THE MISUNDERSTOOD MATTER OF BULLET OVERPENETRATION

Regarding bullet penetration, I enjoyed Chris Harold’s “Handgun Ballistics” class at the Firearms Academy of Seattle (where I also previously took MAG-40/80/DFI). The class covered practical experiments in determining bullet energy, shooting both FBI spec and clear gelatin, a recreation of Paul Harrel’s “meat targets” meant to simulate the human body, and performance in gel (as well as deflection) through vehicle bodies and glass.

Students brought their own carry gun & loads, although having tested mine in similar situations before, I took the opportunity to have fun by shooting .50 Action Express and .460 S&W magnum. Oddly, .460 S&W mag (Underwood hollowpoint load) just barely stayed within FBI specs for penetration in gel, although it more detonated than penetrated the “meat target.”

In any case, taking a class like that is a good first step towards understanding what your handgun bullet will or won’t do in a real shooting scenario, and how much energy it might have left if it does exit the body.

Mas,
I thought I remember a case years ago with a University Police Dept, I think it was in Arizona (?) with an Officer Love (maybe?) that had gotten hit from an overpentrating JHP that an fellow officer had fired at a suspect. This was probably around 1989 to 1991 or so, was when many agencies were jumping on the early 147 gr 9mm bandwagon, which reality proved was round that (back then) penetrated way, way too much. As a result, if I remember correctly, that officer that got hit died.

Of course, that was post 1986-Miami and post FBI Wound Ballistics Seminar, so “Penetration is everything!” was the mantra of the day, and many ammo manufacturers were doing as requested and making rounds that were very slow, very hard and had very small hollow point cavities. I think this was pretty much the peak era of “Penetration is Life!” thinking.

In fact, the agency I retired from bought into this principle and ended up reversing course because of massive over-penetration. They started issuing the famed ‘Black Talon’ in .45 and 9mm around 1990, until a certain shooting in the far northwest part of the Texas Panhandle. A troop was forced to shoot an axe-wielding drunk and his .45 Black Talon JHP when all the way through the perp, ricocheted off the perp’s pickup truck door behind him and skidded to a rest in the gravel. The Ranger investigating reportedly said “You could’ve cleaned that bullet off and reloaded it, for all the expansion it had.” Shortly after that (and other) shootings, we went to the very fast, very large open-mouthed Gold Dot .357 Sig.

Do you know what ammunition was used in the Detroit case?

It seems that most of the Youtube commandos rant about lack of penetration from hollow point handgun rounds. Are there many documented “failures” due to inadequate penetration in civilian self-defense shootings?

Thanks for the timely perspective, Mas.

You won’t be catching me saying “it never happens,” but I would figure that the odds of hitting a bystander after scoring a fatal headshot on a threat- AND hitting said bystander in the head *also* fatally- have to be incredibly slight. In any case, I’d be really interested in knowing what type of ammo the carrier was using.

The hunting example is relevant- I regularly hunt in an area that is “bucks only” except for the brief “holiday antlerless” season. Just one more thing to keep in mind during my time out in the field…

I would think that begs the question as to what type of bullet was it full metal jacket or hollow point?

“…as the great hunting and gun expert Elmer Keith said, causes ‘a lot of air to rush in and a lot of blood to rush out.’ ”

Yes, Elmer Keith was noted for preferring ammo that would expand but still completely penetrate game animals.

Interestingly, another well known hunter, John Taylor (in his noted book “African Rifles and Cartridges”, strongly disagreed with Elmer Keith on this point. John Taylor stated that he preferred that his ammo stop inside the animal thereby expending 100% of its energy inside the beast.

What John Taylor failed to realize is that the different hunting conditions (Africa versus the American West) dictated this difference of opinion.

In the American West, the hunter often hunts alone. He must depend upon his own tracking skill to find wounded prey. Also, in general, American game animals are less tough than the African versions and can generally be put down with lower doses of kinetic energy. Finally, although some American game animals do travel in small herds, the odds of shooting through one animal and wounding another are small during ordinary Western hunting.

In Africa, the animals are very tough and (typically) require larger doses of kinetic energy to be put down. Therefore, expending 100% of the available energy inside the animal is desirable. African hunters usually have expert trackers available who can easily track the wounded animal without benefit of the blood trail from an exit wound. Finally, the herds in Africa are larger and there is a very real danger of wounding a second animal with a pass-through shot. This, of course, is very undesirable.

Thus, both Elmer Keith and John Taylor were correct despite their varied positions on bullet penetration. Under the conditions of hunting in the American West, Elmer Keith’s idea of complete penetration with an exit wound blood trail is best.

In the general conditions of African hunting, John Taylor’s idea of incomplete penetration with 100% of the energy being expended inside the animal is correct.

Neither man is wrong when the local hunting conditions are taken into account.

Update on my failing memory:
I found that OIS shooting in Arizona, it was in fact a University of Arizona officer that got shot and killed. Apparently, when the officer that fired the round shot, the bullet went through the arm of the suspect (who’d been waving a pistol and fired it overhead), and the round went in the other officer between his vest panels, near the armpit. And his name was not Love, after all.

Not sure if that counts in the scope of Mr. Ayoob’s post, as many, many rounds would go through an arm, although I was unable to find whether it hit a bone or not. At any rate, any bullet entering another person at or near the armpit is extremely dangerous and probably has a high percentage chance of causing a fatality, given that if the round continued on that path, it would be heading in the area of the heart.

As for idiots on forums, in trying to get more info on that Arizona incident, I just spent the last two hours going through several threads from the old days of the ‘Net, from about 1999 to around 2008. The raging arguments over caliber and selection was a real nostalgia fest, as folks were arguing about .40 S&W vs 9mm, how the ONLY round you could reliable use in .45 ACP to stop a killer was hardball, how .357 Sig was far too violent to shoot and would cripple any street officer’s ability to hit accurately or, my favorite, the one guys who said “The FBI had to get rid of the 10mm because at first they used full power loads and a guy got shot with one, and bystanders were hit and injured by flying bone fragments!!” BWA HA HA A HA HA HA!! Ah, the good ol’ days when the Interwebs were new and ballistic talk was new and entertaining!

Anyway, sorry for the failing memory. I found the information about the University of Arizona officer on the Officer Down Memorial Page. Very sad story.

Another part of our problem, with non-gun folks, is that on TV and in movies a bullet will strike the bad guy, penetrate through and through, but apparently vaporize as it exits the body, so it throws a spray of blood on the wall or window behind the BG, but never hits it. It’s also common knowledge, from the same sources, that the good guy can sneak up behind someone holding a hostage and shoot him. Again, the bullet vaporizes as it leaves the BG and never hits the hostage.

Another Oops: I just ran across your June 25, 2020 Backwoods Home article on this same subject and damn if I didn’t remember bringing up that Arizona shooting then. I do apologize for the rinse/repeat posting. I wasn’t kidding when I said my memory is fading…

For what it’s worth, I have personally witnessed a Cor-Bon 9mm+P 115 gr. JHP pierce five panels of drywall, spaced at various distances behind each other covering a total distance of about 20 ft., when fired from a Glock 17 at a (manufacturer’s published) velocity of 1350 fps. In addition, the recovered bullet had expanded to over 45 caliber.

On another occasion, I witnessed a Hornady 30-30 170gr. flat nosed soft point bullet pierce all the way through a 3″ thick piece of “bullet proof” Plexiglas when fired from a Winchester 94 from a distance of about 10 ft.

Both results were very surprising to me.

In the Detroit case, do I presume correctly that a wrongful death lawsuit is in the works?

Some time back I made up a rig that allows me to duplicate interior drywall room walls. The only thing I’ve found that won’t exit with significant velocity is a .177 pellet at <300 f/s. The pellet stays in the partition.

Also, beware of labels and claims unless YOU or someone you know/trust tests them. There is/was a .224 bullet labeled RRLP for reduced ricochet, limited penetration. I've a sneaking suspicion it's primary purpose was to allow steel targets to be safely used at closer than normal ranges and/or in shoot houses. I can't safely test for ricochet, but it does splatter pretty much harmlessly on a hard surface if impact is reasonably direct. Oddly, it out penetrates M193 ball in water filled milk jugs. But, not by much. Oh, it yaws severely going through a drywall partition, but hitting someone while going sideways is still an issue.

What I carry in my .45 ACP 1911’s are 230-grain JHP’s for exactly this reason. If I ever have to actually draw and shoot in defense of self or others, I’d really like the majority of that bullet’s energy to stay inside the target.

That being said, I understand that even today (perhaps especially today) given the political stance of the majority of large-city prosecutors, they will probably attempt to make a strong point about this type of ammunition selection, saying that the defender chose that type of ammunition only for its killing capabilities, and as a result showed reckless disregard for the life of the attacker. It will require a well-educated defense attorney to successfully object to that line of “reasoning” with the fact that self-defense ammunition, including police issue, is intended to help limit over-penetration.

What’s been your experience with that over the years, and has it changed much?