[Bob Reed]

Hello,

Which one do you think is the "most physically devastating" to the "creature" that receives it, a good JHP that completely penetrates it's target or one that stops just short of exiting it's target?

BTW, Lets please remember to be civil.

Thanks For Your Votes & Replies,
The Sockman

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. For hunting, I prefer complete penetration. For other "creatures", I voted for deep but not complete penetration.
What I think would be ideal would be a hollow point that penetrates, expands, and comes to rest just under the skin on the opposite side.

Best.

 

[Josh Smith]

SOCKMAN,

I would like both. If I can't have both, I'll take a deep penetrator that shores up right underneath the skin.

People talk about two holes bleeding more than one when advocating hardball. I think they forget about internal bleeding when this is said.

Josh <><

 

[jimhigginbotham]

I voted for complete, just to be contrary

But in truth, I cannot improve much on what either Steve or Josh said when taken together.

I am convinced (finally after many years) that the idea of transferring some sort of power or energy is a misleading and counterproductive thought process when it comes to disabling people or animals with pistols. It is not that there is not any power transferred it is that it is so miniscule that we need not dwell on it.

Exit holes (real ones, as in .75" or larger...hopefully much larger) help drop the blood pressure quicker...but still not quick enough.

I can easily accept that a ball round that leaves a .40 exit hole (and a .45 does just about that), is no more effective than an expanded .357 that put a 2" hole in the heart and then stopped just under the skin.

Better still, I would like a bullet that not only put the 2" hole in the heart/lungs but left the same size exit.

What I do not want is a bullet that will typically drive only 5 or 6" deep. Make no mistake, some bullets that give 12" of penetration in calibrated gelatin can *sometimes* stop at 5" or even less!!! - it is a game of chance - your life is at stake!

Didn't mean to be so long winded, when the above posts suffice anyway.

Press on,
Jim

 

[pff]

You _can_ have devastating expansion plus complete penetration......just use a bigger gun.

In common carry loads (extrapolating from hunting) I'd still go for penetration. Adequate penetration on quartering or side shots is going to go complete on frontal shots.

As a buddy of mine said once: "air in, blood out"


Regards,

Pat

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. Someone wiser than me (and that does NOT eliminate many) once said, "We want expansion but we need penetration." I tend to agree. While I personally do believe that the temporary cavity does play some role, I do not think it is a vital of one as the permanent cavity. At the same time I do not dismiss the temporary cavity as meaningless. I do think its possible effects might be harder to quantitize than for the permanent but so much depends on where either or both are, ie, placement. In 9mm, .357, .44 Special, and .45 Colt I've had exceptionally good luck with the XTP bullet. It expands some and penetrates well. Its ability to "stop", ie put the animal on the ground quickly really was no different so far as I could observe than more popular bullets that tend to expand to greater diameters. I did have more leeway on the angles of the shots. Frankly if I had to choose but one bullet in the above calibers for both hunting or defense, it would be the Hornady XTP....so I reckon I favor penetration a bit more than "just" expansion. Something in the 12 to 14" range is fine with me.

Best.

 

[oldgranpa]

My comments are limited to the need for self defense and hunting is a different subject.
Not having shot anyone, and hoping I never do (following rule 1, "run away if possible") my experience is limited to shooting boxes of wet papers (and a few waterjugs), which have never shot back or "attacked" me.

Comparing the results of many wetpacks with what I've read about the subject leads me to think that there is a balance between penetration and expansion. It seems this balance is for a minimum (note..my idea of minimum) penetration of around 10" gelatin equivalent and 60 - 70 percent expansion of the JHP bullet.
I seem to find that smaller calibers, like .32acp and less do not achieve these numbers, especially penetration, with JHP rounds, and FMJ is a better choice there.
The human torso in most of us is just less than 10" thru (big men excluded : so I voted for less than full penetration with the reasons I just stated. I still plan to run away first if I can.
Sorry if I've talked myself into a corner.
og

 

[Guest]

I want two holes letting the blood out and the air in.

 

[randomman]

Ideally, I want a round that expands to triple it's size and explodes upon impact instantly incapcitating whatever it is I am shooting at. But the reality of that situation is...we don't have that round.

Giving it alot of thought, I'd like a round that expands over one that penetrates fully. Ideally, 2 holes bleed more than 1, but with full expansion and no exiting you do not have to worry about over-penetration, which is a distinct possiblity, especially in crowded urban environments. Not too mention a fully pentrating round that does more damage to internal organs will probably incapcitate faster than just two bleeding holes.

-Rob

 

[Guest]

Gents,

Sounds like you're talking apples and oranges here.

For Self Defense I want the bullet to stay in the body.

For hunting I want an entry and exit wound.

Wes

 

[Bob Reed]

Hello & Thanks for your votes & replies.

I voted complete penetration to be the most physically devastating.

Thanks Again,
The Sockman

 

[pax]

Sometimes we lose track of the forest, because there are to many trees. I think this is a great question to discuss, but must consider, that when choosing a bullet and fps range, we are not addressing any one type of target. To achieve either a complete penetration, or 99.9 penetration....pretty much depend upon your target....if I must choose, I will go complete penetration, this way if the round falls short, I am still happy, with the results... personally I rather have it, and not need it, then need it, and not have it !!!!

 

[Guest]

I want one that expands and stays in the body.

Temporary cavity is okay, but its the permanent that does the job.
Most of the organs in the body are very elastic, therefore the temp will hurt but won't give the results needed to put the BG out of the fight.

 

[Guest]

I answered in self-defense mode. I'd be fine if all my lead stays in the body - but from a sheer collateral damage standpoint. In such a litigation happy society, I'd hate to scratch someone's Lexus with an expanded hollow point that just exited a badguy's torso. I will be honest though, terminal ballistics while somewhat facinating to me on a physical and anatomical level do not hold water in my defense mode. I will continue to shoot until the threat has ceased. I'll do that here in Iraq, and I'll do it back stateside. If that means I have a BG with 10 entry wounds, and 0 exit wounds, so be it. If he just so happens to have 20 bleeding holes, I'm ok with that too. Things happen quickly - worrying about how far my rounds are going in, or through my target need not be an issue on my mind while the giant proverbial fan is strewing fecal matter about my AO (I say this keeping in mind the rule of knowing your target, and everything beyond it - though in theater there are times when things beyond may be destroyed to keep myself and brothers at arms safe.)


Anthony

 

[Guest]

I like deep penetration with out an exit hole as I don't want any bystanders get hit as well as the target.

 

[Guest]

Complete penetration means there's a bullet out the back of someone heading "who knows where?" I sincerely hope it stays in the BG's body! That's why a short-barrel .50 cal is not my primary home defender! Just kidding, but you get the idea.

 

[nmxcop]

Well, I'd much rather have penetration and no expansion than over expansion and not enough penetration. In the gelatin tests I certainly want at least 12 inches of penetration but my preference is more in the 14 to 18 inch range.

 

[nelson]

Deep penetration for self defense.If the bullet is exiting, then that is energy that has been wasted. The wasted energy could have been used to further expand the bullet, creating a larger wound channel. an exiting bullet no longer causes any further harm to the initial target and can go on to hurt a second or third unintended creature. the secret lies in matching the right cartridge to the right purpose and finding the best balance between penetration and expansion.

Complete penetration for hunting in deep forest and a blood trail is necessary to finding the carcass.

 

[hoot]

For either SD or hunting, my philosophy is the same.

I voted complete penetration, although I'm not sure what that means.
Completely through an arm, then the body?
Heavy winter clothing, or even body armor and then the vitals?
Or maybe through a car door and then the BG?
Or a house wall and then the threat?

Without knowing in advance the full particulars of what the situation will be if I have to face a BG, I'll opt for more penetration, because we never know how much penetration is enough. Fortunately, the ammunition we have available today, we can have both penetration and expansion.

I'm much more concerned about misses than over-penetration. I figure that if I hit what I'm shooting at, even if the bullet goes all the way through, the chances of hitting something I really don't want to hit are pretty slim. And, even if I do, the energy will mostly be expended anyway, and not be able to do much, if any, damage.

My 2

 

[pff]

Exactly.

If you have _enough_ penetration for angling shots, then you will get _complete_ penetration on frontal shots.

If you opt for a load that doesn't exit on frontal shots then it isn't going to reach vitals on shots fron odd angles.

The difference in hunting is that you can (or at least should) pass up any shot at a difficult angle if using a load that doesn't penetrate well.

In a self-defense scenario you don't have that option.


Regards,

Pat