Do you feel ballistics gel tests are BS?

If your vital organs are behind 18" of flesh, it's because you're terminally obese. That figure is the standard because it represents the amount of energy necessary to hit vital organs inclusive of penetrating any intervening bone and clothing.
The other standard is the amount of tissue damage needed to reliably incapacitate a man through shock. I can't remember the exact figure but it's approximately equivalent to getting a bratwurst sized chunk of flesh torn out of you.

Trust ameritard to completely miss the point. Which was that ballistic gel penetration does not represents living body penetration, which could be lesser or greater depending on specific conditions, but is always several times less than in ballistic gel.

Density of ballistic gel matches density of human body, bones included.

If it helps you, imagine the first 10 inches of the ballistic gel being bone, and the next 5 inches being the soft tissue.

And I guess if body was 50% leather and 50% steel plate, then bitumen that's halfway between iron and flesh in density would make for a valid substitute.

Attached: 14183994359150.jpg (184x184, 7.92K)

Underrated.

You're trying to sound smart and only managed to sound retarded. Momentum is a form of energy, a human torso isn't the same density all the way through and you're retarded. These things are true.

Attached: Disgusted beetus juice.png (550x689, 170.36K)

This is it.

This is my happy goodnight post.

Goodnight kommandos, sleep tight.

Haven't you faggots heard of E = mc²? Or more properly, E² = m₀²c⁴ + p²c²? The "p" term is relativistic momentum, it's like Newtonian momentum m₀v but multiplied by Lorentz factor 1/√(1-v²/c²). Momentum is energy. Which also means momentum is mass, and that faster objects are also heavier.

God damn the retards I share this boards with, apparently 3 seconds in google to confirm or disprove a statement is too much work these days.

Attached: 15230744993091.jpg (403x407, 25.47K)

I'm glad I could enlighten you both. One retard at a time.

Attached: surrounded by beasts.jpg (520x390, 65.12K)

Nail on the head here. Ballistics gel is useful in comparing cartridges as it effects them all in a similar way, and by comparing ballistic gel performance to real world performance for the same load we have been able to establish benchmarks for comparison purposes. This then allows us to compare new loads without needing the real world application to assess performance.

Physicsfag here, let me explain to you why you're wrong. First, energy is measured in different units than momentum, that alone should tell you enough. A joule is 1 kg*m^2/s^2, whereas momentum would be measured in kg*m/s.
p is not a term in this equation; p^2*c^2 is, and the distinction matters. Look again at the units. Each term must have the same units, so E^2, m^2*c^4, and p^2*c^2 all have units of energy squared, i.e. kg^2*m^/s^4. p^2 has units of kg^2*m^2/s^2 and c^2 has units of m^2/s^2, so p^2*c^2 has units of kg^2*m^/s^4, which is energy squared. Another way to look at it, as is often used when doing calculations on particles, is to measure energy in eV. Then mass is measured as eV/c^2 and momentum is measured as eV/c. In addition to making the above unit analysis neater, it also makes it quite clear that momentum is not energy. Following your logic, we could just as easily claim that, for example, velocity is acceleration because velocity shows up in the equation for acceleration.
This is beyond retarded. Faster objects are heavier because the equation to get from true mass (independent of reference frame) to relativistic mass is m=m0*gamma, where m0 is true mass and gamma is the Lorentz term you mentioned, which depends on velocity. Thus, relatvistic mass depends on velocity. To say that mass and momentum are the same because they each depend on velocity (mind you, true mass does not even depend on velocity, only the relativistic form does) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of even the most basic ideas of physics and leads me to believe that wrote this after skimming the Wikipedia article on special relativity, thinking that makes you an expert.
mrel=m0*gamma
p=m0*v
p=(mrel*gamma)*v
It's literally because of the mass correction that there is a momentum correction. You're an idiot.
I feel your pain.
It takes more than 3 seconds to comprehend special relativity.

Sorry, to be consistent with my earlier notation, mrel should be m. So:
m=m0*gamma
p=m0*v
p=(m*gamma)*v

It should also be division. Sorry, I should have proofread more.
m=m0*gamma
p=m0*v
p=(m/gamma)*v
The reason I fucked this up is that momentum is actually p=m*v, not p=m0*v, so:
m=m0*gamma
p=m*v
p=(m0*gamma)*v
Thus, my argument stands.
This is another way the post I replied to is wrong. You calculate momentum from relativistic mass, not true mass as that post stated.

But momentum is, by definition, in no way a form of energy. It's a function of how energy relates to motion. Energy and momentum are both, in their simplest way, a product of mass and velocity, but there are very key differences between the concepts. Kinetic energy is a measure of how much potential an object has to do work based on the force contained within that object provided by its current mass and velocity, and this energy is a raw number. Momentum is more a measure of the observable effect that an object's mass and velocity have on it to keep it in motion, and momentum has both a value and a direction; i.e, a car going down the road has x kgm/s momentum going forwards, and zero momentum rearward.

You can see how these distinctions matter in practicality when you talk about how they apply to interactions between related objects, or between two or more opposed objects. When a moving object collides with another object - whether it be stationary or also moving - kinetic energy from object x is lost in the interaction and is transferred to both object x and object y in the form of other types of energy, such as heat, sound, chemical energy, etc. However, the interaction of objects never changes momentum directly, as momentum is conserved and transferred wholesale from object x into object y.

The only reason the value of total momentum in a group of objects changes is a direct result of a change in energy itself, where the loss of energy through conversion and dissipation produces a loss in mass and/or velocity. Energy is also lost in motion due to the forces of friction and wind resistance - matter in space reducing the velocity of the object via the object's momentum accelerating that matter - even though conceptually speaking the momentum should be keeping the object's motion constant. What happens instead is that momentum is transferred from object to object to object until it reaches equilibrium, meaning all objects in the system are travelling in related directions at related speeds, which is a non-zero vector. However, energy is reduced to zero after the objects have interacted with everything within their space.

Consider two objects of equivalent mass and velocity travelling in an equivalent direction. Say they both have 1000 J of kinetic energy, each. This is true, and this remains true when you relate the objects to each other, but when comparing the objects to each other you observe that they have what appears to be zero current momentum because neither object is "moving". They're going the same speed in the same direction, which is exactly as much momentum as they would effectively have if they were going at light speed or not moving at all; they cannot transfer momentum into each other, even if their two paths converged. However, while their observable momentum remains at zero for the whole course of that interaction, the forces in the environment those objects occupy and the forces that those objects apply to each other during interaction will reduce their kinetic energy.

On top of all this there's the simple fact that classical momentum is literally a derivative of energy–saying the two are the same is like saying velocity and acceleration are the same.

If momentum isn't mass then explain how massless particles generate gravity.

This response has gone too far.

Is it time yet to introduce the difference between vector and scalar quantities?

When someone says horseshit that almost looks legit, it's important to point that out, otherwise people may mistakingly take it for actual information.

That's a very long-winded way of saying "my physics understanding ends at middle school levels".

They don't. It's literally that simple.
Fg=G*m1*m2/r^2
m1=0 or m2=0 ==> Fg=0
If you can provide a counterexample, I'd love to hear it, because that would be a huge, fundamental flaw in current theories. Anyways, gravity is a force, it causes an acceleration. What does that have to do with saying mass is momentum? Gravity is unrelated to momentum. Also, you didn't actually bother to address of the points I made. Your argument here is essentially:
>Nuh-uh,
I guess you might be thinking of black holes effecting photons, but my (admittedly weak) understanding of that is that it's not actually gravity effecting the photons, rather the black hole is so massive that it warps space-time so much (which is responsible for its gravitational pull) that there simply isn't a way for the photons to escape. Take that with a grain of salt, I'm not super knowledgeable about black holes, my point is just that in that scenario, gravity is not effecting the photons. I can't think of any other situations you might be referring to. I'd love examples just out of curiosity, but unless you can explain how it's relevant, it doesn't actually matter to this discussion.

Thanks for clarifying that you're a victim of Dunning-Krueger effect on the very first line, I appreciate it. I wish everyone would cut to the chase immediately and not waste my time with their drivel.

You know why this formula is called "mass energy equivalence"? Because mass and energy are equivalent. Who would've thought that this is what it means, right? It's not like that's what it says on the tin. The fact that particle mass and speed is measured in electron-volts, which is a unit of energy, wasn't your clue I suppose. But I digress; this is why energetic massless particles have inertia and produce gravitational distortion, this is why photon pressure exists. When you take square root of the full equation you're left with ½m₀v² for v

Attached: 14725044092473.jpg (508x499, 27.92K)

Your first post said:
You're moving the goalposts.
You're inability to understand that eV/c^2!=eV is telling. Do you also think a kilogram is a joule? I'll give you a hint, here: the speed of light is not unitless. Mass is not measured in units of energy. Similarly, eV/c!=eV. Furthermore, eV/c is momentum, not speed. If it were speed, then you're argument falls apart anyways, because then, according to you, speed is energy, mass is energy, and the product of the two is also energy. But of course, that doesn't matter, because eV/c^2!=eV!=eV/c and kg!=kg*m^2/s^2!=m/s!=kg*m/s, i.e., mass, energy, velocity, and momentum are all measured in different units.
I didn't say mass and energy aren't related. Any undergrad physics or chemistry major can tell you that. That's why when a bond breaks or an atom splits, for example, the sum of the masses of the resulting parts are not equal to the original mass. Nothing about saying massless particles don't generate a gravitational pull contests this, nor does any of what you've said prove that they do generate gravity. You've shown how to calculate the minimum energy of a massive particle, something I never contested. You've shown that massless particles move at the speed of light, something I also never contested. You've said nothing about how they generate gravity or how that proves that momentum is either mass or energy.

So, you've managed to ignore my argument in favor of an unsubstantiated claim, then, upon being shown that you're wrong, ignore my arguments again, move the goalposts, and continue to never prove what you said before, all while failing to understand units and acting as though I'm stupid, and so is everyone else who disagrees with you. Congratulations on making yourself seem smart while saying very little of actual value.
Not that any of this matters, since you'll probably just ignore what I've written again while trying to draw attention away from the fact that you still haven't proven your original claims.

If its used alone to prove that a round is effective, yes its complete shit. You can still use it to complement testing.
What should be attempted is human molded targets, with every critical organ/blood vessel/nerve being present inside of the mold. Along with a skeletal system added into it to simulate the round impacting bone.
I know torso molds already exist but, what if your only clear shot is to the leg? Do know if your bullet will yawn inside your target's thigh? Will it just poke a hole? A through-a-through?
Also if the mold is shaped like a human, it would be easy to outside it with clothing/protective gear in a way its meant to be worn. Instead of duck-taped/laid around in an awkward fashion.

However none of this can account for your target being on drugs/adrenaline, unless the intent is to see if the round can get a clean hit to the central nervous system.

Attached: ar15 chan.jpg (1200x1500, 1012.54K)

we're questioning the 9mm entirely: it is a weak round
9mm is easy to shoot because it is weak
there is no such thing, this is something 9mm shills pull out of their ass because they have nothing else except empty ass air to defend their shitty round with.
The only bullet that is different now are the bonded hollow-points like hornady critical duty, and as Harrell shows, they have dogshit expansion. Obviously, it doesn't take much brain power to figure out that a bonded bullet is going to expand less, because that is precisely what bonded bullets are designed to do: to stay together.
another turd you pulled out of your ass
you know why the FBI moved back to that shitty round
1) they're cheap
2) they're a bunch of liberal pussies now. liberal pussies can't shoot and certainly don't want to hurt anything, so they use the 9mm.
Clown world gets a clown round. It is an obsolete round that was intended to shoot 110lb malnourished midgets at the turn of the 20th century before cars were invented.

It is a relatively good measure of power
shoot ballistic gel with a 30-06 and then shoot it with a 9mm
you know the 30-06 is more powerful, and the gel proves it in it's own way.
people who just say OMG NO are just moronic meme faggots.

and obviously .380 is dogshit and anyone carrying it deserves the harm coming to them.

I never understood this argument. Even if you assume it's true, doesn't it also hold for every other caliber? Even if you create some 9mm wunderboolit, there's nothing stopping the same type of projectile from being used in other calibers.

That only ever applies to those who invoke it and make long rambling posts instead of admitting they're wrong. tl;dr

Yes you exemplify my point nicely. You're too stupid to see that you're stupid.
Next thing you say "3 feet is not the same as 1 yard, let alone 0.9144 m".
It is. After it's multiplied by speed of light squared.

Nigger, all pistol rounds are weak. Beyond ballistic gel dickwaving there's no difference between shooting someone with a 9 mm and shooting someone with .45, you need to magdump to put someone down either way.

...

Flesh, bone, and clothing are much more dense and complex than gelatin. You absolute mong.

MUH STOPPIN POWAH

His attempt at making a point is that material and density don't matter as long as a projectile can pierce through enough gelatin to make it irrelevant.
Basically using backyard ballistics testing(look at it fly off the table, wow that's a big temporary wound cavity) as opposed to formal FBI comparisons between rounds.

Not completely true. The shock doesn't matter in pistol cartridges, but the permanent cavity is still larger with larger cartridges.

The only way 9mm permanent cavity is the same is if expanding 9mm is compared to FMJ .45acp.

Permanent cavity doesn't do a whole lot though. But again, you got to keep in mind that you're talking about pistol cartridges, and the average energy is about 500 J, with weakest rounds still clocking at 300 J. Keep in mind that you need quadruple the energy to get double effect, so there's not a whole lot of difference between 9x18Mak and .45 ACP. Excluding magnum cartridges and .22LR you can pick any two for comparison and the final performance difference will not be greater than 30%.

Well ok. Assume only FMJ for the sake of apples to apples comparison.
Calculate volume of an 30cm deep and 0.45cm radius cylinder cavity. Compare it to 30cm deep and 0.562cm diameter cavity.
Multiply it by capacity of a standard mag of each.

The difference isnt huge, but it shouldnt be ignored. Its just a part of the calculation…

My point is that c is not a unitless constant. You're trying to say that dividing one unit by another gives you the same type of measurement. I agree that 3 feet is 0.9144 meters. I don't agree that dividing a foot by a second gives you a unit of length. The difference is that the operation in the first amounts to multiplication by a unitless constant (technically, the units would be meters/feet, but it still returns a unit of length) whereas the second operation is multiplication by a constant that has units (more specifically, units not of the form /feet). The second operation thus gives us a different type of unit. Units of length are not units of velocity. Feet and meters measure the same thing, feet and feet per second do not. c has units of velocity, typically m/s. You're saying that the only difference between eV*s^2/m^2 and eV is a unitless constant (the constant being the value of c, which I'm ignoring to focus on units), and likewise with the difference between kg and kg*m^2/s^2. The problem with saying that two different types of units represent the same thing like this is that you could apply that to literally anything, and the whole idea of measuring different things becomes meaningless. Just because you can multiply a m/s by a second to get a meter does not mean that m/s=m. These things have different types of units and thus, different meanings. This is why it's incorrect to say that because you can multiply a kilogram or an eV*s^2/m^2 by a m^2/s^2 to get a joule or an eV, that means that kg are the same as joules and eV*s^2/m^2 are the same as eV. But that's what you're arguing, except with an extra 3*10^8 in there. If you don't get this, then I'm guessing you either don't actually understand units or that you and I have different interpretations of claims like "momentum is energy".

user,
E = mc^2
kg* m/(s^2) * m = kg * (m/s)^2
kg * m^2/s^2 = kg * m^2/s^2

There is no issue with the units here. Please try thinking a little more abstractly and remember the difference between mass as a measured quantity and mass as something existing like you could hold in your hand. In other words, mass as a unit is a convenient way for us to describe how much you are holding in your hand.

For example the equation for kinetic energy: W = (1/2)mv^2
In this case, we are saying that when you accelerate a quantity of mass m to velocity v, then that mass (as in the object) has an additional quantity of energy equal to work W.

Similarly, the equation for mass-energy equivalence: E = mc^2 describes how the quantity of mass m can be related to the amount of energy E contained within that mass (as in the object).

So yes, you are right, a kilogram is not a joule because a kilogram is a unit of mass and a joule is a unit of energy. However, the dick you're holding in your mouth has a quantity of mass given in kilograms which can be used to determine the amount of energy contained within it.

If you meant this as a reply to me (which I'm guessing you did, since you're agreeing with ), then I get what you're saying. I understand the concept of rest energy and how it relates to mass. I think this is just a case of us meaning different things. But unlike Ukraine, you've actually explained what you mean in a way that doesn't come across as retarded and condescending, minus the dick comment, so I accept what you're saying. Thanks for not being a douche, user. Fuck you, Ukraine.

I'm still not sure it's useful to treat momentum and energy as the same thing for the purposes of this thread, but it's 2 a.m. and I don't want to think about it anymore and I can see how you can think they are the same thing, so I'll let it rest. Good night, Zig Forums. Fuck you, Ukraine.

I take you as either a troll or a self-righteous retard - from your actions alone - hence my idea of proper treatment is mockery. If only you'd open the relevant Wikipedia article, you'd immediately knew everything you need to know - it's that simple. But instead you proceeded with insisting that your misunderstanding of the works at hand is the last instance truth of the matter.

Surely you are aware of such thing as "natural units". It's when you use the value of fundamental constants as 1 unit, and then the constant itself can be scratched out because in these units it equals to 1. Instead of measuring speed in m/s, you can measure it in speedoflights. Then the speed of light constant c = 1 speedoflight, and as such you don't need it in most equations. This makes the equation E=mc² turn into E=m - just by changing speed units to align with fundamental constants instead of using arbitrary shit like feet or meters. Apply to different equations and see results.

Also, as a mental excercise, consider this. When an object moves down the gravity well, a work is performed upon it - gravitational field applies force over certain displacement. Work requires energy, and it has to come from somewhere. Where does the energy come from and what loses mass because of it?

The dick comment was obligatory. I'm an engineer, not a phy

Fucking Zig Forums.
I'm an engineer, not a physicist. From what I can understand from reading the wiki page, momentum and energy are not equivalent. Rather you use the mass-energy equivalence to determine an object's relativistic mass and use that to find the object's true momentum. I didn't read all of what ukraine was saying, if that's what he was saying then ukraine is probably a nigger.

Yes, technically that works ONLY because you set it equal to 1 and 1 squared is 1. However you have to keep in mind your units are now kg*(speedoflight)^2 and your new unit of energy is going to be way more than a joule. In general this is not a useful exercise because you lose physical meaning for a not very significant increase in convenience of calculation.
sorry for triple posting

What happens if you fuck ballistic gel?

I think this one is fairly accurate.

Attached: 9mm.gif (288x288, 1.57M)

How to admit defeat with three lines of text and two made up quotes

It's a very fleshy material. It's a little too soft for my taste.

Heh that looks like something I made from a youtube vid.

former physics major here, and yeah, Ukraine is a nigger. As near as I can tell he's gone into a spastic fit because for some reason he's insisting on using relativistic mechanics to explain phenomena that are firmly rooted in classical physics.

Attached: 0d1.jpg (640x559, 22.6K)

He isn't wrong considering rifle rounds tend to fuck shit up far better than all sorts of pistol rounds. Gut shots on game animals is fucking nigger tier.

Attached: DSC00264.JPG (1080x1920, 694.54K)

obviously a 9mm is weaker than a .308
that doesn't change the fact that there are real and discernible differences between pistol rounds. There is no way a human that is not functionally retarded can shoot a 9mm and a .40 and say they didn't feel and see a difference, let alone a 9mm and 10mm, but that is exactly what 9mm morons say.

9mm is good, and no amount of shitting on it will actually make it shit. What really matters for a bullet is how wide it is, as firearms are hole making machines. 9mm is wider than many rifle rounds, therefore a 9mm handgun is more effective within its effective range than a rifle

yes diameter does matter, but we're talking about relative differences here between diameter, weight, and speed. You oversimplified it to hell and look like a moron for thinking 9mm is more lethal in close-range than 5.56 or .308, which is objectively false.

Attached: 1439661209206.jpg (557x595, 154.12K)

Oh yeah it's a very common cognitive bias, if it's beefier it's got to be better, even if really it isn't. Heavy shit feels better than light, strong kicking guns feel more powerful than recoilless, even though latter are immensely more devastating.

But that doesn't matter. You said you shot pigs with +P .45 HP, but you didn't said you shot them with 10 mm or 9 mm or .38.

...

You are right that typical 9 mm is 450-something J whereas .45 and 10 mm can go beyond 800 J. Typical intermediate round is 2500 J, typical rifle round is 4000 J. Comparing 30-06 to 9 mm is not really valid, because former is 8 times as much power as latter.

Attached: Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg (680x611, 70.28K)

They are better than nothing but if I was going to be issued ammo I would rather see it tested on corpses.

I would rather see it tested on living things.

Why don't we allow ammo companies to test their ammo on illegal migrants who're crossing the border?

Because you're not priceless israel that needs to shoot palestinian kids to ensure continued existence and get 2 billion american dollars per year to help with that.

That is completely retarded a typical block of ballistic gel is uniform in it's consistency a human body is not only not uniform but there is two hollow cavities with organs inside, and your skull also has a liquid substance inside keeping the brain suspended.

Yes but if you were to calculate the volume a human takes up, and his weight, you can calculate the density, This is what ballistics gellatin is, the average density of a human body. Obviously its not exact because then every cartridge would have to be fired at an exact replica of the human body from hundreds of thousands of vectors to get an idea of how well it works, and then average the results the average would be the same as one shot through ballistics gel. It's easier to just average the target, because then you only have to fire at it once, and it doesnt matter where from.

IBWA set up the tests and parameters and judgements going something close to 30 years ago and have not been updated since, and for good reason. Ballistics gel is used to have a scientificly controlled medium to test bullets. Its not supposed to be the exact same as all human flesh, not always that 12 inches of gel penetration will mean 12 inches into a person, its that it is a controllable thing to shoot that will give consistent and comparable results.

12-18 inches was decided upon based on the differences between gel and non muscle tissue such as skin, bone, ect., and how they all tie with each other into real flesh and how that effects bullet performance as well. I can't find the source now, but human skin can account for 2-4 inches of 10% gel, animal skin much higher, ect. Bones will effect performance, but because there are so many bones, bone density and chrachterics among individuals so variable, some shots hit no bones, some shots hit more bones, ect, that isn't part of the gel test and real living bone and its properties still need to be understood as a separate detail and consideration outside the gel results.

12-18 inches is also right because in real life, attackers don't just stand up straight and position themselves straight forward perfectly and offer a nice, clean, even shot to the shortest width of the chest. Look how people fight, and how you will act in a fight, hits will take on various angles through the body, not just straight through on the shortest path possible. Tilt the shot and you can double the distance, or put enough inches of extra tissue to stop the bullet form hitting something vital. Also, shoot through an attacker's arms, which are often in front of him holding a weapon, or even to protect himself attacking you, means more layers of skin, potential bone, and more muscle.

Shoot through a man's arm at an extreme angle and you might have to punch through many inches of arm tissue to break out the other side of the arm to hit the man in the torso or head.

The other positive of ballistics gel is that expanding bullets in gel tend to mimick those in real life, meaning they are a reliable thing to test upon for new loads, bullet designs, or to verify old choices. Its not a perfect representative of the human body, or animal body, but its a good test medium.

All variables considered, 12 is bare minimal and 18 is best. For CERTAIN handgun bullets that can't punch to the 12 inch mark are disqualified. Probably any round to be honest. And take into consideration failure rates, EVERY bullet that fails to get to 12 inches is a FAIL. Averages don't even out individual results; that bullet that failed to expand or penetrate deep enough might have been the one that could have killed the man, or put him out, and saved the fight.

I'd say its not the perfect means to say with 100% certainty that one round is better than the other, its best use, again, is to disqualify shit performance. After that, it an be used to determine possible best rounds.

So, yes, 380 hollow points are all gimmicks. Also many 9mm bullets can't hack the 12 inch minimum some of the time, while heavier bullets in other calibers will do fine. But as for "my tests prove this or taht" please be responsible, educate yourself on the medium and the inturpretations, and why you state your case for what you say.

IWBA is now defunct, because their goal was reached and there was nothing else to finish. The body never changes, bullets have limitations and must be tested for performance and we can't rely on 'super magic bullets" they come out with. Most of all the depths and conditions for qualify were created by the best men in the field, and they reached their conclusions and minimums and other parameters out of experience and real life knowledge, from the best.

Gel design (density and temperature) was calibrated to replicate swine muscle tissue that has close proprieties to human tissue.

Nope, for the bullet entrance skin residence is accounted. Calibrating shots were done into skin covered pigs parts and human cadavers. Exit resist which is greater than entrance is not accounted by gel but it doesn't matte much for the results.

Shootings into human bodies have good coincidence with gel shooting. Indeed body shootings have grater variations because body has bones and lungs. So penetration depth may be less or MORE than in gel.

12'' is minimum for reaching vital with difficult shot, i.e. through arm of the fat person.
18 maximum comes from their autopsy stats. 95% of all full bullet penetrations when bullet exited the body had length of the wound track less than 18. Humans don't have bodies large enough to provide enough thickens for longer penetration. So bullet penetrating more has some wasted destructive potential. But this is not hard limit.

The thing with expanding bullets that most people find it difficult to understand is that they don't increase the total volume of tissue that the projectile is able to crush. What expanding rounds do is alter the depth and location of the tissue the round crushes. Consequently, expanding projectiles are beneficial in rounds which are on the extreme end of the ballistic gel penetration tests, while they are at best marginal, and in some cases detrimental to the terminal performance of rounds that are already in the middle to low end of the 12-18" penetration range that the FBI has as ideal.
Of course, this has no bearing as to whether or not the ballistics gel is properly mixed and calibrated for the test, and I doubt most bumblefucks on youtube actually take the time to do so.

Say there is a whacko up on a ledge, or a patio or deck, or a stairwell, shooting at people. You are underneath him and your shot might have to punch through a lot of his leg and most of his torso to get to the critical vitals. This could be more than 18 inches, one of the 5% where 18 isn't enough.

There could be other scenarios, but this is just one hypothetical. If you have a hollow point with poor penetration, you better hope you aren't in the 5% of cases.

Expanding bullets may actually have LESS total volume of tissue destroyed, it takes energy and potential to cause deformation of the bullet and expansion, part of the bullet's force is being "taken" by the bullet. A flat faced non expanding bullet would, in theory, crush the most amount of tissue if we keep caliber, weight, velocity constant.

Holy shit, you must have failed high school physics REALLY hard.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped paying attention to this thread Finland

They are only bullshit if you fail to understand their purpose.
They are NOT an attempt to reproduce a body. They are a relatively easy, cheap and adequately repeatable test, that can then be correlated to medical data from actual gunshot wounds.

Nobody except physicists and engineers have probably heard of relativistic momentum or Lorentz factor buddy.

Attached: You will not do this one way or another.jpg (2235x957 49 KB, 121.61K)

Which is why I carry a .45

Attached: 2018-06-15 08.36.31.jpg (2981x1676, 2.57M)

I think the greatest irony of all time in firearms "communities' and discussions is the great fallacy that those who choose great shot placement should choose a small caliber while those who have poor shot placement should choose a bigger caliber.

If you are going for shot placement, than YOU should be carrying something powerful and extremely hard hitting, that punches deep and straight through bone and causes a lot of tissue damage. Why do you want a smaller caliber when you aren't concerned so much with follow up and are planning on hitting the target well in the first few shots? Its not like smaller calibers are any more accurate to a real, trained shooter. In fact, if one plans on making a few well placed shots you WANT to have the most powerful weapon available to make those few, good hits count.

Its Johnny can't hit the side of the barn wall that should be carrying a smaller gun, not the shot placement guy. He needs plenty of ammunition to cover his retreat, and rely on sheer volume of fire, and number of hits, to make up for his poor ability to shoot. Since he'll be hitting randomly anyways, increased damage is important, but not nearly as important to the skilled shooter.

"Shoot small hit big" is pure 100% bullshit spewed by a certain caliber worshipping cult because that lie was told to them in mindwashing to create a fake cult to support he cartridge during a major conversion. The military wants to send smaller bullets and smaller lighter ammo because its easier and saves big casho in big war, and small.

I'd say its the biggest laughing stock there is. If you really are planning, and can, place that one and two good shots you might as well carry a 44 magnum to make sure those shots are as good as they can be.

Hard kicking, but high performing cartridges are for shot placers.

Just curious, what length would roughly equal penetration of the aforementioned plus standard-issue body armor?

All physics should be Newtonian.

Attached: absolutely disgusting.jpg (600x800, 60.94K)

/thread

good summary.

The logic of the "shot placement" vs "stoppin powah" schools of thought are that the "shot placement" guys are thinking "I need as many shots as possible so I have a better chance of hitting in the right place" vs the "stoppin powah" guys saying "well I only have to hit him"
Adrenaline is a hell of a drug, as you should remember.

Rifle and pistol rounds are completely different. Expanding pistol rounds are more lethal than non expanding ones but still not as lethal as rifle rounds.

So the gel accurately tells us what we already know; that the .357 is better.
You are the gimmick.

There it is. The stupidest fucking thing ive read all day. Good job. You fucking moron.

Eh give him a few more posts I am sure he can top it.

As for everything, I don't really claim any particular school, maybe old school of some sorts, but always felt that whole belonging to one study instead of observation of reality isn't the best way to go. Sometimes trying to identify as one school gets in the way of greater understanding, sometimes we suffer from people liking to fight, and sometimes we become the victims of extremism by certain people's central choices.

The absolute truth is, effective rate of fire is important, absolute rate of fire can be important in some circumstances, shot placement is important, terminal performance is important. All of these things need to be considered at the same time. Its not a retarded 'HURR DURR THIS IS ALL IMPORTANT THE OTHERS IS NOTHING" kinda retard shit we've gotten since the 1950's because of certain central choices on calibers for logistical reasons and the NEED to defend and promote those choices by lying and propaganda.

When they chose the 5.56mm for purely logistical reasons they had to bury the 7.62 NATO and promote the 5.56 by lying and saying it had qualities it didn't have and making up things about combat that weren't true. It wasn't good enough to point out the advantages of the cartridge, they had to create a cult and build the lie that it was better than 7.62 in EVERY single way.

When 9mm came to replace the 45ACP in the US military they had a big problem on their hands. The 45 ACP was well loved and had a sterling, spotless reputation. Troops and old soldiers loved it, swore by it, there wasn't a weakness to be had. Suddenly junk science was invented and suddenly ONLY velocity was important in handgun rounds, proving that the 9mm was "superior" to the 45 not in some aspects, but EVERY aspect, including terminal performance, which turned out to be a complete lie.

When the real weaknesses of these cartridges was exposed, and the cult of velocity was shown to be wrong, then they had to start other propaganda wars. Suddenly it was "shot placement vs. stopping power". Instead of the logical "both are important" it suddenly got turned into a retarded either/or "one must be considered better than the other" because they had to exaggerate the strengths of certain cartridges to justify the false claims of absolute supremacy.

All of a sudden a man can't hit the side of a barn with a 45 ACP or a 7.62 NATO because he lived in fear of recoil, went to sleep and had nightmares, woke up in cold sweats. Men who carried such calibers did nothing but scream out in agony that they were afraid of their guns, that they didn't want to shoot them anymore, that they flinched so hard at expected recoil they bent their guns in half.

Meanwhile, the soft recoil of the 9mm and 5.56 NATO were so nice that it is IMPOSSIBLE to miss targets with them. It is now advertised that it is impossible to make good shot placement with the old, bigger calibers, but one is guaranteed not only the POSSIBILITY of better hits with smaller, lighter recoil cartridges, one is GUARANTEED to hit whatever one is aiming at because they are now magically inherently accurate and always make good shot placement no matter what.

Now we cannot talk about how multiple factors are important, because now we are in the false dichotomy of "THIS is important, the other is valueless, therefore my supposed superiority in this one aspect proves my point is correct" to defend choices already made for other reasons. Honest discussion about handgun effectiveness is replaced by retard "9mm vs 45" wars on the internet, and people who think that one cannot have controlability and terminal performance at the same time.

I'm not going to make some blanket "we should all choose 45 ACP for autoloader and 7.62 NATO for rifles" I'm just going to ask people to state things honestly instead of making propaganda to "win" the arguement, start just listing the advantages, the real ones, and accept the weaknesses of your choice as well.

Propaganda to push central choices has tone a big part of this massive change into turning everyone into retards. Think "absolute values" instead of retard "x vs. y".

The real point is, and sorry if it seems like I went off on you and I didn't mean to, its a general rant about the community, focus should be on good shot placement, good followup, and a good choice of round to maximize potential damage and stopping ability. Not one or the other, all three are important.

Relying on one extreme over another is a logical fallacy to lead people a certain way. Its not good for logical training. Choose a good cartridge, make the best shots, realize you might have to follow up with a bunch more. Don't sway your decision to one value only.

This is why .40 S&W is good, and .357 SIG is better. As Harrell shows, both are demonstrably more powerful and more effective than 9mm. And both are just narrow enough that you can fit them in a doublestack magazine without the grip width becoming obnoxiously large, which gives you more than enough capacity for HD or duty purposes. As Harrell also shows, the increased recoil doesn't have a noticeable difference on either accuracy or speed of follow-up shots either.

10mm is also very good, for similar reasons as above except for even greater effectiveness on targets. The only knock I have against it is that, while it's just as narrow as .40 and thus just as easy to doublestack, the cartridge's greater length means you have to use it in large-frame handguns. For most duty uses this isn't an issue, but it is a factor for some people to consider when choosing a handgun so it's worth mentioning.

I think the 357 Sig is a good cartridge, it certainly has its place among the various Highway Patrols who highly value its ability to punch through hard barriers. I carry a 357 Magnum regularly, which also saw favorable use and held a respectable record of performance in the field. I think we can learn a lesson from 357 Magnum on why 357 Sig and 10mm never panned out in mainstream police service.

How many officers who carried 357 Magnum chambered revolvers carried 38 Special loads? Certainly many were discouraged or their offices handed out 38 Special instead of magnum because of certain liberal stigmas about high performing cartridges and being humane to criminals. But, many didn't like the recoil of full power magnum and switched to +p 38 instead. After the Newhall tragedy, they sited the use of 38 Special for training and 357 magnum rounds for service as being a potential problem because they will fire differently, instead of practicing with magnum loads, CHP decided instead to send their officers into the field with 38 special loads.

I remember reading about mostly female agents in the FBI or some other Federal agency bitching and they had a hearing if 38 Special +p was too vicious to shoot. Agencies and police forces equip 9mm to placate those who don't like shooting anything with any power because it hurts and they still bitch. Placating whines leads to a race to the bottom that still fails to placate the whining.

357 Sig can be a great performer, 10mm might be the best, just as predicted back in the 80's, but its hard to get those guns into the hands of a lot of folks who have trouble firing 9mm or 40 S&W. Sig can be managed and tamed, and has been, but its a hard sell not from the performance standpoint but others. Its not common with non police to the point its expensive and thus a concern to law offices and agencies, 10mm perhaps worse. Such cartridges are best off in heavier guns in a world obsessed with light pistols, and in the hands of professionals who train and desire to use it. The odds are stacked dead against them.

41 Magnum didn't just fail because it was at the latter part of the revolver era, but because people who ditched their 357 Magnum ammo because it was too mean weren't about to upgun.

Objectively, I agree with Harrell. The only main counter argument for 9mm against 40 S&W today is that more effort has been put into developing better bullets for the 9mm than 40, thus we see 9mm catching up in terms of theoretical performance with expanding bullets due to much greater development and focus. 40 S&W's grater frontal surface area means it takes that extra power to punch through hard barriers because of resistance. Someone who carries standard American SAAMI pressure 9mm will claim that +p, NATO, or +p+ can meet 40's power, ect, even if they don't use those higher power rounds.

The final blow is "9mm is almost as good as 40 but has slightly higher capacity" then the fact its cheaper to obtain which speaks to individuals and agencies alike.

Its not because you can't get follow shots for the extra power, its everything else and the kitchen sink.

Add in that just because we don't mind high power handgun cartridges doesn't mean that weaker people don't have problems.

I'm kinda going off on another tangent, but its a very interesting and frustrating topic.

Are corbon bullets terrible? The Air Martials use that bullet with 357 sig.

Corbon builds some good bullets. Corbon builds some of the worst bullets. The air marshall load is one of the worst ever made. Glazer Safety Slugs are dogshit.

You're not wrong about this, but it's also just a greater symptom of the soy-infested culture in which we live. In a more sane scenario women and weaklings wouldn't be serving in law enforcement and other places they don't belong anyways, so there wouldn't be any need to placate them.

I get that this is the argument that 9mm fags use, but as Harrell's video shows the difference in effectiveness is greater than the difference in capacity by a considerable margin.

If you can't handle the recoil from small-frame pistol calibers you have no business carrying on duty, and some might even argue you have no businesses carrying at all. The recoil of .357 SIG isn't that bad; I'm a fairly skinny guy and I can handle it without issue. Hell, I literally took my grandmother shooting the other day and she was able to fire it just fine. Not accurately, but she didn't complain about the recoil at all.

The thing is, even if there are a lot of people who can't handle .40 or SIG, the opinions of those people shouldn't factor into a discussion of the relative merits of these calibers for duty use. I can acknowledge that they might be 'too powerful' in certain applications, but that should be a non-issue for anyone trained properly, who enters dangerous situations as part of their job.

On a slight tangent of my own, I don't think excessive recoil is what made the 10mm drop in popularity, at least not directly. Rather, because 80s metallurgy hadn't quite caught up to the 10mm, it was causing the Bren 10s and Colt Commanders to crack in the frame after extended round counts. That's not really a problem these days, which is why the round is starting to come back.

Wouldn't surprise me, they probably ordered a weak load on purpose because of the decompression meme.

.40, .357 Sig, or 10mm
the reason most folks don't carry these is because of micropenis 9mm faggots that invested their micropenis ego into their remarkably obsolete piece of shit round and can't admit they're in an existential crisis.
the .45 issue is basically the inversion of the 9mm micropenis complex: Fuddy Five-ism.

Attached: 9mm.JPG (546x634, 64.48K)