Foot-pounds of energy per caliber - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Foot-pounds of energy per caliber (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 10/30/2012 5:36:54 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
snip

Ah - so it's 12" to 18". In other words: 12" is perfectly adequate as the picture O_P posted described.

To be clear: That picture isn't the be-all, end-all about wound ballistics. It merely illustrates that most well-performing handgun ammunition is remarkably similar in performance when objectively tested. Virtually all ballistics testing I've seen of the currently recommended rounds show that they penetrate in the 12-14" range in unobstructed gelatin shots, once again showing the validity of the picture O_P posted. Steel and glass cause most handgun bullets to underexpand, thus leading to much deeper penetration.

It shows that 6 rounds at specific weights and velocities (but does not say the bullet type) will preform similar, nothing more. Definitely not "most" as there are PLENTY of rounds that do NOT meet that 12" line, and plenty that penetrate much more, in all calibers.

My favorite part of that picture, is how all the bullets came to rest sideways so you can see how much they expanded, and how some of the wound tracks on the right of the blue line apparently change size vs the left (most evident in the .357 sig).

I generally only refer to bullets on the recommended list of the "Best choices for self defense ammo" page. There's really no point in discussing others.

[ETA] You seem to imply that the gelatin shots were doctored; I have to disagree as I don't see any anomalies. [ETA2] The photo is credited to FBI Special Agent Doug Carr. He's also a former employee for Federal from what I understand. Unless shown otherwise, I'm going to give him more credence than someone claiming the picture has been modified.

I always thought that they turned the bullets sideways on purpose in order to show expansion?

Posted: 10/30/2012 5:41:35 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

I always thought that they turned the bullets sideways on purpose in order to show expansion?

The 9mm shots and the first .40 caliber shot don't look artificially turned sideways to me. Bullets end up in all kinds of ways after coming to rest.

[ETA] Check out these shots from Hornady's website - most of them end up sideways: http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/WebData/HornadyHandgun/HornadyHandgun.htm

Posted: 10/30/2012 5:51:20 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I always thought that they turned the bullets sideways on purpose in order to show expansion?

The 9mm shots and the first .40 caliber shot don't look artificially turned sideways to me. Bullets end up in all kinds of ways after coming to rest.

[ETA] Check out these shots from Hornady's website - most of them end up sideways: http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/WebData/HornadyHandgun/HornadyHandgun.htm

Good point.I guess I never paid close attention to the bullets themselves.

Posted: 10/30/2012 5:55:17 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Good point.I guess I never paid close attention to the bullets themselves.

I didn't either.

Actually - it makes sense. The bullet encounters less friction if it travels sideways as it presents a smaller frontal area.

Posted: 10/30/2012 6:05:20 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

snip

Ah - so it's 12" to 18". In other words: 12" is perfectly adequate as the picture O_P posted described.

To be clear: That picture isn't the be-all, end-all about wound ballistics. It merely illustrates that most well-performing handgun ammunition is remarkably similar in performance when objectively tested. Virtually all ballistics testing I've seen of the currently recommended rounds show that they penetrate in the 12-14" range in unobstructed gelatin shots, once again showing the validity of the picture O_P posted. Steel and glass cause most handgun bullets to underexpand, thus leading to much deeper penetration.

It shows that 6 rounds at specific weights and velocities (but does not say the bullet type) will preform similar, nothing more. Definitely not "most" as there are PLENTY of rounds that do NOT meet that 12" line, and plenty that penetrate much more, in all calibers.

My favorite part of that picture, is how all the bullets came to rest sideways so you can see how much they expanded, and how some of the wound tracks on the right of the blue line apparently change size vs the left (most evident in the .357 sig).

I generally only refer to bullets on the recommended list of the "Best choices for self defense ammo" page. There's really no point in discussing others.

[ETA] You seem to imply that the gelatin shots were doctored; I have to disagree as I don't see any anomalies. [ETA2] The photo is credited to FBI Special Agent Doug Carr. He's also a former employee for Federal from what I understand. Unless shown otherwise, I'm going to give him more credence than someone claiming the picture has been modified.

I would say there is a reason to discuss other rounds, if only to know the strengths and weaknesses, or to be able to show how much technology and understanding of how it all works has improved.

But I digress. Even the chart here on this website shows a variance vs that picture. Especially when it comes to .45 ACP.

I still maintain that that picture is not indicative of the performance of all modern ammo, and that there are many rounds that perform worse than that picture shows, and many that perform better.
I mean, the pic itself from what I can find, is from the early 90's.

I thought bullet performance and construction has come a long way since then?

Posted: 10/30/2012 6:49:28 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
snip

Ah - so it's 12" to 18". In other words: 12" is perfectly adequate as the picture O_P posted described.

To be clear: That picture isn't the be-all, end-all about wound ballistics. It merely illustrates that most well-performing handgun ammunition is remarkably similar in performance when objectively tested. Virtually all ballistics testing I've seen of the currently recommended rounds show that they penetrate in the 12-14" range in unobstructed gelatin shots, once again showing the validity of the picture O_P posted. Steel and glass cause most handgun bullets to underexpand, thus leading to much deeper penetration.

It shows that 6 rounds at specific weights and velocities (but does not say the bullet type) will preform similar, nothing more. Definitely not "most" as there are PLENTY of rounds that do NOT meet that 12" line, and plenty that penetrate much more, in all calibers.

My favorite part of that picture, is how all the bullets came to rest sideways so you can see how much they expanded, and how some of the wound tracks on the right of the blue line apparently change size vs the left (most evident in the .357 sig).

I generally only refer to bullets on the recommended list of the "Best choices for self defense ammo" page. There's really no point in discussing others.

[ETA] You seem to imply that the gelatin shots were doctored; I have to disagree as I don't see any anomalies. [ETA2] The photo is credited to FBI Special Agent Doug Carr. He's also a former employee for Federal from what I understand. Unless shown otherwise, I'm going to give him more credence than someone claiming the picture has been modified.

I would say there is a reason to discuss other rounds, if only to know the strengths and weaknesses, or to be able to show how much technology and understanding of how it all works has improved.

But I digress. Even the chart here on this website shows a variance vs that picture. Especially when it comes to .45 ACP.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/MiscDocuments/HandgunBulletchartaspicturerev3.jpg

I still maintain that that picture is not indicative of the performance of all modern ammo, and that there are many rounds that perform worse than that picture shows, and many that perform better.

I mean, the pic itself from what I can find, is from the early 90's.

I thought bullet performance and construction has come a long way since then?

You're missing the point. The purpose of the pic is simply to illustrate that every caliber is capable of meeting the minimum, that's all. Penetration is all that really matters in pistol calibers and every caliber is capable of adequate penetration and expansion.

Why do people always read more into it?

Posted: 10/30/2012 7:05:02 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

You're missing the point. The purpose of the pic is simply to illustrate that every caliber is capable of meeting the minimum, that's all. Penetration is all that really matters in pistol calibers and every caliber is capable of adequate penetration and expansion.

Why do people always read more into it?

While that picture may have had a point in the early 90's, all I routinely see people post that photograph to show is that "all service calibers penetrate about the same", or "it doesn't matter what you use, most rounds penetrate 12" just fine" (going back to my gripe that people referance the FBI 12" minimum, without ever mentioning that it's the lower end of an envelope), or other variations of the same themes, and I've been seeing it since the dawn of the internet.

Personally, I also dislike the picture, because there is no real data to go with it. I.E. was it a penetration test, or just a test to show wound tracks. When the pictures were lined up, were they all to scale? Is that blue 12" line original? Is THAT to scale? Stuff like that. I love knowing the info behind what's shown.

Posted: 10/31/2012 7:26:43 AM EDT

[#8]

Man, do you ever like to pick nits.

If you are talking about the actual performance data of each individual round, then yes - you need more data than what is shown. If you're trying to illustrate that well-performing bullets of various calibers all produce about the same permanent cavity, then the picture is perfectly adequate. Note the caption I put above the photo: "Properly designed hollow-point ammunition - regardless of caliber - all
perform very close to each other when you take expanded diameter and
penetration depth into account:" The key phrase is PROPERLY DESIGNED. Yes, there are variations, and yes, 12" is the minimum. But like I said before: I don't know of any bullets off the top of my head on the recommended list whose penetration numbers deviate significantly from each other in the bare gelatin test. 12" is the minimum, and most on the list don't go much beyond that in plain gelatin; they certainly don't approach 18".

There is lots of data available for most of the bullets on the recommended list for anyone who wants to know more. The scope of that picture is for a quick-and-dirty illustration when people argue ad infinitum about caliber X being so much better than caliber Y.

For anyone looking for the actual numbers for various bullets - I try to update the "Best Choices for Self-Defense Ammo" page whenever I find something new that was tested with calibrated gelatin. Unfortunately, data is usually sparse so it doesn't get updated a lot.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Foot-pounds of energy per caliber (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us