From: gmk@falstaff.MAE.CWRU.EDU (Geoff Kotzar)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Hollowpoints illegal in N.J. ?
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:47:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

In article <1992Jul27.232134.21646@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
#In article <1992Jul27.154046.10961@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> gmk@falstaff.MAE.CWRU.EDU (Geoff Kotzar) writes:
##In article <9207262135.AA01663@gtephx.com> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
#...
###That's about right: a hollowpoint is designed to expand more on impact and
###make a wider wound channel (bigger hole).  It is more likely to kill the
###person hit and less likely to go clean through the person and hit someone
###else.
#
##The above statements run counter to the collective observations of trauma
##surgeons in this country. In 1973 when high-velocity (relatively speaking)
##hollow-point handguns rounds were hitting the street -no pun intended- the
#...
##When surgeons experienced in treating gunshot injuries are asked to predict
##what kind of missile was used to produce a particular injury based on its
##appearance they cannot do it. Even estimating calibers used or magnum vs
##non-magnum is difficult if not impossible.
#
#This is really something of a bombshell: if you're right (and if I'm
#understanding you correctly), then it doesn't make much difference what
#caliber handgun you choose, or whether you use military ball or the latest
#super-duper-hollowpoint. The gun mags, the ammo companies, the gunmakers
#and their advertisers won't like this at all. Can you say more about
#this--particularly give a pointer to some references?
#
#I've always felt that gun writers tend to blow the differences between
#different types of handguns and ammunition out of proportion because that's
#how they make their living--but almost _no_ difference? Wow. 
#  

First I want to point out that there was a word left out of my first posting:
the word NOT in the initial paragraph. The paragraph that has been deleted
from the above by Peter. I have resubmitted it in corrected form. Basically it
said that the FBI's doctors could NOT detect a difference in the appearance
or severity of the wound whether produced by expanding or non-expanding 
bullets.

My response was directed toward the statement that "hollow-point handgun loads
produce more severe wounds than loads using a non-expanding design bullet".
I am referring to morbidity and mortality, the amount of tissue destroyed and
the likelihood of death as a result. This is different than saying that the
response to the insult or injury is the same for both kinds of bullets. JHP's
clearly have demonstrated a superior track record in getting the attention of
the target animal (biped or quadruped). The problem crops up in that the
mechanism is not one of merely destroying more tissue. This is what DiMaio's
statement means. The wound tracts will be of different lengths as readers of
this newsgroup are aware but the diameters of the devitalized tissue are
not different enough to be detectable or to require a different form of
treatment.

My statement about the FBI's announcement was based on a piece published in
the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin in 1973. I don't have the exact reference
here in my office. Nor do I presently have DiMaio's book here. I do however
have an article he published in the FBI LE Bulletin in December 1974. In it
he stated:

"The problem of public relations mat come up, especially with the use of
hollow-point ammunition. Myths have arisen about the terrible wounds caused
by hollow point pistol bullets. Such stories are complete nonsense. Pistol
bullets, even the new high velocity loadings, are in reality low velocity
projectiles. At autopsy, one cannot specifically tell from the extent of
the injury if an individual has been shot by a .38 Special 158 gr RN lead
bullet travelling at 789 ft/s or a 110 gr Norma at 1334 ft/s.

Similar stories concerning mutilating injuries have arisen about the magnum
calibers and the .45 Automatic. These cartridges and calibers again do not
cause particularly mutilating injuries. The wounds produced usually cannot
be differentiated from those of the traditional 158 gr RN .38 Spec. bullet."

An additional piece of evidence comes from a paper by Dziemiam, Mendelson,
and Lindley in the J. Trauma 1:341-353, 1961. The paper is entitled "Compar-
ison of the Wounding Characteristics of Some Commonly Encountered Bullets".
This was a study that examined wounds in living tissue (goats) and "wound
tracts" in 10% gelatin. In Figure-4, there are shown some entrance and exit
wounds from the goats. The cartridges were: .22 LR, .32 S&W, .32 ACP,
.38 S&W, .38 ACP, .45 ACP and 7.62x51mm. There is a difference between
the .22 LR and the .38's, but the .38S&W wounds look like the .32 ACP. And
the .38 ACP is indistinguishable from the .45 ACP. The only round that
was identifiable was the NATO rifle round as you might expect. And then
only if you examined the exit wound and ignored the entrance. The gelatin
wound tracts showed more of the same. And while these were all non-expanding
bullets remember that the .45 is a "pre-expanded .38".

One more piece of anecdotal data. Remember how the FBI in their latest study
and Ed Sanow estimated the permanent cavity (or permanent crush cavity). If
the damage done by direct contact of the bullets passing by produced markedly
different amounts of damage as a function of their construction, then the PC
should have been directly MEASURABLE with a set of calipers. Rather, it was
CALCULATED based on the expanded diameter of the bullet and the depth of 
penetration.

So in closing, as long as you talk about bullets of conventional construction
as opposed to Glasers and PMC tubular bullets, the APPEARANCE of the wounds
produced by HANDGUNS, at handgun velocities much less than 2000 fps, are not
strongly influenced by bullet diameter or construction (meaning here expanding
versus non-expanding). Just why there is a difference in the reaction of the
animal being hit due to the differences in bullet construction is not clear.
But I think you must keep in mind that you are talking about two different
things: tissue distruction and physiological reaction.

geoff kotzar        gmk@falstaff.mae.cwru.edu