Penetration through Bones

[Crash]

Haven't seen this discussed--at least not directly...
What bullet is most likely to penetrate human ribs without being deflected and travel straight to the intended target? For that matter, what bullet is most likely to penetrate an arm bone without being deflected?

We talk a lot about penetration in ballistic gelatin, water, newspaper, etc., and how these media replicate the human body, but none of these things has bones.

My feeling is that a heavy bullet moving at a moderate-to-moderately-high velocity would do best, whereas a light bullet at a high velocity would more likely be deflected.

Opinions? Recommendations?

Crash

[jim]

Heavy flat nosed slugs deflect less, but all slugs deflect to some degree or another. There are tons of variables to sonsider. However, bigger and heavier is usually best, but never perfect.
jim

[Crash]

Heavy flat nosed slugs deflect less, but all slugs deflect to some degree or another. There are tons of variables to sonsider. However, bigger and heavier is usually best, but never perfect.
jim

jim,

Thanks--kinda confirms what I was thinking. I did some informal "bowling pin" shootingusing a Ruger Vaquero in .45 LC and Cowboy Action loads and as long as I hit the pins in the right place had no problem sweeping them off the table. This may not equate to penetration, but it sure shows a lot of momentum...

Crash

[remington]

A bigger piece of lead going at a higher speed is much harder to deflect. Kinetic energy!

[DM]

"Long" bullets deflect less, short bullets tend to tumble, even if they are heavy... Kinetic energy may help keep heavy bullets going, but NOT necessarily straight.

Next, when it comes to solids, it's a proven fact that round nose with flat points tend to go straighter, in bone...

SO, when it comes to handguns, you have a problem getting the perfect bullet for the purpose of going straight, through bone, as handgun bullets are fairly short for their diameter... (with some exceptions of single shots and big bore revolvers)

After that, it's all about luck when you pull the trigger, as there's no guarantee's of what will happen if you hit a tough bone...

DM

[Farmer]

Harder bullets penetrate more. For instance, an armor-piercing round would have little trouble with a bone.

Harder-hitting bullets penetrate more. A +P (higher pressure) round would move faster and penetrate more.

The angle of the trajectory will make a difference. If the round gets to the bone and hits it dead center, and the bone doesn't bend to one side or the other, the bullet should go straight through. Angular deflection of the bone would cause the trajectory to change. Hitting the bone at an angle, or hitting other than in the center of the curved surface of the bone would cause the bullet's trajectory to change.

All this is why hollow-point rounds are preferred for self-defense. The mushrooming of the bullet creates a larger wound path disturbing more blood vessels and increasing bleeding even if it does strike a bone and get deflected.

Bleeding is usually what stops an attacker, not being "knocked down" by a single shot (unless the shot severs the spine or does massive damage to the brain).

For self-defense (I assume this is where the question comes from) it is good to practice follow up shots just to account for situations where the bullet was deflected by a bone or perhaps something hard in a pocket.

[Crash]

Harder-hitting bullets penetrate more. *A +P (higher pressure) round would move faster and penetrate more.


For self-defense (I assume this is where the question comes from) it is good to practice follow up shots just to account for situations where the bullet was deflected by a bone or perhaps something hard in a pocket.

Farmer,

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I wonder if a hollow-point +P is always more likely to penetrate than a slightly slower moving solid, especially one with a relative wide, flat meplat. Since the additional velocity of a +P will (or should) cause more and earlier expansion, this might reduce the penetration.

Note that I'm not saying that a +P hollowpoint will always penetrate less than a non +P solid, but that high velocity hollow points tend to open up earlier and this can limit their penetration.

Crash

[Farmer]

Heh-heh. For definitive answers, you'd need to study ballistics. And even then there's room for argument.

It would depend on how much slower the bullet was moving.

It's hard to generalize with this stuff. Physics is actually pretty inflexible, and ballistics tables can give some real good information to use in determining which round you SHOULD use, at least according to the physics.

The problem is that real life intrudes, and things happen to the bullet. For my own uses, I've tried to study the ballistics tables to get an idea of relative merits of loads and bullet types. I then consulted the writings of people who have depended upon and used the various choices in real life.

What I've found generally is that bigger, faster and hollow-pointed are the preferences.

.38 +P hollow point is preferred over .38 Special.
.357 Magnum hollow point over .38 +P.
.45 ACP hollow point over .357 and .45 Round Nose.

and so on.

The other side of the equation is the shooter, his or her capabilities and the characteristics of the gun you use.

A Smith and Wesson J-Frame Air Lite (little stubby revolver that weighs 12 ounces empty) can be had in .357 Magnum, and will also shoot .38's.

The gun has shocking recoil with .38 +P's and is truly a beast with the .357 Magnums. Great backup gun but I wouldn't want to use it every day. Hard core instructors teach that you use .38's in it to practice and .357 hollow points for carry.

A 1911 in .45ACP has moderate recoil but can be a heavy gun to carry and use.

But back to the original topic - generally speaking, a hard bullet will penetrate more than a hollow point in any given caliber. Mix calibers and the equations are out the window.

[Crash]

Heh-heh. *For definitive answers, you'd need to study ballistics. *And even then there's room for argument.



Farmer,

I haven't done a lot of shooting with a .45 LC, but from what I've read that big, relatively slow moving slug can penetrate a long ways. I wonder if a .45 ACP with a FMJ bullet with a flat nose (truncated cone) might not penetrate through bones pretty well even at moderate velocities?

Crash

[Stinger]

::) Interesting topic! I don’t think there’s any one easy answer. We had a shooting in town last Winter .The actor was wearing a down vest over heavy clothing. He took 17 hits; 12 of them didn’t penetrate more than, about, an inch! He was a deeply troubled kid, every bit as screwed up as he was tough. It took a late arriving officer with a tactical 5.56 carbine to finally put him down and keep him there with the last 3 hits.

This incident caused a significant loss of professional confidence in 40 S&W 165 grain JHP. This same Winter I had to take out a medium-sized bore raccoon. I used a 9mm pistol loaded with a mix of 115 grain rounds; the first FMJ to the rib cage did not stop him; the second JHP to the rib cage did not stop him; the third FMJ to the head did. This incident reminded me of numerous similar experiences I had while hunting wild game as a young man. Back, ‘in the day’ I preferred flat-nosed solids to any other bullet configuration. That preference hasn’t changed in my old age.

My personal SD preference is for the 45 acp; and, yes, I usually load 230 grain FMJ ball ammo. My second choice is 357 magnum; I honestly believe it’s a, ‘better hitter’; but, the dwell time between shots is too long and magazine capacity is significantly reduced. Not a problem for one-on-one affairs, but a disadvantage in, otherwise, serious arguments where you need to keep up a sustained rate of fire!

As to punching through bone? I’m not as prone to going for COM on the ribs as I used to be .Today I like to hold low and go for the pelvic girdle. Farnham recommends letting recoil lift your second and third shots up to the chest; I’m OK with this on a target that clearly isn’t vested; however, I’m highly disciplined in holding my front sight down and this tends to cause me to put subsequent shots into the same zone.

I think a lot depends on what bone is hit. The ribs can deflect a bullet almost anywhere; the pelvic girdle, on the other hand, will just plain take a crippling hit without untoward deflection. (And, then, there’s the head; deflection really doesn't matter on the head!)

About the only time I’m comfortable, nowadays, with taking a torso shot is when I’ve got a nice side view; doesn’t have to be square; any 3/4 angle will do. Nevertheless, deflection can be problematic; it certainly was in the 1986, ‘Miami Shootout’. Early on in the fight, Michael Platt took a killing side shot from one of the first 9mm rounds fired. The bullet deflected after passing through his arm; and, curiously, the deflection of this JHP round is what finally caused massive interior chest bleeding, collapsed his lung, and killed him – BUT, not before Platt did some serious killing of his own!

(I suppose it could be argued that Platt’s principal weapon – a 5.56x45mm carbine – fired better ammunition: very fast FMJ bullets with a long axis, and sharp point configuration. Apparently different physics and predictable results apply to rifle and pistol ammo; and, this MIGHT have something to do with the observable effectiveness of a, ‘transitional pistol cartridge’ like the 357 magnum!)

When everything is said and done; I guess this is a large part of the reason, ‘Why’ I’ve specialize in rapid fire pistol techniques and haven’t fired a single round during a combat practice session in, at least, the past decade. ;)

[WileyCoyote]

Speaking from a purely recipient (EMS) viewpoint, it depends a lot on physics - not just the weight of the bullet and distance traveled, but even the angle of the shot. And destruction of bone isn't always an optimum shot. One of my most memorable cases was the 46 yoa man who was on the floor, not bleeding, yet dead as a doornail. When we initiated CPR (because there was no entrance wound that we could see, he could have died from a heart attack at being shot at) the blood started trickling - from his NECK. He had been shot by a .22 at close range, and the bullet had gone in and carved through his spinal column, then curved upward into the soft tissue of brain at the base of his skull.

I have seen bullets shatter bone (arms, legs, and ribs) but the act of shattering the bone slows it down or sometimes (as in hollow points) causes the bullet to split, often losing velocity and impact ability. Have also seen bullets stopped by bone; while the pain is very great, the impact is usually negligible - although a sudden "thump" to the heart caused by the impact (also called a precardial thump) can cause it to fibrillate and stop working.

If you are going for a rapid stop-drop-kill, usually the best shot is the gutshot with a small caliber. The small caliber (like a .22) will ricochet around inside, causing breakage and bedlam in the internal organs. We once found a guy who was gutshot from the front right about his diaphragm, the autopsy found the bullet next to his rectum. Even if they do survive, there is a lot of damage done and infection will likely set in and kill them slowly. However, someone on Meth or crack or coke or any other upper may take several shots and keep on coming, no matter what you are using, unless it is a shotgun at close range.

All in all, soft tissue damage is often the best way to go.

[jim]

With good reason, the old-timers shot for the belt buckle region. It would fold them up quicker than most shots. That's the only reason Hickock was able to get away with using a .36 Navy. Precision bullet placement to the navel or head.
jim