After the ballistic test I posted sometime back and the review of the Kahr CT 40 is over I am no so against the round as I used to be.
Opinions, thoughts?
Macho interwebz commandos love to proclaim that the FBI ditched the 10mm in favor of the .40 S&W because the 10mm was just too awesome for their girly agents. The truth is slightly more complicated and far less dramatic. The velocity gained with the 10mm doesn't translate to better wounding in human targets but does translate to greater recoil. Greater recoil means slower shooting, no matter who you are. This is the part where interwebz commandos proclaim how inhumanly fast they are with THEIR sooper deathblastomatic in 10mm. Fine, but no matter how fast you are with 10mm, YOU would be faster with less recoil. More holes of the same size stops fights more quickly. For a defensive pistol that is purely for defense against human beings at ranges of 50 yards or less, the .40 S&W is certainly better. Even more so for a concealed carry handgun.
10mm can do things that .40 S&W can't, though. It is extremely versatile and can cover a very wide range of tasks. For one thing, the higher velocity means less drop, which would be useful if you anticipated a need to defend yourself at greater than 50 yards. Okay, that's not very likely but the flatter trajectory and greater downrange energy is useful for hunting. 10mm can also launch longer projectiles than the .40 S&W can and it can do it at reasonable velocity. That makes it useful for animal defense, though a big bore magnum is a better choice for large bears. An often overlooked feature of the 10mm is also a weakness. Because it drives bullets so fast, the velocity often exceeds the design parameters of bullets that were intended for .40 S&W. On the other hand, the extra velocity can coax expansion from cheap, old, cup & core style JHPs, even after passing through clothing. I don't know how practical that is as a feature but it's there. The extra velocity can also help to flatten the meplat of a heavy lead solid to get extremely deep (like measured in FEET deep) penetration while still cutting a respectable wound channel.
I agree the 40S&W is what it is, and yes the bullets are geared more toward the ballistics it brings to the party. Most of the newer guns chambered for the 40S&W, are lighter and shorter than the heavy weights made to replace the 10mm back in the day. There were quite a few less polymer guns back then. Therefore, I see where the snappy recoil is a tradeoff with these shorter lighter pistols and the velocity losses because the shorter barrels. Yes they still perform a good role as a defensive pistol in close quarters. While we 10mm guys poke fun with all the monikers we've hung on the cartridge over the years, it is a great cartridge. ::)
I shoot many 40S&W cartridges from my 10mm pistols with conversion barrels, this has been beneficial in several ways; more practice using the same grip, feel, pointing, trigger and sight picture to maintain proficiency. Being a slightly lighter loading, there is less wear on the pistol and the 10mm chambered barrel. But the biggest plus has to be the abundance of 40 brass, begging for handloading with my cast bullets, for all the above reasons and to lessen the wear and loss of the 10mm brass while getting to play! ;D
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 04 2014 11:37:33 AM MDTFor one thing, the higher velocity means less drop, which would be useful if you anticipated a need to defend yourself at greater than 50 yards.
Actually there is no decrease in drop with equal bullet weight. They both drop at the exact same rate. It's just with the 10mm's higher velocity, it goes further horizontally during the same vertical drop interval. Which means it acts like the drop time is less, but it really isn't. Or to explain it even better....
QuoteBullet drop is defined as the vertical distance of the projectile below the line of departure from the bore. Even when the line of departure is tilted upward or downward, bullet drop is still defined as the distance between the bullet and the line of departure at any point along the trajectory. Bullet drop is therefore of little practical use to shooters because it does not describe the actual trajectory of the bullet and is independent of the direction or distance to a target.
Let's not forget the medium velocity 10mm loads which exceed .40 S&W ballistics by 100 feet per second or so.
Would anybody take a 155 grain XTP or Gold Dot at 1280 to 1300 fps for self defense purposes? Not too much recoil or blast, but more speed than a .40 in that weight.
How about a 165 grain bullet at 1250 to 1300? Since most .40 loads in that weight are doing 1150, this is a nice increase in speed and kinetic energy without breaking the bank in recoil, muzzle blast, and wear and tear on your weapon. And if you consider the fact that the 165 in .40 is performing very well on the street, the extra 100 feet per second will presumably do even better.
It's a win - win in my opinion.
From the gel tests I've seen, it seems like the 10mm has greater permanent cavitation at the beginning of the wound track than the .40. I've also seen this much more dramatically in my wet books testing.
EDIT: Not to mention the expanded slugs pulled from 10mm gel tests have often had an added .2 inches in diameter over the equivalent .40 loading. I'm looking at you, Gold Dots. Some of them almost expanded to an inch, show me a .40 that does that.
The versatility of the 10mm from the Short and weak velocitys to the low end 41mag velocitys is a fact no one can deny. Your contention that the 10mm does not do that much more than a 40 Seems to show me you don't really know the full usage the 10mm presents. The 40 is an all or nothing caliber - pick any bullet size and the 10mm destroys the 40, it can match or completely destroy the 40. The 40 to me is nothing but a hyper 9mm, which the 357sig beat easily and holds the 40 off and exceeds it in allot of other areas. The big is better ( 180 to 220 grain heads) only works in the 10mm. If the 40 is so great, why do they keep trying to match the 10 - kinda like penis envy if you ask me. Just remember the 40 is the little brother and 10mm is big brother and still the baddest.
The 10mm demise is recoil, if you can't handle it don't play in the in the big sand box -
Why settle for less than the best.
A person has to know his limitations and abilities, the crying towels are handed out at the exit door.
Doug
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 04 2014 11:37:33 AM MDT
The velocity gained with the 10mm doesn't translate to better wounding in human targets but does translate to greater recoil. Greater recoil means slower shooting, no matter who you are............Fine, but no matter how fast you are with 10mm, YOU would be faster with less recoil. More holes of the same size stops fights more quickly. For a defensive pistol that is purely for defense against human beings at ranges of 50 yards or less, the .40 S&W is certainly better. Even more so for a concealed carry handgun.
While I'm still new to this forum; I've been a long time admirer of the 10mm because of the versatility you fairly pointed out. However, I don't subscribe to 1 caliber sidearm is always best alternative for every occasion either.
With that stipulated and with all due respect; I haven't found much empirical real world data to support the initial declarative statement regarding 10mm wounding in humans.
May also be relevant to point out, development of .40 had as much to do with shorter case permitting utilization in smaller 9mm frame pistols of 1980's vintage vs. full size .45acp size frames then in use (see Bren Ten).
With regard to "faster" with "more holes" elements. Not saying I necessarily disagree but wonder if that logic at some point starts to support what the 9mm (similar size holes) fans been saying all these years?
If Wikipedia is accurate:
"Despite the F.B.I. switching to the .40 S&W, their Hostage Rescue Team, Special Weapons and Tactics Teams, and various other law enforcement agencies in the United States still continue to issue or authorize the use of 10mm."
On a final note. Got nothing against .40, 9mm, 357sig, (45acp in night stand right now) they can all be very effective with reams of empirical data to back it up. Depending on occasion/situation any one of them may get the nod. However, when the occasion calls for full size these days; personally very satisfied with 15+1 of ballistics superior to 357 magnum on tap.
Quote from: gandog56 on June 04 2014 01:21:17 PM MDT
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 04 2014 11:37:33 AM MDTFor one thing, the higher velocity means less drop, which would be useful if you anticipated a need to defend yourself at greater than 50 yards.
Actually there is no decrease in drop with equal bullet weight. They both drop at the exact same rate. It's just with the 10mm's higher velocity, it goes further horizontally during the same vertical drop interval. Which means it acts like the drop time is less, but it really isn't. Or to explain it even better....
I get that. Even bullets of dissimilar weight will fall nearly the same distance in a given period of time in atmosphere because the acceleration rate of 32 ft/sec^2 is a constant on Earth. As I used it, "less drop" refers to fewer inches between POA and POI on paper. In practical terms, it means a greater chance to hit your target at extended ranges, perhaps I should have used different phrasing. Holdover is difficult with iron sighted pistols.
Quote from: 4949shooter on June 04 2014 06:02:34 PM MDT
Let's not forget the medium velocity 10mm loads which exceed .40 S&W ballistics by 100 feet per second or so.
Would anybody take a 155 grain XTP or Gold Dot at 1280 to 1300 fps for self defense purposes? Not too much recoil or blast, but more speed than a .40 in that weight.
How about a 165 grain bullet at 1250 to 1300? Since most .40 loads in that weight are doing 1150, this is a nice increase in speed and kinetic energy without breaking the bank in recoil, muzzle blast, and wear and tear on your weapon. And if you consider the fact that the 165 in .40 is performing very well on the street, the extra 100 feet per second will presumably do even better.
It's a win - win in my opinion.
Not exactly. There is very little difference in actual wounding between service pistol calibers. A hit with a 9mm has similar effect to a hit with a .45 ACP. There is nothing magical going on. A 165 gr Gold Dot moving 100 fps faster *might* theoretically cut a slightly wider wound channel but in practice that extra 100 fps has no impact on the time to incapacitation. While the extra recoil and blast might not be dramatic, there IS a difference and as I mentioned above, less recoil means faster shooting, which means more holes in bad guys, which means faster incapacitation.
Quote from: radiotom on June 04 2014 09:26:32 PM MDT
From the gel tests I've seen, it seems like the 10mm has greater permanent cavitation at the beginning of the wound track than the .40. I've also seen this much more dramatically in my wet books testing.
EDIT: Not to mention the expanded slugs pulled from 10mm gel tests have often had an added .2 inches in diameter over the equivalent .40 loading. I'm looking at you, Gold Dots. Some of them almost expanded to an inch, show me a .40 that does that.
You can't normally see the permanent (or "crush") cavity in gelatin or other gel tests. The diameter of the permanent cavity is measured by taking the average expanded diameter of the projectile ( (max expansion+min expansion)/2 ). Volume of the crush cavity is the result of multiplying the previous number by the length of the track.
What you are seeing in the gel is the temporary (or "stretch") cavity. This has no substantive effect on wounding at pistol velocities (<2,000 fps) but looks dramatic in gel. Human tissue (with the exception of brain and liver tissue) can stretch and return farther than gelatin can so the gel shows fractures. Those testers that have high frame rate cameras can often capture the temporary cavity at or near its widest point.
That said, 10mm expanded diameters are typically slightly larger than the same bullet in .40 S&W. Theoretically, that means a larger permanent cavity, but only by a slight margin and then we consider that .45 ACP expanded diameters are typically larger than a similar bullet in 10mm. I know most of you have seen this but it's probably time to take a look again:
(http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg)
Quote from: Rojo27 on June 05 2014 03:23:36 AM MDT
While I'm still new to this forum; I've been a long time admirer of the 10mm because of the versatility you fairly pointed out. However, I don't subscribe to 1 caliber sidearm is always best alternative for every occasion either.
With that stipulated and with all due respect; I haven't found much empirical real world data to support the initial declarative statement regarding 10mm wounding in humans.
May also be relevant to point out, development of .40 had as much to do with shorter case permitting utilization in smaller 9mm frame pistols of 1980's vintage vs. full size .45acp size frames then in use (see Bren Ten).
With regard to "faster" with "more holes" elements. Not saying I necessarily disagree but wonder if that logic at some point starts to support what the 9mm (similar size holes) fans been saying all these years?
If Wikipedia is accurate:
"Despite the F.B.I. switching to the .40 S&W, their Hostage Rescue Team, Special Weapons and Tactics Teams, and various other law enforcement agencies in the United States still continue to issue or authorize the use of 10mm."
On a final note. Got nothing against .40, 9mm, 357sig, (45acp in night stand right now) they can all be very effective with reams of empirical data to back it up. Depending on occasion/situation any one of them may get the nod. However, when the occasion calls for full size these days; personally very satisfied with 15+1 of ballistics superior to 357 magnum on tap.
Please read http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) particularly page five in regards to temporary stretch cavity. Also refer to the image above.
www.brasstard.com 2011 Review of G20 and wet pack phone book test's of real 10 loads and .40 cal. That sold me at the time. The Venerable Glock 20 article.
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 05 2014 10:52:20 AM MDT
Please read http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) particularly page five in regards to temporary stretch cavity. Also refer to the image above.
Interesting study written by Special Agent but not exactly the empirical data I am looking for.
Not to redirect but a similar argument could be made around actual quantifiable incapacitation results of 9mm & 357 magnum. As far as diameter goes, almost identical. What are we left with to explain the quantifiable differences in wounding results? Mass and speed of the projectile; No? In gel, I'll bet they'd look similar to others in the picture you posted but the actual results are clearly different.
Hence above reference.
Quote from: Rojo27 on June 05 2014 04:02:22 PM MDT
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 05 2014 10:52:20 AM MDT
Please read http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) particularly page five in regards to temporary stretch cavity. Also refer to the image above.
Interesting study written by Special Agent but not exactly the empirical data I am looking for.
Not to redirect but a similar argument could be made around actual quantifiable incapacitation results of 9mm & 357 magnum. As far as diameter goes, almost identical. What are we left with to explain the quantifiable differences in wounding results? Mass and speed of the projectile; No? In gel, I'll bet they'd look similar to others in the picture you posted but the actual results are clearly different.
difference would be, as with the ten mm, the expanded diameters of the projectiles.
Unfortunately, there are no credible studies of "street" r results. Also unfortunately, many people seem to regard the Marshall and Sannow study as something more than pure carp.
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 05 2014 10:34:33 AM MDT
Quote from: radiotom on June 04 2014 09:26:32 PM MDT
From the gel tests I've seen, it seems like the 10mm has greater permanent cavitation at the beginning of the wound track than the .40. I've also seen this much more dramatically in my wet books testing.
EDIT: Not to mention the expanded slugs pulled from 10mm gel tests have often had an added .2 inches in diameter over the equivalent .40 loading. I'm looking at you, Gold Dots. Some of them almost expanded to an inch, show me a .40 that does that.
You can't normally see the permanent (or "crush") cavity in gelatin or other gel tests. The diameter of the permanent cavity is measured by taking the average expanded diameter of the projectile ( (max expansion+min expansion)/2 ). Volume of the crush cavity is the result of multiplying the previous number by the length of the track.
What you are seeing in the gel is the temporary (or "stretch") cavity. This has no substantive effect on wounding at pistol velocities (<2,000 fps) but looks dramatic in gel. Human tissue (with the exception of brain and liver tissue) can stretch and return farther than gelatin can so the gel shows fractures. Those testers that have high frame rate cameras can often capture the temporary cavity at or near its widest point.
That said, 10mm expanded diameters are typically slightly larger than the same bullet in .40 S&W. Theoretically, that means a larger permanent cavity, but only by a slight margin and then we consider that .45 ACP expanded diameters are typically larger than a similar bullet in 10mm. I know most of you have seen this but it's probably time to take a look again:
(http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg)
You're going to need to explain this post better.
"You can't normally see the permanent (or "crush") cavity in gelatin or other gel tests."
"What you are seeing in the gel is the temporary (or "stretch") cavity."So the hole I'm seeing is temporary? OK.
And then we have, for the
widest point:
"Those testers that have high frame rate cameras can often capture the temporary cavity at or near its widest point."My understanding is that there is gel that leaks fluid into the temporary cavity showing it aftwards and others that require a high speed camera to see. The resulting hole, that is sitting there in the gel at the end is the permanent cavity. People cut open gel blocks and measure it sometimes...and since the gel is a tissue simulant, what remains is what remains, permanently. Obvious different types of REAL tissue act different, and obviously higher kinetic energy transfer equals bigger temporary cavities and this is normally only useful to measure in rifles. Nobody is disagreeing with that. But, the cavity that remains in ballistic gel is often much larger with 357 mag and 10mm than their caliber cousins, specifically where the hollow point starts opening up and dumping it's energy. A hole remains after it is said and done, much like a fragmenting M193 in gel. That hole is not temporary. I don't think anybody is saying that, are you? When you hear people like tnoutdoors9, mrgunsngear, shootingthebull or anybody else examining their gel blocks, they always refer to the hole that remains as permanent. You seem to be disputing this.
EDIT:
Here is what I'm talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPzxBJSIaGA
The same principle applies to handguns. What remains is permanent, the "bubble" as he calls it in this video is the temporary cavity. Obviously, really small and meaningless with handguns.
Again, start around 5 minutes, at 6 minutes he talks about the difference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPGSiDs5_k
Blowing good sizes holes with 10mm, at 2:16 he calls the cavity permanent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X6vNZTbF7s
And why wouldn't he? Same type of gel as the M193, same type of hole.
http://kjg-munition.de/Zielwirkung/Fackler/wund4.gif
Go ahead and compare that 10mm cavity to the 40's from his videos. It's not even close.
Maybe I wasn't very clear. There is pretty widespread misunderstanding of what the temporary vs. permanent wound cavities are and how gelatin works. In the photograph below (10mm Underwood 155 gr Gold Dot), the red lines roughly describe the area of the permanent cavity. It is usually very difficult to see without cutting the block open because it is sort of folded back on itself and the gelatin itself bends light a bit. You may just have to take my word for it, but what you see in photographs isn't very representative of the actual cavity. More importantly, the experts who actually get paid by government agencies to do this sort of work have declared that the permanent cavity is determined by measuring the recovered projectile, not by any measurement of the gelatin, regardless of what some YouTube posters do. I respect tnoutdoors9 but he consistently refers to the temporary cavity he sees in his gel as a permanent cavity. Shootingthebull seems to have a better grasp of the fundamentals.
The green lines in the photograph represent the rough area of the temporary cavity. It is not a "hole" as you describe, but rather a region where the gelatin has stretched beyond its elastic limit and split. When you cut the block apart, it looks very much like a crack in glass. If you look closely at the upper track in the photo, you can see the splits have a sort of spiral pattern to them.
In some tests, notably the photograph I posted above, dye has been added after the fact to help illustrate the size and shape of the cavities. This isn't seen as often nowadays because it mainly just emphasizes the temporary cavity, which is not a primary wounding mechanism in handguns.
ir
I think it's important to note that these aren't just my opinions. They are my own (possibly flawed) interpretation of papers written by experts in the field. I encourage you to do your own research. I strongly recommend reading anything by Dr. Roberts or Dr. Fackler.
It's also worth noting that the stretch cavity DOES start becoming a significant wounding factor somewhere above 2,000 fps, especially when fragmentation is also involved. At the velocity seen with M193 and many other rifle cartridges, the tissues stretch far beyond their elastic limit and split, much like the gelatin does at lower velocity.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2n8ykwl.jpg)
That last link is M193. Rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols. You can embed the image by wrapping the URL in tags like this:
(http://kjg-munition.de/Zielwirkung/Fackler/wund4.gif)
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 05 2014 10:20:27 AM MDT
Quote from: 4949shooter on June 04 2014 06:02:34 PM MDT
Let's not forget the medium velocity 10mm loads which exceed .40 S&W ballistics by 100 feet per second or so.
Would anybody take a 155 grain XTP or Gold Dot at 1280 to 1300 fps for self defense purposes? Not too much recoil or blast, but more speed than a .40 in that weight.
How about a 165 grain bullet at 1250 to 1300? Since most .40 loads in that weight are doing 1150, this is a nice increase in speed and kinetic energy without breaking the bank in recoil, muzzle blast, and wear and tear on your weapon. And if you consider the fact that the 165 in .40 is performing very well on the street, the extra 100 feet per second will presumably do even better.
It's a win - win in my opinion.
Not exactly. There is very little difference in actual wounding between service pistol calibers. A hit with a 9mm has similar effect to a hit with a .45 ACP. There is nothing magical going on. A 165 gr Gold Dot moving 100 fps faster *might* theoretically cut a slightly wider wound channel but in practice that extra 100 fps has no impact on the time to incapacitation. While the extra recoil and blast might not be dramatic, there IS a difference and as I mentioned above, less recoil means faster shooting, which means more holes in bad guys, which means faster incapacitation.
Agree 100% that less recoil means faster follow up shots. This is one of the reasons why I concede that we
do not need full power 10mm for defense against human aggressors.
I partly agree what you are saying about the differences in service caliber performance. But I must point out that
Load Selection is much more imporant than
Caliber Selection.I think you know what I mean by that.
I would go farther and say that selecting the right bullet is most important. Not all bullets are created equal. Not all JHPs are created equal. With a well designed modern bullet like the HST or Gold Dot, it is important to stay within its design parameters but, as I mentioned above, one of the cool things the 10mm can do is to force a badly designed bullet to perform well, or at least adequately.
Just to add to that....the old 9BPLE load (9mm +P+) has put down a lot of bad guys with an old bullet design. It seems that the bullet they (Federal) used was up to the task for that velocity.
Does it take a combination between proper load with the correct bullet? I would say so.
I just carry on where im going, time of day and season and usual surroundings. I was a proponent of the 135 Nosler, but took it to 155. Might be a 9mm or .40 requirement.
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 05 2014 06:05:23 PM MDT
Quote from: Rojo27 on June 05 2014 04:02:22 PM MDT
Quote from: Raggedyman on June 05 2014 10:52:20 AM MDT
Unfortunately, there are no credible studies of "street" r results. Also unfortunately, many people seem to regard the Marshall and Sannow study as something more than pure carp.
Unfortunately, my natural inclination is usually to question generally accepted wisdom (probably a character defect). Although I'm sure as hell not a ballistician, medical examiner, terminal ballistic researcher; my personal belief is that a bit more at play than penetration depth and permanent cavity defined by diameter of handgun projectile. But I've been wrong before.
I'm sure we can all agree that shot placement and bullet design are probably two must important factors in swift incapacitation.
Couple of interesting studies I found after contemplating this discussion.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0701266v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702107v2.pdf
I'm personally inclined to rest on the knowledge or wisdom of people that are more familiar with a subject than I am, while maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism. And I agree that of course shot placement is the most important factor.
The first article you link opens with a reference to the discredited Marshall and Sannow "study" and relies heavily on their data set. It loses further credibility in mentioning the Strasbourg goat tests. One interesting oddity was the claim that service pistol calibers have only 20% - 30% less energy than .223 Rem. Do they consider .44 mag or .357 mag to be "service caliber"? It is true that those cartridges have been used in police service but I think most people mean 9x19mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP when they say "service caliber."
The second article was very interesting. Any ethical study of this subject is going to have faults because we can't just shoot enraged criminals in controlled conditions and note the results. In this case, deer are not people and more importantly, the targets are not under the influence of anger, fear, adrenaline, alcohol, or other drugs when shot. It also de-emphasizes the importance of penetration out of necessity.
The prevailing wisdom among ballisticians is that crush cavity is the only significant wounding mechanism in service pistol calibers. I have wondered sometimes if particularly energetic cartridges such as 10mm or .357 mag might sometimes get psychological stops due to the increased pain resulting from their larger temporary cavities. Like a punch in the gut, I think.
Brass Fetcher study published a couple years ago. Although 10mm not specifically tested, several other handgun calibers including .40 were, as well as high energy 357 magnum.
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Wounding%20Theory/Velocity%20of%20Radial%20Expansion.pdf
I'll put it this way....
....I would not want to be shot by either .40 or 10mm. And I have both. I love using the exact same bullet for both when I reload them. And I'm Deadeye Dick accurate with either.
.40 Cal:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/Gandog56/40SW.jpg)
10mm:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/Gandog56/dwgroup.jpg)
Quote from: Rojo27 on June 21 2014 05:38:25 AM MDT
Brass Fetcher study published a couple years ago. Although 10mm not specifically tested, several other handgun calibers including .40 were, as well as high energy 357 magnum.
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Wounding%20Theory/Velocity%20of%20Radial%20Expansion.pdf
Very interesting, thank you for posting. The article isn't very conclusive on the effectiveness of the temporary cavity in regards to incapacitation but it confirms that velocity is the key factor in determining the size of the temporary cavity. It also further underscores the fact that rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols.
Quote from: gandog56 on June 21 2014 05:56:21 AM MDT
I'll put it this way....
....I would not want to be shot by either .40 or 10mm. And I have both. I love using the exact same bullet for both when I reload them. And I'm Deadeye Dick accurate with either.
I don't want to be smacked with a wet diaper but that doesn't make it an effective personal defense tool. I'm not arguing that either .40 S&W or 10mm are ineffective (I own and trust both for carry myself) I just hate that reasoning.
As a matter of record, I don't want to be shot with a BB gun or sling shot or hit with a wiffle ball bat. I don't want you to throw cabbages at me or bags of 45 day old pee. There are a whole host of things that I would not want lobbed at me that would be minimally effective for defense. Do you want to be shot with a .22lr? Does the fact that you don't want to be shot with it make it a good choice for defense?
Like I said....I would prefer not to be shot by either. ;)
Don't hold your breath waiting for me to volunteer, either. ;D
The problem with terminal ballistics is that it is NOT an exact science. Gel test are an approximation. What clothing, how large is the subject, how worked up is that subject before the shooting begins, how reliably does the ammo do what its supposed to do? There are just too many variables.
The posted FBI study states something like 70% of the bullets expand. How does the increased velocity of the 10mm affect that percentage?
The video of shootings I have seen shows a flinch as a subject is struck by a bullet. Does that flinch correlate to the amount of jump/wiggle of the gel block, which may slow the bad guy a similar amount as the shooter slows dealing with the increased recoil?
I'll state straight out that I think the 12" penetration figure is over rated. I'm 6'1" @ 235# and I have a ruler that is shortened to 10". There are very few face to face situations that that round won't reach vitals. I'm wide through the shoulders and 10" reached the center of my chest after passing through my arm. I understand the police need, but they have a much higher possibility of using that weapon than I do.
As a citizen, I figure that I can avoid most possible situations by being alert and not being the "easy" target of a bad guy. When something is starting up, I can get out of most of those situations, even if that just means cutting and running. When all that fails, how many of those cases lend to the "fear of death of great bodily injury" case? The best use of a handgun is to do whatever is possible to avoid needing it. Police don't have that option. They need to inject themselves in the exact situations I try to avoid.
40 short and weak, it is good. 9mm, it works. 45 might be as good as caliber as close handgun fighter can have. Heck, a 380 with a full magazine might be close to perfect when adrenaline is pumping through a less thoroughly trained citizen. To me, too much fuss over minor differences. Its all interesting, but caliber choice is small potatoes in comparison to keeping out of situations, training well for what likely will never happen, and actually having the weapon with you in the unlikely event you need it. Personally, I don't feel under gunned with a 135g Nosler pushed as fast as the 10mm pushes it, and 8-9" of penetration will do more damage than what these tests portray. It largely doesn't matter which of these calibers you have with you to be truthful.
Greg
Ill say it again ..."penetration in gel does not exactly correspond to tissue". Thats right that if you stick a ruler perpendicular to your body that 10" will extend it to a vital organ. However our best ballistic experts disagree that is sufficent criteria. The fbi test concludes that you need a minimum of 12" penetration of DENIM COVERED GELATIN to ensure sufficient wounding. Your 8" gel penetration of the 135gr nosler round that is falling apart or expanding so wide it cant even make it 9" is probably going to get stopped a few inches into the body after hitting a bone. The bullets need to stay together and not expand out wider than designed to reliably penetrate.
Hold your arms out together like you are shooting. If someone hits you in an extended arm that bullet needs to go through 6-8" of tissue and bone then needs to make it thru your ribs to hit something important. I bet that 135gr nosler doesnt even get thru a 6" thick arm.
I mean 12" is the minimum established amount up to 18". Beyond 18" the conclusion is the bullet should have expanded more to create a larger wound cavity.
QuoteThe problem with terminal ballistics is that it is NOT an exact science. Gel test are an approximation.
Kind of, except that properly conducted professional gelatin tests are an EXTREMELY close approximation.
Quote
"The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg's material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved
shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy
results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had
collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets
fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both
human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based
ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting
incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly
conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of
projectiles in actual shooting incidents." - Dr. Roberts
"The test of the wound profiles validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue
interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body
traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the
tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the
projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its
overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile's course. Shots
traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close
approximation to the wound profiles.
The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw
patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and
reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency a good reason was found and when the
exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a
small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a
valid tissue simulant." - Dr. Fackler
QuoteI'll state straight out that I think the 12" penetration figure is over rated. I'm 6'1" @ 235# and I have a ruler that is shortened to 10". There are very few face to face situations that that round won't reach vitals. I'm wide through the shoulders and 10" reached the center of my chest after passing through my arm.
If the bad guys happen to be the same size or smaller than you are and if they are willing to stand square to you and not move and not seek cover and not do something like point a weapon at you, then you would probably only need about 4"-6" of penetration. If any of those situations don't exist then you *might* need more. For example, if a person were to point a weapon at you, and if your shot impacted the forearm, your bullet might need to traverse 6" or more of flesh and bone before even reaching the torso. If you were knocked to the ground in the initial attack and you had to fire from a supine position, your rounds could also hit the attacker's limbs before reaching the torso and even then, the bullet could traverse 10" or more of gut before reaching the thoracic cavity. In some situations 12" might not be enough penetration, which is why the FBI recommended that number as the MINIMUM necessary for defense. I'm not an expert, though, which is why I lean on the recommendation of people who are.
Quote from: mag360 on June 22 2014 12:21:35 PM MDT
Ill say it again ..."penetration in gel does not exactly correspond to tissue". Thats right that if you stick a ruler perpendicular to your body that 10" will extend it to a vital organ. However our best ballistic experts disagree that is sufficent criteria. The fbi test concludes that you need a minimum of 12" penetration of DENIM COVERED GELATIN to ensure sufficient wounding. Your 8" gel penetration of the 135gr nosler round that is falling apart or expanding so wide it cant even make it 9" is probably going to get stopped a few inches into the body after hitting a bone. The bullets need to stay together and not expand out wider than designed to reliably penetrate.
Hold your arms out together like you are shooting. If someone hits you in an extended arm that bullet needs to go through 6-8" of tissue and bone then needs to make it thru your ribs to hit something important. I bet that 135gr nosler doesnt even get thru a 6" thick arm.
I mean 12" is the minimum established amount up to 18". Beyond 18" the conclusion is the bullet should have expanded more to create a larger wound cavity.
I was typing my reply when you posted yours and the correlation is remarkable. Your post was more concise, though.
40 short and weak, it is good. 9mm, it works. 45 might be as good as caliber as close handgun fighter can have. Heck, a 380 with a full magazine might be close to perfect when adrenaline is pumping through a less thoroughly trained citizen. To me, too much fuss over minor differences. Its all interesting, but caliber choice is small potatoes in comparison to keeping out of situations, training well for what likely will never happen, and actually having the weapon with you in the unlikely event you need it.
This was largely passed over, but I believe it as gospel.
Now to the gunfight thing.
This is my favorite on the subject. 10mm isn't represented, but I don't think it would be separated from the rest of the pack.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power)
Kinda funny I tripped over this referring to the 10mm as a defense caliber.
Take your pick, but you are silly to ignore the superior real-world performance of the lighter 135-155 grain jacketed hollow points. -
from http://gundata.org/blog/post/best-handgun-caliber-and-round-for-self-defense/ (http://gundata.org/blog/post/best-handgun-caliber-and-round-for-self-defense/)
Greg
Not to be rude, but the opinions of bloggers doesn't have as much merit as the findings of peer reviewed studies.
This is hardly comprehensive but here is a great place to start: http://firearmstactical.com/wound.htm (http://firearmstactical.com/wound.htm)
Maybe I'm a little biased towards the .40 (hey it's technically a 10mm too!), my first centerfire pistol was a G23 and I've been a .40 fan ever since. Of course over the years I've owned my share of 10mm's too, but I always had a bit of a love/hate relationship with the 10mm. A lot of handloading has led me to believe that while the 10mm can shoot the same bullet faster than the .40 S&W, the margin isn't as big as some think it is. I prefer the smaller size of the .40's, and with performance that is 90%+ that of a full power 10mm (of course I'm comparing warm 10mm handloads to warm .40 handloads), what's not to like? Plus the support for the .40 is huge, you can not only handload the .40 nicely (5.3" G35 shooting 180's to 1300 fps) but turn around and load it with a good premium factory JHP for home/self defense.
My last 10mm, a Gen4 20, I could take my 4.6" KKM and shoot a 200gr WFN hardcast to a little over 1300 fps, which is warm no doubt. I can take my G23 with 4" KKM and shoot the same bullet over 1,150 fps. That doesn't make it equal to the G20 load, it's 150 fps slower but also coming from a .6" shorter barrel. Logically both rounds will punch through pretty much any deer or hog, but the 23 is a good bit smaller than the 20. If I want more speed, the 35 with 6" barrel can shoot the 200gr WFN (or 200gr XTP) to almost 1,300 fps, not bad for being "short and weak".
I think a lot of the .40 hate stems from most not being aware of what it's capable of, just like some (although not as many) aren't aware of "warm" 10mm loads, many more aren't aware of "warm" .40's either.
That's a good point and if it were a question of only one or only the other, I'd keep the .40 S&W over the 10mm. The G19/23 really is the perfect size for carry. It is large enough to be able to shoot well while trimming length in a very reasonable way. The .40 S&W cartridge is widely available and brass is literally free. My G23 (picture time, picture time!) is my EDC.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/21b12k4.jpg)
But it's not a question of one or the other. We can have both. Sure, the .40 can get "close," if you consider 250 fps slower to be "close," but it can't quite do what the 10mm can and even those "close" loads you were mentioning may be on the ragged edge of pressure limits. I notice you don't mention attempting to push .40 S&W jacketed defense bullets to the limits in a factory barrel.
It's also worth pointing out that factory ammo (for those few manufacturers that actually make real 10mm) in a factory barrel shows a fairly dramatic margin.
I have three 10mm's, only one .40. But of course, my forty also shoots 357 SIG with merely a barrel swap. Same slide, springs, and magazine.
Quote from: Rojo27 on June 05 2014 04:02:22 PM MDT
Not to redirect but a similar argument could be made around actual quantifiable incapacitation results of 9mm & 357 magnum. As far as diameter goes, almost identical. What are we left with to explain the quantifiable differences in wounding results? Mass and speed of the projectile; No? I'll bet gel track of both would look similar to others in the picture you posted but the actual results are clearly different.
Very unlikely to find similar study done on 10mm but I think 357 mag makes an adequate proxy. Close examination of 357 magnum projectiles fired at different velocities may be interesting and/or possibly add something to the conversation.
If embeded video doesn't work, here is copy of URL: http://youtu.be/TMfXLc7TS-0
Made the youtube video work...The Shadow!