.44 Special "target" WC from a snubby vs .38 Special FBI Load from service revolver

[pettypace]

What does VIRGEL say?
He is the last word.

Here's what VIRGEL says about the FBI load from a 4" barrel and expanding as intended:



And here's VIRGEL's take on a 220 grain .44 caliber wadcutter with no expansion:



Probably not "the last word." But at least some quick and easy data.

[charlie b]

Another data source. No .44 data. .45acp is all HP stuff. And good videos of all.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/sel...c-tests/#45ACP

He also has the FBI load (Winchester 158 LSWCHP +P)
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/rev...cs-test/#38spl

[44MAG#1]

Here's what VIRGEL says about the FBI load from a 4" barrel and expanding as intended:



And here's VIRGEL's take on a 220 grain .44 caliber wadcutter with no expansion:



Probably not "the last word." But at least some quick and easy data.

Thank you. Glad you clarified it. VIRGEL came through again.

[Bigslug]

Ummm. . .what in the seven hells differentiates "Defense Wound Mass" from "Big Game Wound Mass"???

[pettypace]

Ummm. . .what in the seven hells differentiates "Defense Wound Mass" from "Big Game Wound Mass"???

"Defense Wound Mass" is an estimate of the amount of tissue crushed by the bullet in not more than the first 15" of penetration and ignoring the last 3" of penetration. It's what MacPherson refers to as "effective wound mass" with the understanding that he's talking about a human target.

"Big Game Wound Mass" is an estimate of the amount of tissue crushed in the entire penetration path.

With moderate penetration, there's not much difference between the two calculations. But with fierce penetration, the difference can be surprising. For example, a 30-40 Krag military ball load has a "Defense Wound Mass" of only about 13 grams but a "Big Game Wound Mass" of maybe 75 grams.

The difference between "Defense Wound Mass" and "Big Game Wound Mass" helps explain the story in LaGarde's book about the Moro warrior in the Philippines who absorbed ten hits (including three in the chest) from 30-40 Krag rifles as he "charged the guard" from a distance of 100 yards. According to the report, that brave man stumbled and fell within five yards of the riflemen and was killed by a trumpeter with a shot to the head from a .45 Colt's revolver.

It also explains Fackler's statement that many Vietnam era servicemen owe their lives to the fact that the AK-47 ammo used against them often failed to tumble until it had already passed through their bodies. This would also give a "Defense Wound Mass" of about 13 grams (about the same as .32 ACP hardball) despite having a much larger "Big Game Wound Mass."

[44MAG#1]

VIRGEL is the best thing to come along for handgunners. It has changed the way we look at defensive calibers and ammo

[pettypace]

VIRGEL is the best thing to come along for handgunners. It has changed the way we look at defensive calibers and ammo

When did all that happen? I can't run fast enough to give VIRGEL away.

[44MAG#1]

When did all that happen? I couldn't run fast enough to give VIRGEL away.

Don't sell yourself short. Your introduction of VIRGEL has proven that a lot old ideas and beliefs were wrong. Stories from the past handed down without any proof about good defensive calibers and ammo.
Now we know how to choose the proper ammo and calibers.
Just plug in the numbers and there it is. Defense wound mass. Knowing we need as close to 40 grams as we can get based on 15 inches penetration. The closer to 40 grams the better it is.
Science has proven that now. Experiments and the crunching of numbers is where it's at.

[pettypace]

Don't sell yourself short. Your introduction of VIRGEL has proven that a lot old ideas and beliefs were wrong. Stories from the past handed down without any proof about good defensive calibers and ammo.
Now we know how to choose the proper ammo and calibers.
Just plug in the numbers and there it is. Defense wound mass. Knowing we need as close to 40 grams as we can get based on 15 inches penetration. The closer to 40 grams the better it is.
Science has proven that now. Experiments and the crunching of numbers is where it's at.

VIRGEL is just a calculator. It doesn't "prove" anything.

But guys like Fackler have "proven" (to my satisfaction, at least) that velocity, energy, and momentum are not the best indicators of defensive ammo performance. It makes sense to me that the amount of tissue "crushed" is a better indicator. VIRGEL just makes it easier to calculate an estimate of that number.

Of course, it's understood that accuracy and penetration are vitally important. But after that, wound mass trumps velocity, energy, and momentum.

[44MAG#1]

VIRGEL is just a calculator. It doesn't "prove" anything.

But guys like Fackler have "proven" (to my satisfaction, at least) that velocity, energy, and momentum are not the best indicators of defensive ammo performance. It makes sense to me that the amount of tissue "crushed" is a better indicator. VIRGEL just makes it easier to calculate an estimate of that number.

Of course, it's understood that accuracy and penetration are vitally important. But after that, wound mass trumps velocity, energy, and momentum.

VIRGEL in and of itself is a creation that gives us the results that Fackler gave in his knowledgeable experiments and writings thereof.
VIRGEL is your baby. Be proud of it as it is an achievement that many only aspire to.
It brings to those of us who are challenged in finding pertinent info and calculating said info at our fingertips.
That is what is so good about it.

[billmc2]

When did all that happen? I can't run fast enough to give VIRGEL away.

I'd be willing to give it a try. I just did a search of the web and found it listed in Google Play. I have an Apple phone or a Linux computer. Anything available for either of those platforms?

[pettypace]

I'd be willing to give it a try. I just did a search of the web and found it listed in Google Play. I have an Apple phone or a Linux computer. Anything available for either of those platforms?

Try: http://rewebster.org/virgel.html

Still a "work in progress." But should work on any browser -- including your iPhone.

[Stacts]

With no insult meant, I find the virgel calculations to be of dubious value. By its own admission, it is incapable of calculating/estimating/demonstrating the effects of bullets within bodies (tumbling/fragmenting/expanding). For solid, non-expanding bullets at typical handgun velocities from 800 through 1200 FPS, it provides a generic estimate of effectiveness. If the bullet is designed to deform itself in any way or if the velocity is well above typical handgun velocities (5.7x28 at 1500+ FPS) virgel is next to useless, and practical testing is needed for any comparison.

[44MAG#1]

Try: http://rewebster.org/virgel.html

Still a "work in progress." But should work on any browser -- including your iPhone.

But what a "work". It has changed me.

[pettypace]

With no insult meant, I find the virgel calculations to be of dubious value. By its own admission, it is incapable of calculating/estimating/demonstrating the effects of bullets within bodies (tumbling/fragmenting/expanding). For solid, non-expanding bullets at typical handgun velocities from 800 through 1200 FPS, it provides a generic estimate of effectiveness. If the bullet is designed to deform itself in any way or if the velocity is well above typical handgun velocities (5.7x28 at 1500+ FPS) virgel is next to useless, and practical testing is needed for any comparison.

Could you give a brief description of the "practical testing" that provides a quantitative comparison of permanent cavity volume or wound mass?

[Stacts]

Could you give a brief description of the "practical testing" that provides a quantitative comparison of permanent cavity volume or wound mass?

Nope. I have no reason to. My point was that virgel has limits. In every test of 5.7x28 ammo I have seen, the rounds have tumbled or otherwise deviated from a regular path, thus producing larger temporary and permanent wound cavities. Virgel, by its own admission, cannot calculate this behavior.

[pettypace]

Nope. I have no reason to. My point was that virgel has limits. In every test of 5.7x28 ammo I have seen, the rounds have tumbled or otherwise deviated from a regular path, thus producing larger temporary and permanent wound cavities. Virgel, by its own admission, cannot calculate this behavior.

Your unwillingness to describe a practical test to quantify permanent cavity volume suggests that you probably don't have a clue about the likely permanent cavity wound mass from 5.7x28 ammo. That's OK. I didn't either. But VIRGEL does!

Here's a youtube video that shows a 40 grain 5.7 Gold Dot fired from a pistol at about 1600 ft/s through "heavy clothing" and expanding uniformly to about 0.300" in Clear Ballistic Gel. Here's VIRGEL's take on that load:



I'm curious just what you find of "dubious value" and "next to useless" in that information?

[44MAG#1]

Your unwillingness to describe a practical test to quantify permanent cavity volume suggests that you probably don't have a clue about the likely permanent cavity wound mass from 5.7x28 ammo. That's OK. I didn't either. But VIRGEL does!

Here's a youtube video that shows a 40 grain 5.7 Gold Dot fired from a pistol at about 1600 ft/s through "heavy clothing" and expanding uniformly to about 0.300" in Clear Ballistic Gel. Here's VIRGEL's take on that load:



I'm curious just what you find of "dubious value" and "next to useless" in that information?

VIRGEL is it. It has changed the way we look at defensive calibers and ammo
My hat is off to it.

[Stacts]

Your unwillingness to describe a practical test to quantify permanent cavity volume suggests that you probably don't have a clue about the likely permanent cavity wound mass from 5.7x28 ammo. That's OK. I didn't either. But VIRGEL does!

Here's a youtube video that shows a 40 grain 5.7 Gold Dot fired from a pistol at about 1600 ft/s through "heavy clothing" and expanding uniformly to about 0.300" in Clear Ballistic Gel. Here's VIRGEL's take on that load:



I'm curious just what you find of "dubious value" and "next to useless" in that information?

Note the bottom sentence:

"For example, VIRGEL can't predict bullet expansion or deal with tumbling, fragmenting, or very high velocity bullets."

For virgel to make its 'defense wound mass' calculation, a real bullet had to be shot at real gel so that the expansion could be measured. If no round had been fired, the virgel calculation would have to have been made with EITHER the starting diameter (5.7mm) or a WAG at what the expansion MIGHT BE. I will also point out that virgel routinely underestimates penetration of hollow points. Your virgel calculation shows 19" of penetration when the measured penetration was 21". Does it matter here? Not much. But what about a different cartridge like .38 spcl? What about Federal's 130 gr HST JHP Micro +P? Lucky Gunner tested the ammo and found 13" of penetration but virgel calculates 6".




That is quite the discrepancy.

Regarding the video you linked, I have watched several of his videos and appreciate his work, but am frequently disappointed by the low number of rounds he fires into gel. The specific video you linked shows only a single round of 5.7x28 being fired into gel. Would the results have been different if he grabbed a different round out of the box? Maybe. Would the results have been different if he had fired five 5.7x28 rounds? Maybe. Trying to draw conclusions from a single round of a single box of a single lot from a single handgun on a single day is foolhardy.

Virgel is, at best, a good starting point for these discussions. It is a horrible ending point though.

... and expanding uniformly to about 0.300"

I wonder how you can call the expansion 'uniform' when only a single round was fired.

[Bigslug]

I'm curious just what you find of "dubious value" and "next to useless" in that information?

I think what Stacts is getting at is we don't have a software package that can output the characteristics of military rounds that are designed to obey the letter of the Hague Convention, while totally ignoring the spirit of it.

The 5.56x45 and the 5.7x28 both have mil-spec FMJ rounds that are designed to tumble on impact. They also have soft point commercial rounds intended to do as soft points do.

The Vietnam-era / still in widespread use today 55 grain M193 projectile can be a bit of a mind-bending doozy. It is designed to tumble on impact, and if the impact velocity remains high enough, it will come apart at the cannelure and fragment.

I helped run a gelatin test in which we shot M193 in several common AR-15 barrel lengths ranging from a 24" commercial varmint gun all the way down to one of the 10 or 11 inch Colt Commando SMG-sized packages. As the velocities decreased with the shorter barrels, penetration actually increased when the velocity "fragmentation threshold" was not met, and we saw at least one example where the bullet just rotated 180 degrees and appeared to travel onwards, boattail-first - like a round nosed FMJ.

In a nutshell, this bullet may be a non-expanding .22 at mid-2000 fps or less, a roughly half-inch x .22 cylinder giving variable presentation to the axis of advance at those same speeds, or a high velocity grenade. High-speed hydrostatic effects will either be VERY apparent, or not a all. This is some pretty squirrely behavior that's going to be hard to input in terms of a simple starting/ending diameter.

Perhaps more down to the level of this thread, within the last couple years I confirmed that the .38/200 Webley MKI bullet can indeed tumble sideways on impact and do more damage to a row of sacrificial milk jugs than one would expect of a non-expanding projectile at a mere 600 fps. That said, I've also fired what you'd think is the nearly identical Lyman 195 grain RN into "official" FBI gel at about the same speed and had it pencil through in a perfectly straight line.

So while I think you might be able to get software models to reliably compute what a bullet will do IF it does a specific thing, one needs to confirm that the bullet will indeed actually do that specific thing. Part of the beauty of two extremes - the modern duty handgun round and cast LFN/WFN designs - is that the former will very predictably do it's thing in the depth of a human torso and either stop on the far side or have very little gas left when it exits when used at common social distances; and that the former will very predictably penetrate like a madman in a straight line either at the muzzle or a couple hundred yards downrange. We do, however, have those goofy rounds that aren't so scrupulous in their behavior. Or things like the various "talon" or X-shaped expanders with special effects that may not fit a simple diameter-based model.