Shooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have been promoting the use of WFN bullets on a 1911 forum whenever the ball vs hollowpoint subject comes up. It is like beating my head against a brick wall. I have used the Permanent Wound Channel Formula to give examples of what a .45 cal bullet with a 0.36 inch meplat could do based on the formula. The validity of the formula is challenged as it is hard for the hp contingent to visualize a larger than caliber wound from a non expanding bullet. Are the wound diameters predicted by the formula validated by actual results in game animals? Do they correlate to testing in gel? Very few ammo makers use WFN bullets for semiauto ammo so there isn't much data on their use. Double Tap is the only one I know of using a 200gr WFN with a 0.32 inch meplat in the 40 S&W and 10mm. The formula predicts a 0.80 inch wound channel and the result is viewed with mass skepticism. I guess the bottom line is, can one predict with any accuracy what the wound size will be in tissue using this formula?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
The formula is realistic IME
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
You will usually run into a lot of resistence from the jacketed expanding bullet crowd. They just can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that a non-expanding lead bullet can actually cause more damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
The expanding bullet manufacturers advertise more. They advertise that sometimes their bullets expand, but never penetrate as far, as a WFN bullet. Autopies on dead game prove it, and ballistic gel proves it.
It's like crankbaits and bass. Someimes a Bone XXX Shad colored McShad catches fish, but a black backed white sided crankbait ALWAYS catches fish. It just doesn't have a cool name and cost more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
For self defence purposes out side of my house and at my business I use high tech jacketed rounds just to side step liability problems.
I agree that a 45 Colt 255 grain cast SWC is just as effective and maybe more so, then a Gold Dot. However a Commonwealth Attorney can't get a woody prior to election and use my case for a campaign issue, nor can a trial lawyer make a payment on his mistresses bust enhancement.
At home I use a Winchester model 92, 45 Colt loaded with 300 grain cast SWC loaded with 20 grains of H110. I have 10 shots to resolve the issue.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I like the model 92. I have an LSI Puma 92 in 480 Ruger. I can't afford a real Winchester. The finish of the Puma is utilitarian at best but mechanically is a slick little gun with a nice trigger. I think a 325 gr Beartooth WFN with a 0.39 inch meplat would ruin a BG's career plans. One in the chamber and 10 in the mag means he can bring friends. :D I though when I bought the gun it would work well for a pack of piggies, but it sounds like quite a few members here use carbines for SD in the home. That is what I like about gun forums like this. You start off with one subject and all kinds of good ideas are generated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Anyone know of links to gel studies with WFN bullets, mainly of .45 cal? All I can find are hollowpoints or ball ammo. Even a truncated cone bullet gel result would be nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I have been promoting the use of WFN bullets on a 1911 forum whenever the ball vs hollowpoint subject comes up. It is like beating my head against a brick wall. I have used the Permanent Wound Channel Formula to give examples of what a .45 cal bullet with a 0.36 inch meplat could do based on the formula. The validity of the formula is challenged as it is hard for the hp contingent to visualize a larger than caliber wound from a non expanding bullet. Are the wound diameters predicted by the formula validated by actual results in game animals? Do they correlate to testing in gel? Very few ammo makers use WFN bullets for semiauto ammo so there isn't much data on their use. Double Tap is the only one I know of using a 200gr WFN with a 0.32 inch meplat in the 40 S&W and 10mm. The formula predicts a 0.80 inch wound channel and the result is viewed with mass skepticism. I guess the bottom line is, can one predict with any accuracy what the wound size will be in tissue using this formula?
Ball? hollowpoint? all are equally inferior to the THV. Twice the wound channel for the same caliber as either. at least in width

Edit: didn't see this
0.80 inch
Might be a tad bit more than just double the width for THV's

.32acp - 2.2in
.38 Spec- 3.1in
.357 mag- 3.3in
9mm- 3.1in
.45acp - 3.9in

maximum depth on those was less than six inches too, so you know they won't over penetrate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
maximum depth on those was less than six inches too, so you know they won't over penetrate

Won't overpenetrate and yet they might not penetrate enough to reach the vitals......food for thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Won't overpenetrate and yet they might not penetrate enough to reach the vitals......food for thought.
no the wound channel was only six inches, the bullet itself actually penetrated farther, in testing a few rounds did over penetrate but not a whole lot and none with any real velocity after penetration. (which is part of the reason frangibles won that fight, NO frangibles overpenetrate if they hit. That and legislation killed it off along with certain ... lets say barrel damaging pressure waves that come off the rounds)

You have to keep in mind the average human torso is what? Maybe 12" in depth, maybe less. And it only takes 3 inches to kill. In any case after having a small explosion take place in your gut you aren't going to be standing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
I have been promoting the use of WFN bullets on a 1911 forum whenever the ball vs hollowpoint subject comes up. It is like beating my head against a brick wall. I have used the Permanent Wound Channel Formula to give examples of what a .45 cal bullet with a 0.36 inch meplat could do based on the formula. The validity of the formula is challenged as it is hard for the hp contingent to visualize a larger than caliber wound from a non expanding bullet. Are the wound diameters predicted by the formula validated by actual results in game animals? Do they correlate to testing in gel? Very few ammo makers use WFN bullets for semiauto ammo so there isn't much data on their use. Double Tap is the only one I know of using a 200gr WFN with a 0.32 inch meplat in the 40 S&W and 10mm. The formula predicts a 0.80 inch wound channel and the result is viewed with mass skepticism. I guess the bottom line is, can one predict with any accuracy what the wound size will be in tissue using this formula?

Here is a picture of the wound channel through a Deer that was taken by Cottonstalk



and now the exit




This wound was made by a 45 Colt at 1150 FPS muzzle velocity shooting a flat point hard cast bullet with a .360 meplat
This is what the wound channel calculator predicts
Wound channel diameter of 0.99" with a bullet with a meplat diameter of .360", and a striking velocity of 1100 fps.

Seems rather realistic to me. Those that do not believe that a wide meplat hard cast bullet leave large wound channels are very naive and inexperienced in my experience

Penetration is your friend and wide meplat hard cast bullet provide penetration and large wound channels in spades
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
no the wound channel was only six inches, the bullet itself actually penetrated farther, in testing a few rounds did over penetrate but not a whole lot and none with any real velocity after penetration. (which is part of the reason frangibles won that fight, NO frangibles overpenetrate if they hit. That and legislation killed it off along with certain ... lets say barrel damaging pressure waves that come off the rounds)

You have to keep in mind the average human torso is what? Maybe 12" in depth, maybe less. And it only takes 3 inches to kill. In any case after having a small explosion take place in your gut you aren't going to be standing.

Dr. Martin Fackler recommends a minimum of 12" of penetration. No penetration no hole, no hole = no effectiveness
One must consider angles and barriers when deciding on the amount of penetration needed in a lethal confrontation. Penetration is always your friend, lack there of can get you killed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I have been promoting the use of WFN bullets on a 1911 forum whenever the ball vs hollowpoint subject comes up. It is like beating my head against a brick wall. I have used the Permanent Wound Channel Formula to give examples of what a .45 cal bullet with a 0.36 inch meplat could do based on the formula. The validity of the formula is challenged as it is hard for the hp contingent to visualize a larger than caliber wound from a non expanding bullet. Are the wound diameters predicted by the formula validated by actual results in game animals? Do they correlate to testing in gel? Very few ammo makers use WFN bullets for semiauto ammo so there isn't much data on their use. Double Tap is the only one I know of using a 200gr WFN with a 0.32 inch meplat in the 40 S&W and 10mm. The formula predicts a 0.80 inch wound channel and the result is viewed with mass skepticism. I guess the bottom line is, can one predict with any accuracy what the wound size will be in tissue using this formula?
Well, I will tell you that for MY part, the skepticism is based solely on the fact that while there exists quite a bit of data of this round in game animals, there is no practical data on its use in the real world. However, you'll note that I never once questioned its effectiveness, but rather DID, based on my own research into medical cases of people being shot, question a bullet of diameter X magically making a hole nearly twice its size. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Ball? hollowpoint? all are equally inferior to the THV. Twice the wound channel for the same caliber as either. at least in width

Edit: didn't see this Might be a tad bit more than just double the width for THV's

.32acp - 2.2in
.38 Spec- 3.1in
.357 mag- 3.3in
9mm- 3.1in
.45acp - 3.9in

maximum depth on those was less than six inches too, so you know they won't over penetrate
Now for the skepticism to come out...on what do you base this performance data on?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
no the wound channel was only six inches, the bullet itself actually penetrated farther, in testing a few rounds did over penetrate but not a whole lot and none with any real velocity after penetration. (which is part of the reason frangibles won that fight, NO frangibles overpenetrate if they hit. That and legislation killed it off along with certain ... lets say barrel damaging pressure waves that come off the rounds)

You have to keep in mind the average human torso is what? Maybe 12" in depth, maybe less. And it only takes 3 inches to kill. In any case after having a small explosion take place in your gut you aren't going to be standing.
I am having trouble following this. The path of the bullet encompasses the wound channel. If the wound channel is only six inches long, that means the bullet stopped at the six-inch mark. That would constitute really poor penetration in my opinion. You have to reach the vitals in order to destroy the vitals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
The actual Shockwave that does the damage does a good 4"x5" area of immediate damage and the bullet goes a little farther. Besides even if it did only stop at 6 inches, it only takes 3" to kill someone, unless you plan on shooting them in the back, 6" will get lungs, heart, lower intestines. I'm not sure but I think liver (assuming you aren't obese like me). And even if it gets no vitals at all, you aren't going to be standing afterward. It has about the same energy as a regular bullet but it transfers it a lot better.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,682 Posts
I don't know that the wound channel predictor can be 100% accurate, but it isn't far off in my experience. If you haven't seen it you won't believe it.

Next time I bust a critter with a handgun I'll try to take some pics of the insides. I may have some around here, anyway.

Bottom line, the faster the bullet goes through, and the wider the nose, the bigger the hole. For that reason, I would prefer the bullet to exit as fast as it can - the hole will be bigger.

Pretty elementary stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
actually the faster the bullet exits the less energy is transferred to the target. unfortunately most bullets from rifles are designed to be efficient through the air. which reduces knockdown power. The broader the surface contact the more the bullet has to push out of it's way, transferring more of it's energy. Now a streamlined bullet will penetrate farther because of this though. so it's a slight trade off. but usually a .45 or 9mm has enough penetrative power to get the job done and usually more than enough, hence hollowpoints.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Energy transfer is a myth as is muzzle energy. You need to destroy vital tissue and two holes are always better than one. I wouldn't want to rely on a bullet/load combination that will only go six inches in tissue. I learned a lot about terminal bullet performance hunting with a handgun.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top