.

2) Load alternating rounds of FMJ and JHP. Would you recommend any particular pattern?

3) Load JHP's but have one spare magazine with FMJ's. If I perceive the threat is wearing armor, perhaps I'll have time to change magazines before engaging. This might have worked in the Tyler situation.

(I guess I'd have to steel myself against the disapproval of the Kennedy's and Shumer's of the world, who wouldn't want me to be using "cop killer" bullets)

Scott

Thanks, Paladin.

In the image, is there a significance to the black vs red coloration in the gelatin? Is the black the permanent crush cavity, and the red the temporary stretch cavity? Or is it something else?

I may need to go back to my .40 S&W barrel...

Scott

Thanks for posting this, SJRTX. This is one of the pictures that was running through my mind when I wrote my previous post on this thread.

According to the FBI paper, and some of the previous comments, there should be no practical difference between the 9 mm 124 gr JHP, and the .357 SIG 125 JHP. They both have almost the same size projectile and penetration.

But they sure leave different impressions on the ballistic gelatin. It's hard to believe the effects on a body would be the same.

This is of more than academic interest to me. I have barrels for both .357 SIG and .40 S&W I can use with my Sig P239. I'd switched to the 357 based, in part, on this image. If I believe the FBI report, I'd be better off with the 40.

The FBI paper quotes sources saying that wounds from pistol rounds had very little damage other than the area actually touched by the bullet. I wonder how extensive those sources were. Had they actually studied wounds from some of the higher velocity rounds?

Scott

Thanks, txinvestigator.

That FBI paper is a good read.

I'm interested in orc4hire's points, stressing the importance of permanent crush cavity, and downplaying the importance of energy. I've heard them before. They may be accurate.

It sounds like you're an engineer. As such we appreciate the importance of energy as a parameter in a lot of calculations. I don't think anyone would expect a thermal increase of 1 degree celsius to incapacitate. But does the expended energy do anything else useful? Does the sonic shock wave destroy cell structure, turning living tissue into jello? Does it induce capillary bleeding leading to shock and fainting, or prevent nerves from performing their normal charge discharge function?

I've heard Evan and Sanow's books would suggest that energy is important. But I understand their methodology has been questioned. The images I've seen of various handgun rounds in ballistic gelatin indicate to me that the "temporary stretch cavity" is greater in higher energy rounds. But how does that relate to real physiological effects? I know from experience that deer are severely traumatized by a mere .30 cal, 150 gr rifle bullet going 3000 fps. But then I've read there's a threshold. That energy isn't important until you get above ~2400 fps, and then it is. Is this due to some exponential increase in the strength of the shock wave? Or is someone confused by the fact that a FMJ M-16 round begins to tumble when hitting a soft target at greater than 2500-2700 fps?

I'm not trying to argue a point, because I really don't know. I'm seeking information. I've heard (actually read on the internet) a lot of strong opinions, including those in the FBI report, but not seen a lot of obviously valid supporting data. Some of the pieces start out by stressing that Marshall and Sanow are screwed up because no one has enough good data, but then assert their own opinions as if they did. I believe I've heard that the French actually went out and shot several hundred goats to study these effects, but don't know what they found out.

I'm sure we're all partisan to some extent. If we like .45 ACP then energy isn't important. If we like .357 mag/sig then it is. And I understand that once you get above .38 then shot placement trumps all. But is there any good information on the importance of energy out there?


Scott