Page 1 of 1
Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:44 am
by cmgee67
I am very curious as to where and why the 12” mark in bullet penetration is the standard. Most YouTube ammo tests I have seen all say you must have 12” to 14” to be effective. #1 where did they get that data? #2 have they even been in a self defense situtation where 12” wasn’t enough? And #3 unless you are a huge body builder whose chest cavity is 12” - 14” deep? I know mine is not. I would say 7-10 is in the optimal range as 6” is in the range of most vitals. 12” your starting to get into over penetration territory. If people were so worried about how deep a bullet goes wouldn’t they carry ball ammo? What are your thoughts?
Re: Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:38 am
by Acronym Esq
cmgee67 wrote:I am very curious as to where and why the 12” mark in bullet penetration is the standard. Most YouTube ammo tests I have seen all say you must have 12” to 14” to be effective. #1 where did they get that data? #2 have they even been in a self defense situtation where 12” wasn’t enough? And #3 unless you are a huge body builder whose chest cavity is 12” - 14” deep?
My favorite ballistics resource is
Lucky Gunner. They cite the 12" requirement as FBI data and explain with some discussion summarized this way:
We have to account for a human target that may be turned slightly toward or away form us at an angle, or possibly even above or below us, or with arms partially obscuring the torso.
cmgee67 wrote:If people were so worried about how deep a bullet goes wouldn’t they carry ball ammo?
Ironically, I haven't seen much testing of ball ammo. Does it really penetrate better?
acronym 11/29/2017 9:34 AM
Re: Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:48 am
by MechAg94
I thought it was just the FBI test protocol. I don't think 12" of penetration in ballistic gelatin that is a homogeneous mass is necessarily the same as penetration in a human body. I have never heard what the basis was for selecting that number.
Short of testing on pigs or other animal, I am not sure there is a better way to do it. I like the "meat target" used by Paul Harrell on youtube, but I don't know that it is definitive either.
Re: Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:37 am
by NotRPB
I've wondered for many years the same thing, I'm not 12" thick, well ok maybe now but wasn't before the 1970s,
The issue with 12" in gelatin is that there's no ribs in it
Add hitting a rib bone to decrease the penetration depth...
Pig tests are good, they have ribs
If they're going to standardize tests using gelatin, they need to put a rack of ribs in front of the Jello .... Mom always said no desert until after the main course
Ribs then Jello
Re: Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:22 pm
by cmgee67
NotRPB wrote:I've wondered for many years the same thing, I'm not 12" thick, well ok maybe now but wasn't before the 1970s,
The issue with 12" in gelatin is that there's no ribs in it
Add hitting a rib bone to decrease the penetration depth...
Pig tests are good, they have ribs
If they're going to standardize tests using gelatin, they need to put a rack of ribs in front of the Jello .... Mom always said no desert until after the main course
Ribs then Jello
Yes I agreee with is hypothesis. They should really use pig with denim in front of it.
Re: Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:23 pm
by WTR
The FBI and the IWBA take into account velocity loss , wound diameter, and tissue crushing at multiple angles to establish depths from 12.5 " to 18". Google bullet penetration depth.
Re: Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:05 pm
by oljames3
The late Paul Gomez discusses ballistics and much more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA36NYLqns
Re: Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:32 pm
by flechero
cmgee67 wrote: What are your thoughts?
12" of gelatin probably also accounts for the sternum.
Re: Bullet penetration
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:45 pm
by jason812
cmgee67 wrote:NotRPB wrote:I've wondered for many years the same thing, I'm not 12" thick, well ok maybe now but wasn't before the 1970s,
The issue with 12" in gelatin is that there's no ribs in it
Add hitting a rib bone to decrease the penetration depth...
Pig tests are good, they have ribs
If they're going to standardize tests using gelatin, they need to put a rack of ribs in front of the Jello .... Mom always said no desert until after the main course
Ribs then Jello
Yes I agreee with is hypothesis. They should really use pig with denim in front of it.
Been done, just not with the denim jacket. .40 HST had an average penetration of 18.5" on Lucky Gunner's test but did not exit a 60-80lb pig.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-d ... tic-tests/
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/p ... istics-lab
There was essentially no discernible difference between the Federal HST .40 and 9mm wound channel. Both rounds penetrated through chest and pelvic cavities leaving small but ragged wound channels. Both penetrated through interceding bone leaving comminuted fractures (to include sturdy structures such as scapula and pelvis.) Neither round exited the opposite side of the carcass. The 9mm round that had gone through the chest cavity was found under the skin of the opposite shoulder and retrieved. The round appeared intact and had fully mushroomed. Conclusion: “9 is fine.” Users of a high quality 9mm round should not feel outgunned.