Speaking of ballistics... Glaser safety rounds

We are currently having a discussion about Glaser safety rounds on
Tx.guns. I've read both pros and cons about them but the consensus over
there seems to be that it'd be a good idea to use them simply because
many prosecuting attorneys seem to like to bring up the "sadistic use of
hollowpoint bullets" to the jury to prejudice them against the defendant.

The use of Glasers is "kinder and gentler" and more acceptable.

But, they are (imho) a good way to get yourself killed if they don't
penetrate properly. They might not stop the perp in time.

Hollowpoints are against the Geneva conventions. Not sure why.

I've read more con than pro about Glasers so far, but I need
"ammunition" to defend my stance.

Comments? Help? :-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <omp.omelet-0A0A70.10411314102006@news.giganews.com>,
OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
..
>
> Comments? Help? :-)

Doc Roberts comments:

Unlike rifle bullets, handgun bullets generally only disrupt tissue by the
crush mechanism. Temporary cavitation from most handgun bullets does not
reliably damage tissue and is not usually a significant mechanism of
wounding. Handgun bullets do not generally exhibit the fragmentation
effects produced by rifle bullets. If handgun bullets fragment, the bullet
fragments are usually found within 1 cm of the permanent cavity and wound
severity is generally not increased. In addition, handgun bullet
deformation is not as consistent or reliable as with rifle bullets. The
critical factor in assessing the wounding effectiveness of handgun
bullets, from the perspective of military and law enforcement personnel as
well as private citizens who depend on firearms to protect themselves, is
the ability of the bullet to reliably penetrate at least 10 to 12 inches
(25.4 to 30.5 cm) of soft tissue, the minimum depth necessary to ensure
disruption of the major organs and blood vessels in the torso from any
angle. Of the bullets which attain this goal of deep penetration, those
with a larger diameter crush more tissue. Greater tissue disruption can
increase hemorrhage and promote faster incapacitation from rapid blood
loss.

The 1970¹s era Relative Incapacitation Index (RII) developed by the
National Institute of Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
was an attempt to determine which handgun bullets would have the greatest
wounding effect and would incapacitate a human most reliably. The RII
assumed that the size of the temporary cavity produced by a given handgun
bullet in ordnance gelatin is directly proportional to the wounding effect
and incapacitation produced by that bullet in a human. The study
recommended lightweight, high velocity bullets with rapid expansion in
tissue and frangible, pre-fragmented bullets, such as the Glaser Safety
Slug, as producing the greatest wounding effect and most reliable
incapacitation in humans. The RII completely ignored the size and depth of
the permanent cavity, the tissue which is actually destroyed by the
bullet. Since many tissues in the human body are elastic, they absorb the
stretch and tissue displacement produced by temporary cavitation with
minimal damage. Unfortunately, as a result of the badly flawed NIJ LEAA
RII study, lightweight, high velocity handgun bullets and frangible,
pre-fragmented handgun bullets became extremely popular.

Shallow penetrating, lightweight, high velocity, rapidly expanding bullets
and frangible, pre-fragmented bullets are often recommended because of the
widespread fear of handgun bullet overpenetration, in other words, a
bullet which completely passes through the body, exits the other side, and
continues on to potentially endanger innocent bystanders. This feared
hazard is greatly exaggerated. The skin on the exit side of the body is
tough, resilient, and flexible, and can have the same resistance to bullet
passage as four inches (10 cm) of muscle. This often results in bullets
ending their path just under the skin at the anticipated exit point rather
than overpenetrating as might be expected based on laboratory studies. In
addition, those few bullets which overpenetrate after hitting the target
are not any more dangerous to innocent bystanders than the overwhelming
majority of bullets fired by law enforcement personnel which miss the
intended target all together. According to Special Agent Urey Patrick,
former Assistant Chief of the FBI Firearms Training Unit:

"Choosing a bullet because of relatively shallow penetration will
seriously compromise weapon effectiveness and needlessly endanger the
lives of law enforcement officers using it. No law enforcement officer has
lost his life because a bullet over-penetrated his adversary, and
virtually none has ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander
through an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large numbers of
officers have been killed because their bullets did not penetrate deeply
enough."

Vital anatomic structures are located deep within the body, protected by
various layers of tissue. The major blood vessels in the torso of even a
slender adult are located approximately 6" (15 cm) from the ventral skin
surface and much deeper in larger individuals. Bullets must be able to
penetrate deeply enough to disrupt the major organs and blood vessels in
the torso and cause the massive hemorrhage which results in rapid
incapacitation in the absence of central nervous system trauma. Thick
clothing, body angulation, and intervening anatomic structures, such as
excess adipose tissue, hypertrophied muscle, or even an arm, hand, or
shoulder, can increase the distance a bullet must penetrate to reach the
vital organs and blood vessels of the torso.

Lightweight, high velocity handgun bullets which rapidly expand in tissue
have decreased penetration depth compared to heavier, slower, less
deformed bullets and cannot consistently reach the major organs and blood
vessels in the torso, especially from transverse and oblique angles.
Frangible handgun bullets designed to fragment on impact, like the Glaser
and MagSafe, produce large shallow wounds, have extremely limited tissue
penetration depth, and cannot consistently reach the major organs and
blood vessels in the torso, especially from transverse and oblique angles.
In addition, they cannot defeat commonly encountered intermediate
obstacles. For example: The 80 gr (5.2 gm) .357 Magnum Glaser Safety Slug
has a muzzle velocity of 1785 f/s (544 m/s). It completely fragments on
impact and only penetrates 4.7" (12 cm). When asked to comment on the
potential survival time with a shot to the mid-abdomen by the Glaser, the
surgeon heading the U. S. Army Wound Ballistic Laboratory commented that
the patient would, "survive about three days and the cause of death would
be peritonitis.". Not exactly the rapid physiological incapacitation
necessary for law enforcement lethal force confrontations.

With the Magsafe 96 gr (6.2 gm) 10mm "Defender", the muzzle velocity is
1850 f/s (564 m/s) and the bullet completely fragments on impact. The 13
pieces of #2 shot create a relatively large wound channel to a depth of 6"
(15.2 cm). The pellets then spread outward and continue to penetrate up to
11.8" (30.0 cm), creating very small permanent wound tracts and producing
minimal temporary cavities. How damaging is #2 bird shot? Would you ever
choose it for hunting a 100 pound deer or other medium to large game?
Would you literally bet your life that several small pieces of birdshot
will stop a 200 pound felon? How deep does your bullet need to penetrate
to reach the descending aorta in a corpulent beer swilling biker intent on
crushing in your cranium? How many inches of fat are covering the belly?
How many more inches of distended, swollen intestines must then be
traversed before your bullet finally reaches the major blood bearing
arteries and organs of the deep abdomen? Then again, perhaps you will be
assaulted by an ex-con buffed out from benching while in prison. What if
the bad guy is shooting at you and your bullet first must go all the way
through his arm before it even reaches his chest? Then how many inches of
hypertrophied pectoralis muscle and dense rib must your handgun projectile
pierce and crush through before finally continuing on into the heart or
ascending aorta? Will four, five, six, even eight inches of penetration be
enough? Finally, warrior mindset, repetitive training, and consistent
weapon reliability are far important than the best terminal wound
ballistic performance in the world. Are you willing to purchase enough of
this absurdly expensive ammunition to shoot 100 rounds per week (5000+
rounds per year) in order to maintain your proficiency?

The long since dubunked RII is seriously flawed and its recommendations
are clearly erroneous. Larger diameter handgun bullets that penetrate at
least 12 inches offer sufficient penetration to consistently reach the
major organs and blood vessels in the torso, even from transverse and
oblique angles and through intermediate obstacles, while simultaneousuly
crushing more tissue--thus offering far superior terminal performance
compared to shallow penetrating and fragmenting bullets

<top posting for ease of reading>

Nice, thanks! :-)

Now, their argument is still going to be that I'm more likely to go to
jail because I used a hollowpoint... I doubt that Ayoob is available to
testify in every self defense trial.

But, I'll keep this on file if I ever need it.

I think that, in most cases, it'd be beneficial to have a bench trial so
that the attorneys do not get to posture in front of an impressionable
jury?

Of course, if you follow the rules, you won't get charged in the first
place but that (at this point in time) does not save you from a civil
suit by said perp's family members.

In article <willbrink-1410061206180001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <omp.omelet-0A0A70.10411314102006@news.giganews.com>,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
> >
> > Comments? Help? :-)
>
> Doc Roberts comments:
>
> Unlike rifle bullets, handgun bullets generally only disrupt tissue by the
> crush mechanism. Temporary cavitation from most handgun bullets does not
> reliably damage tissue and is not usually a significant mechanism of
> wounding. Handgun bullets do not generally exhibit the fragmentation
> effects produced by rifle bullets. If handgun bullets fragment, the bullet
> fragments are usually found within 1 cm of the permanent cavity and wound
> severity is generally not increased. In addition, handgun bullet
> deformation is not as consistent or reliable as with rifle bullets. The
> critical factor in assessing the wounding effectiveness of handgun
> bullets, from the perspective of military and law enforcement personnel as
> well as private citizens who depend on firearms to protect themselves, is
> the ability of the bullet to reliably penetrate at least 10 to 12 inches
> (25.4 to 30.5 cm) of soft tissue, the minimum depth necessary to ensure
> disruption of the major organs and blood vessels in the torso from any
> angle. Of the bullets which attain this goal of deep penetration, those
> with a larger diameter crush more tissue. Greater tissue disruption can
> increase hemorrhage and promote faster incapacitation from rapid blood
> loss.
>
> The 1970¹s era Relative Incapacitation Index (RII) developed by the
> National Institute of Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
> was an attempt to determine which handgun bullets would have the greatest
> wounding effect and would incapacitate a human most reliably. The RII
> assumed that the size of the temporary cavity produced by a given handgun
> bullet in ordnance gelatin is directly proportional to the wounding effect
> and incapacitation produced by that bullet in a human. The study
> recommended lightweight, high velocity bullets with rapid expansion in
> tissue and frangible, pre-fragmented bullets, such as the Glaser Safety
> Slug, as producing the greatest wounding effect and most reliable
> incapacitation in humans. The RII completely ignored the size and depth of
> the permanent cavity, the tissue which is actually destroyed by the
> bullet. Since many tissues in the human body are elastic, they absorb the
> stretch and tissue displacement produced by temporary cavitation with
> minimal damage. Unfortunately, as a result of the badly flawed NIJ LEAA
> RII study, lightweight, high velocity handgun bullets and frangible,
> pre-fragmented handgun bullets became extremely popular.
>
> Shallow penetrating, lightweight, high velocity, rapidly expanding bullets
> and frangible, pre-fragmented bullets are often recommended because of the
> widespread fear of handgun bullet overpenetration, in other words, a
> bullet which completely passes through the body, exits the other side, and
> continues on to potentially endanger innocent bystanders. This feared
> hazard is greatly exaggerated. The skin on the exit side of the body is
> tough, resilient, and flexible, and can have the same resistance to bullet
> passage as four inches (10 cm) of muscle. This often results in bullets
> ending their path just under the skin at the anticipated exit point rather
> than overpenetrating as might be expected based on laboratory studies. In
> addition, those few bullets which overpenetrate after hitting the target
> are not any more dangerous to innocent bystanders than the overwhelming
> majority of bullets fired by law enforcement personnel which miss the
> intended target all together. According to Special Agent Urey Patrick,
> former Assistant Chief of the FBI Firearms Training Unit:
>
> "Choosing a bullet because of relatively shallow penetration will
> seriously compromise weapon effectiveness and needlessly endanger the
> lives of law enforcement officers using it. No law enforcement officer has
> lost his life because a bullet over-penetrated his adversary, and
> virtually none has ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander
> through an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large numbers of
> officers have been killed because their bullets did not penetrate deeply
> enough."
>
> Vital anatomic structures are located deep within the body, protected by
> various layers of tissue. The major blood vessels in the torso of even a
> slender adult are located approximately 6" (15 cm) from the ventral skin
> surface and much deeper in larger individuals. Bullets must be able to
> penetrate deeply enough to disrupt the major organs and blood vessels in
> the torso and cause the massive hemorrhage which results in rapid
> incapacitation in the absence of central nervous system trauma. Thick
> clothing, body angulation, and intervening anatomic structures, such as
> excess adipose tissue, hypertrophied muscle, or even an arm, hand, or
> shoulder, can increase the distance a bullet must penetrate to reach the
> vital organs and blood vessels of the torso.
>
> Lightweight, high velocity handgun bullets which rapidly expand in tissue
> have decreased penetration depth compared to heavier, slower, less
> deformed bullets and cannot consistently reach the major organs and blood
> vessels in the torso, especially from transverse and oblique angles.
> Frangible handgun bullets designed to fragment on impact, like the Glaser
> and MagSafe, produce large shallow wounds, have extremely limited tissue
> penetration depth, and cannot consistently reach the major organs and
> blood vessels in the torso, especially from transverse and oblique angles.
> In addition, they cannot defeat commonly encountered intermediate
> obstacles. For example: The 80 gr (5.2 gm) .357 Magnum Glaser Safety Slug
> has a muzzle velocity of 1785 f/s (544 m/s). It completely fragments on
> impact and only penetrates 4.7" (12 cm). When asked to comment on the
> potential survival time with a shot to the mid-abdomen by the Glaser, the
> surgeon heading the U. S. Army Wound Ballistic Laboratory commented that
> the patient would, "survive about three days and the cause of death would
> be peritonitis.". Not exactly the rapid physiological incapacitation
> necessary for law enforcement lethal force confrontations.
>
> With the Magsafe 96 gr (6.2 gm) 10mm "Defender", the muzzle velocity is
> 1850 f/s (564 m/s) and the bullet completely fragments on impact. The 13
> pieces of #2 shot create a relatively large wound channel to a depth of 6"
> (15.2 cm). The pellets then spread outward and continue to penetrate up to
> 11.8" (30.0 cm), creating very small permanent wound tracts and producing
> minimal temporary cavities. How damaging is #2 bird shot? Would you ever
> choose it for hunting a 100 pound deer or other medium to large game?
> Would you literally bet your life that several small pieces of birdshot
> will stop a 200 pound felon? How deep does your bullet need to penetrate
> to reach the descending aorta in a corpulent beer swilling biker intent on
> crushing in your cranium? How many inches of fat are covering the belly?
> How many more inches of distended, swollen intestines must then be
> traversed before your bullet finally reaches the major blood bearing
> arteries and organs of the deep abdomen? Then again, perhaps you will be
> assaulted by an ex-con buffed out from benching while in prison. What if
> the bad guy is shooting at you and your bullet first must go all the way
> through his arm before it even reaches his chest? Then how many inches of
> hypertrophied pectoralis muscle and dense rib must your handgun projectile
> pierce and crush through before finally continuing on into the heart or
> ascending aorta? Will four, five, six, even eight inches of penetration be
> enough? Finally, warrior mindset, repetitive training, and consistent
> weapon reliability are far important than the best terminal wound
> ballistic performance in the world. Are you willing to purchase enough of
> this absurdly expensive ammunition to shoot 100 rounds per week (5000+
> rounds per year) in order to maintain your proficiency?
>
> The long since dubunked RII is seriously flawed and its recommendations
> are clearly erroneous. Larger diameter handgun bullets that penetrate at
> least 12 inches offer sufficient penetration to consistently reach the
> major organs and blood vessels in the torso, even from transverse and
> oblique angles and through intermediate obstacles, while simultaneousuly
> crushing more tissue--thus offering far superior terminal performance
> compared to shallow penetrating and fragmenting bullets
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

>In article <omp.omelet-0A0A70.10411314102006@news.giganews.com>,
>OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>.
>>
>> Comments? Help? :-)
>
>Doc Roberts comments:

Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
Freides and Pavel.

I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.

In article <ihc2j2plj9osa7l06gs1a2ah2j46ehku7v@4ax.com>,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> >In article <omp.omelet-0A0A70.10411314102006@news.giganews.com>,
> >OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >.
> >>
> >> Comments? Help? :-)
> >
> >Doc Roberts comments:
>
> Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
> Freides and Pavel.
>
> I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
> educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.

So how do you stand on Glasers?

And the "defensibility" of using Hollowpoints?

Your insight especially would be most valued due to your professional
position.

Do you ever attack people in court for using hollowpoints like some
prosecutors do?

Or just base your case on them being a dumbass and using unjustified
deadly force?

I'm ok with the latter, but not the former. <G>
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <omp.omelet-59AB9E.11591914102006@news.giganews.com>,
OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

> <top posting for ease of reading>
>
> Nice, thanks! :-)
>
> Now, their argument is still going to be that I'm more likely to go to
> jail because I used a hollowpoint.

Every police dept in the US uses them. As I mentioned, simply find what
your dept carries, and use those. You carry what your local cops carry.

In article <ihc2j2plj9osa7l06gs1a2ah2j46ehku7v@4ax.com>, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> >In article <omp.omelet-0A0A70.10411314102006@news.giganews.com>,
> >OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >.
> >>
> >> Comments? Help? :-)
> >
> >Doc Roberts comments:
>
> Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
> Freides and Pavel.

I think not!

>
> I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
> educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.

There are different schools of thought on any topic. The question is, who
does the best job of supporting their position? I read on the topic by
other writers and none are as compelling and convincing as Roberts, and
most ballisticians are firmly in that camp. It's also not his theory, it's
`simply what the modern testing and knowledge dictates. I have also quoted
plenty of other people in the field of ballistics. Speaking of other
theories, a thread you would enjoy talks about the kenetic energy theory
and some other people in the field get into it with Roberts and don't
agree with his conclusions. Worth reading.

Www.TacticalForums.com

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>>OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>.
>>> Comments? Help? :-)
>>
>>Doc Roberts comments:
>
> Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
> Freides and Pavel.

Pavel's a dentist? I did not know that.
>
> I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
> educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.

But those who disagree with the Jello Junkies are all dishonest, lying,
bastards. Haven't you heard?

David

In article <willbrink-1410061801170001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <ihc2j2plj9osa7l06gs1a2ah2j46ehku7v@4ax.com>, JMW
> <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
> > willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <omp.omelet-0A0A70.10411314102006@news.giganews.com>,
> > >OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >.
> > >>
> > >> Comments? Help? :-)
> > >
> > >Doc Roberts comments:
> >
> > Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
> > Freides and Pavel.
>
> I think not!
>
> >
> > I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
> > educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.
>
> There are different schools of thought on any topic. The question is, who
> does the best job of supporting their position? I read on the topic by
> other writers and none are as compelling and convincing as Roberts, and
> most ballisticians are firmly in that camp. It's also not his theory, it's
> `simply what the modern testing and knowledge dictates. I have also quoted
> plenty of other people in the field of ballistics. Speaking of other
> theories, a thread you would enjoy talks about the kenetic energy theory
> and some other people in the field get into it with Roberts and don't
> agree with his conclusions. Worth reading.
>
> Www.TacticalForums.com

Here's the link to that thread:

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bi...;f=78;t=001276

BTW, what has become known as the Big Hole Theory comes from a dr Feckler
as I understand it.

OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>> >OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >.
>> >>
>> >> Comments? Help? :-)
>> >
>> >Doc Roberts comments:
>>
>> Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
>> Freides and Pavel.
>>
>> I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
>> educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.
>
>So how do you stand on Glasers?
>
>And the "defensibility" of using Hollowpoints?
>
>Your insight especially would be most valued due to your professional
>position.
>
>Do you ever attack people in court for using hollowpoints like some
>prosecutors do?
>
>Or just base your case on them being a dumbass and using unjustified
>deadly force?
>
>I'm ok with the latter, but not the former. <G>

I have never known of anyone attacking a defendant for using
hollowpoints, or any type of ammunition. That's why I don't
understand this perception of it occurring. So I tried to think of a
situation where I might make that argument. And I thought of one.

People bear certain responsibility for using deadly force, and that is
as it should be. So what do defense attorneys do when the defendant
is accused of wrongfully using deadly force? They claim it wasn't
really deadly force. Sure, most jurors are going to say, "Listen, if
you shoot somebody, you're using deadly force," and cops know damn
full well that they are automatically presumed to be using deadly
force when they fire their duty weapon, but defense attorneys will try
any argument when the defendant is in deep shit. "Oh, he wasn't
trying to kill him; he was just trying to cause a little flesh wound."
They do that because the threshold of provocation for use deadly force
in self-defense is a lot higher than the threshold required for the
use of non-deadly force in self-defense. If confronted with that type
of bullshit, I might well argue the type of ammunition, the caliber,
the ammunition capacity, and other things. That's the only reason I
could see to make that argument.

But let's face a hard reality. Firearms use carries certain inherent
responsibilities. Any time you pull the trigger, or even point the
gun, in the direction of another human being, you are using or
preparing to use deadly force. If you can't butch up and accept that
fact, you shouldn't have a gun.

In article <willbrink-1410061746170001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <omp.omelet-59AB9E.11591914102006@news.giganews.com>,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <top posting for ease of reading>
> >
> > Nice, thanks! :-)
> >
> > Now, their argument is still going to be that I'm more likely to go to
> > jail because I used a hollowpoint.
>
> Every police dept in the US uses them. As I mentioned, simply find what
> your dept carries, and use those. You carry what your local cops carry.

That is exactly what I did...

They contradicted the idea tho' that hollowpoints are used by police US
wide. To quote one post segment:

> Very many jurisdictions PROHIBIT the use of anything other than ball
> ammunition. London and Philadelphia for two. Probably, also, some federal
> agencies. Some jurisdictions require a PERMIT to carry hollow-point
> ammunition (New Jersey). But it only takes one prohibition - anywhere - to
> be used as the example in your trial.

But, I live in Texas, not Philadelphia. I actually called and spoke with
the local police armorer. He was very friendly and willing to advise me.
;-) He's the one that encouraged me to get a shotgun for home defense,
mainly to prevent possible collateral damage.

A stray bullet going thru a wall has a low chance of hitting anyone, but
it has happened... There was some moron in San Antonio a couple of weeks
or so ago that purchased an M-15 for home defense. He lived in an apt.
complex. The first time he went to clean it, he had an AD and put a
bullet thru the wall.

He thought nothing of it until he heard his neighbor's wife screaming
about 1/2 hour later... The bullet had gone thru the headboard of his
neighbors bed where he was taking a nap and hit him in the head.

Needless to say, he died.....

Low odds imho are still too high!

I have an anti-gun co-worker that takes delight in xeroxing newspaper
articles like this and leaving them in my mailbox at work. I retaliate
by xeroxing "The Armed Citizen" from the NRA mags and leaving them in
HIS mailbox. It's actually a friendly rivalry so it's all good...
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

>In article <ihc2j2plj9osa7l06gs1a2ah2j46ehku7v@4ax.com>, JMW
><jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <omp.omelet-0A0A70.10411314102006@news.giganews.com>,
>> >OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >.
>> >>
>> >> Comments? Help? :-)
>> >
>> >Doc Roberts comments:
>>
>> Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
>> Freides and Pavel.
>
>I think not!

OK. I was trolling with that one.

>> I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
>> educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.
>
>There are different schools of thought on any topic. The question is, who
>does the best job of supporting their position? I read on the topic by
>other writers and none are as compelling and convincing as Roberts, and
>most ballisticians are firmly in that camp. It's also not his theory, it's
>`simply what the modern testing and knowledge dictates. I have also quoted
>plenty of other people in the field of ballistics. Speaking of other
>theories, a thread you would enjoy talks about the kenetic energy theory
>and some other people in the field get into it with Roberts and don't
>agree with his conclusions. Worth reading.
>
>Www.TacticalForums.com

I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts looks
at that data which supports his views and not at that which doesn't.
For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder what
he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:

http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
>> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>>>OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>.
>>>> Comments? Help? :-)
>>>
>>>Doc Roberts comments:
>>
>> Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
>> Freides and Pavel.
>
>Pavel's a dentist? I did not know that.
>>
>> I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
>> educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.
>
>But those who disagree with the Jello Junkies are all dishonest, lying,
>bastards. Haven't you heard?

Hey, if you're going to do the Henry thing, you'll need more
adjectives.

In article <9v43j2h9gcmu0euaa1lqrgheg7r7ackenu@4ax.com>,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> >> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> >> >OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >.
> >> >>
> >> >> Comments? Help? :-)
> >> >
> >> >Doc Roberts comments:
> >>
> >> Y'know, Will, you and Doc Roberts are starting to sound like Steve
> >> Freides and Pavel.
> >>
> >> I have read enough ballistics stuff that I know there are other
> >> educated views beyond Roberts's "big, slow wad of lead" dogma.
> >
> >So how do you stand on Glasers?
> >
> >And the "defensibility" of using Hollowpoints?
> >
> >Your insight especially would be most valued due to your professional
> >position.
> >
> >Do you ever attack people in court for using hollowpoints like some
> >prosecutors do?
> >
> >Or just base your case on them being a dumbass and using unjustified
> >deadly force?
> >
> >I'm ok with the latter, but not the former. <G>
>
> I have never known of anyone attacking a defendant for using
> hollowpoints, or any type of ammunition. That's why I don't
> understand this perception of it occurring. So I tried to think of a
> situation where I might make that argument. And I thought of one.
>
> People bear certain responsibility for using deadly force, and that is
> as it should be. So what do defense attorneys do when the defendant
> is accused of wrongfully using deadly force? They claim it wasn't
> really deadly force. Sure, most jurors are going to say, "Listen, if
> you shoot somebody, you're using deadly force," and cops know damn
> full well that they are automatically presumed to be using deadly
> force when they fire their duty weapon, but defense attorneys will try
> any argument when the defendant is in deep shit. "Oh, he wasn't
> trying to kill him; he was just trying to cause a little flesh wound."
> They do that because the threshold of provocation for use deadly force
> in self-defense is a lot higher than the threshold required for the
> use of non-deadly force in self-defense. If confronted with that type
> of bullshit, I might well argue the type of ammunition, the caliber,
> the ammunition capacity, and other things. That's the only reason I
> could see to make that argument.
>
> But let's face a hard reality. Firearms use carries certain inherent
> responsibilities. Any time you pull the trigger, or even point the
> gun, in the direction of another human being, you are using or
> preparing to use deadly force. If you can't butch up and accept that
> fact, you shouldn't have a gun.

All good points, thanks!
And I agree.

I can't find the original article that was posted, but it was surmised
that the shooter had malicious intent in his choice of ammo. So now,
they are saying that he'd have looked better to the jury if he'd used
Glaser rounds. His use of hollowpoints was brought up by the prosecutor
during his trial.

I'm saying that he might have been badly hurt by his attacker if he'd
used Glaser rounds.

I've read conflicting reports on them (Glasers) so was curious as to a
consensus of opinion here.

IMHO a lot of people that are carrying guns are NOT doing their homework
and not taking it seriously enough! I ran into one guy at the range last
month that had not fired his pistol in 4 years since he'd originally
qualified for his CCW. He was there only because the class was the next
day and he wanted to get a little practice in to brush the rust off his
skills.

<sigh>

I understand that it's not all that uncommon.

I hit the range every 4 to 6 weeks as time and finances allow, but I
happen to_enjoy_ target shooting.
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <9u53j2dpo2r8vjfrufafunfe9c8vngec25@4ax.com>,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts looks
> at that data which supports his views and not at that which doesn't.
> For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder what
> he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:
>
> http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg

Not as deep, but a very ugly wound???
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <omp.omelet-3B97B5.21081414102006@news.giganews.com>,
OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <willbrink-1410061746170001@192.168.2.156>,
> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> > In article <omp.omelet-59AB9E.11591914102006@news.giganews.com>,
> > OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <top posting for ease of reading>
> > >
> > > Nice, thanks! :-)
> > >
> > > Now, their argument is still going to be that I'm more likely to go to
> > > jail because I used a hollowpoint.
> >
> > Every police dept in the US uses them. As I mentioned, simply find what
> > your dept carries, and use those. You carry what your local cops carry.
>
> That is exactly what I did...

Then you are all set.

>
> They contradicted the idea tho' that hollowpoints are used by police US
> wide. To quote one post segment:
>
> > Very many jurisdictions PROHIBIT the use of anything other than ball
> > ammunition. London and Philadelphia for two. Probably, also, some federal
> > agencies. Some jurisdictions require a PERMIT to carry hollow-point
> > ammunition (New Jersey). But it only takes one prohibition - anywhere - to
> > be used as the example in your trial.

Oh Christ. Fine, the ***VAST**** majority of police depts carry them. I
know of no federal agencies that carry ball ammmo, and I am not convinced
the cops in Philly carry ball, and dont care enough to check. London? Who
gives a fu*& about London? What Jersey requires for CCW matters to you if
you live in Jersey.

In article <9u53j2dpo2r8vjfrufafunfe9c8vngec25@4ax.com>, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> >
> >Www.TacticalForums.com
>
> I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts looks
> at that data which supports his views and not at that which doesn't.

And you could be right. I posted a link to a thread that got into a long
talk on other theories, and proof pro and con, from some others that work
in the ballistics sciences, who think Roberts et al is wrong. As I said,
it's not even close to his theory and is supported by others.

> For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder what
> he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:
>
> http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg

Why not post it to the forums and see what he/they say? I suspect he will
say exactly as the pic suggests, a big shallow wound that does not hit
vital areas. One pic does not counter what I posted in the least, nor
should it. It's interesting that when it supports your view, "jello" is
fine to use as support for that view, yet when used to counter your view,
it's rejected. Can't have it both ways brother.

In article <omp.omelet-CE11ED.22041914102006@news.giganews.com>,
OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <9u53j2dpo2r8vjfrufafunfe9c8vngec25@4ax.com>,
> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
> > I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts looks
> > at that data which supports his views and not at that which doesn't.
> > For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder what
> > he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:
> >
> > http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg
>
> Not as deep,

Bingo

>but a very ugly wound???

See comments I posted by Doc Roberts.

In article <willbrink-1510060953260001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> > > Very many jurisdictions PROHIBIT the use of anything other than ball
> > > ammunition. London and Philadelphia for two. Probably, also, some federal
> > > agencies. Some jurisdictions require a PERMIT to carry hollow-point
> > > ammunition (New Jersey). But it only takes one prohibition - anywhere -
> > > to
> > > be used as the example in your trial.
>
> Oh Christ. Fine, the ***VAST**** majority of police depts carry them. I
> know of no federal agencies that carry ball ammmo, and I am not convinced
> the cops in Philly carry ball, and dont care enough to check. London? Who
> gives a fu*& about London? What Jersey requires for CCW matters to you if
> you live in Jersey.

<smiles> Yer preachin' to the choir.
Any department that uses ball ammo is just asking for collateral damage.
I'll catch up with them one of these days.
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <willbrink-1510061003190001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <omp.omelet-CE11ED.22041914102006@news.giganews.com>,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <9u53j2dpo2r8vjfrufafunfe9c8vngec25@4ax.com>,
> > JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts looks
> > > at that data which supports his views and not at that which doesn't.
> > > For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder what
> > > he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:
> > >
> > > http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg
> >
> > Not as deep,
>
> Bingo
>
> >but a very ugly wound???
>
> See comments I posted by Doc Roberts.

Did that...

Kinda like using bird shot instead of buckshot eh?
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <omp.omelet-659AD6.09422515102006@news.giganews.com>,
OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <willbrink-1510061003190001@192.168.2.156>,
> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> > In article <omp.omelet-CE11ED.22041914102006@news.giganews.com>,
> > OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <9u53j2dpo2r8vjfrufafunfe9c8vngec25@4ax.com>,
> > > JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts looks
> > > > at that data which supports his views and not at that which doesn't.
> > > > For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder what
> > > > he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg
> > >
> > > Not as deep,
> >
> > Bingo
> >
> > >but a very ugly wound???
> >
> > See comments I posted by Doc Roberts.
>
> Did that...
>
> Kinda like using bird shot instead of buckshot eh?

Yup. Yes, an ugly wound to be sure but not immediately incapacitating. And
that's not from Roberts and or has nothing to do with the different
schools of thought on ballistics we were debating, it's a simple fact of
what is known to incapacitate a person due to a gun shot wound. And
excellent page I have put up before covers this nicely:

http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal.htm

In article <omp.omelet-86DE8D.09412015102006@news.giganews.com>,
OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <willbrink-1510060953260001@192.168.2.156>,
> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> > > > Very many jurisdictions PROHIBIT the use of anything other than ball
> > > > ammunition. London and Philadelphia for two. Probably, also, some
> > > > federal
> > > > agencies. Some jurisdictions require a PERMIT to carry hollow-point
> > > > ammunition (New Jersey). But it only takes one prohibition - anywhere -
> > > > to
> > > > be used as the example in your trial.
> >
> > Oh Christ. Fine, the ***VAST**** majority of police depts carry them. I
> > know of no federal agencies that carry ball ammmo, and I am not convinced
> > the cops in Philly carry ball, and dont care enough to check. London? Who
> > gives a fu*& about London? What Jersey requires for CCW matters to you if
> > you live in Jersey.
>
> <smiles> Yer preachin' to the choir.
> Any department that uses ball ammo is just asking for collateral damage.
> I'll catch up with them one of these days.

Whoops! I meant to say "It'll catch up to them one of these days"!
This is where spellcheckers fail us. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <willbrink-1510061157290001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <omp.omelet-659AD6.09422515102006@news.giganews.com>,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <willbrink-1510061003190001@192.168.2.156>,
> > willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <omp.omelet-CE11ED.22041914102006@news.giganews.com>,
> > > OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <9u53j2dpo2r8vjfrufafunfe9c8vngec25@4ax.com>,
> > > > JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts looks
> > > > > at that data which supports his views and not at that which doesn't.
> > > > > For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder what
> > > > > he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > Not as deep,
> > >
> > > Bingo
> > >
> > > >but a very ugly wound???
> > >
> > > See comments I posted by Doc Roberts.
> >
> > Did that...
> >
> > Kinda like using bird shot instead of buckshot eh?
>
> Yup.

From that page I linked: I suggest you read the entire thing. It's easy to
read and understand and only 2 pages. However, here's some of the money
shots from it:

He covers (and debunks/supports) the different theories. On the "big hole"
theory,

Big Hole School - In this school of thought, sometimes referred to as the
Fackler/Iwba school, the medically correct one, the more permanent damage
that is done to the target (and incidentally the more rapidly the target
bleeds out) the more effective the bullet and more likely incapacitation.
The more tissue cut, crushed, and/or destroyed by the bullet's passage the
better, as more real system trauma results. In addition, in order to be
effective at all target angles the bullet must penetrate sufficiently to
reach vital organs in the target no matter from what direction the bullet
impacts. Most authorities agree that for anti-personnel use a minimum
penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin of about 12" (with 14" - 15"
being considered ideal) is needed. This is necessary to achieve reliable
performance under all conditions against a human target. It should be
noted that minimum depth for major blood vessels and organs in a human is
about 15cm ( 6")--from straight on, but it is considerably more from
various angles. With bullets used for hunting the general consensus is the
deeper the better. In both cases this has to be coupled with the ability
to create the largest diameter permanent hole possible. Most authority
seem to agree that the permanent hole needs to be at least .4" or greater
in diameter and as deep as possible. A problem arises here in that as a
bullet expands it tends to penetrate less, so expansion and penetration
have to be carefully balanced by bullet weight and bullet construction.
This bullet design problem is exacerbated by the fact that if a target is
covered by some material such as cloth, glass, metal, etc. the
expansion--and hence the penetration of the bullet--can alter
dramatically.

The big hole school tends to favor medium to heavy weight bullets at
moderate velocity, with a general preference to bullets of .40 caliber and
greater, that penetrate deeply and destroy a lot of tissue in the
process. The stated requirements for optimum performance are:

* An average penetration of 14" - 15" in 10 percent gelatin
* Velocity of between 800 and 1000 f/s
* Maximum practical bullet weight for the caliber. (9 mm - 147 gr, 10
mm - 180 gr, .45ACP - 200-230 gr) with a preference for the larger
diameter (.40" or greater) bullets


And:


Rules of Terminal Ballistics

11) There ain't no magic bullets!
2) Only center hits count
3) Make the biggest diameter hole you can to let blood out and air in.
4) Make the deepest hole you can to insure that vital organs and nerve
centers can be reached and destroyed from all impact angles.
5) "Service" your threat until it is no longer a threat.
6) No small arm can guarantee 100% instant incapacitation of a
determined adversary--man or beast.
7) Don't believe manufacturer's claims.
8) Most gun writers are pathological liars.

In article <willbrink-1510061157290001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <omp.omelet-659AD6.09422515102006@news.giganews.com>,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <willbrink-1510061003190001@192.168.2.156>,
> > willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <omp.omelet-CE11ED.22041914102006@news.giganews.com>,
> > > OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <9u53j2dpo2r8vjfrufafunfe9c8vngec25@4ax.com>,
> > > > JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts looks
> > > > > at that data which supports his views and not at that which doesn't.
> > > > > For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder what
> > > > > he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > Not as deep,
> > >
> > > Bingo
> > >
> > > >but a very ugly wound???
> > >
> > > See comments I posted by Doc Roberts.
> >
> > Did that...
> >
> > Kinda like using bird shot instead of buckshot eh?
>
> Yup. Yes, an ugly wound to be sure but not immediately incapacitating. And
> that's not from Roberts and or has nothing to do with the different
> schools of thought on ballistics we were debating, it's a simple fact of
> what is known to incapacitate a person due to a gun shot wound. And
> excellent page I have put up before covers this nicely:
>
> http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal.htm

Perfect... :-)
I presume you won't mind if I repost the second page there?

Very nicc web page BTW!
--
Peace, Om

Remove extra . to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <willbrink-1510061218550001@192.168.2.156>,
willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:

> In article <willbrink-1510061157290001@192.168.2.156>,
> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> > In article <omp.omelet-659AD6.09422515102006@news.giganews.com>,
> > OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <willbrink-1510061003190001@192.168.2.156>,
> > > willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <omp.omelet-CE11ED.22041914102006@news.giganews.com>,
> > > > OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp.omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <9u53j2dpo2r8vjfrufafunfe9c8vngec25@4ax.com>,
> > > > > JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I read some of the stuff in that forum. I still suspect Roberts
> > > > > > looks
> > > > > > at that data which supports his views and not at that which
> > > > > > doesn't.
> > > > > > For instance, I know he like ballistic gelatin testing. I wonder
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > he thinks about the visual impact of this comparison:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.carttonic.com/users/corbo...s/gelatin1.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > Not as deep,
> > > >
> > > > Bingo
> > > >
> > > > >but a very ugly wound???
> > > >
> > > > See comments I posted by Doc Roberts.
> > >
> > > Did that...
> > >
> > > Kinda like using bird shot instead of buckshot eh?
> >
> > Yup.
>
> From that page I linked: I suggest you read the entire thing. It's easy to
> read and understand and only 2 pages. However, here's some of the money
> shots from it:

I did read the whole thing. ;-)
It reads a lot like some of the pages from my ballistics textbook.

>
> He covers (and debunks/supports) the different theories. On the "big hole"
> theory,
>
> Big Hole School - In this school of thought, sometimes referred to as the
> Fackler/Iwba school, the medically correct one, the more permanent damage
> that is done to the target (and incidentally the more rapidly the target
> bleeds out) the more effective the bullet and more likely incapacitation.
> The more tissue cut, crushed, and/or destroyed by the bullet's passage the
> better, as more real system trauma results. In addition, in order to be
> effective at all target angles the bullet must penetrate sufficiently to
> reach vital organs in the target no matter from what direction the bullet
> impacts. Most authorities agree that for anti-personnel use a minimum
> penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin of about 12" (with 14" - 15"
> being considered ideal) is needed. This is necessary to achieve reliable
> performance under all conditions against a human target. It should be
> noted that minimum depth for major blood vessels and organs in a human is
> about 15cm ( 6")--from straight on, but it is considerably more from
> various angles. With bullets used for hunting the general consensus is the
> deeper the better. In both cases this has to be coupled with the ability
> to create the largest