Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "9mm vs 45 ACP, WE END THE DEBATE. The Human Torso Test." video.

How is a brick of a 185-230 grain projectile going to minimize collateral?
7
@WarNoob755 Anything that puts people down "overpenetrates". The real collateral comes from missing entirely. Some materials indeed get penetrated easier with higher velocity, but often the larger the mass of a bullet the bigger and more dangerous the fragments are, and anyone who's seen the cinder block tests from channels like Paul Harrell knows that often 9mm required more shots to crack a block. There's always a give and take depending on what type of object you're hitting and you won't know beforehand what you're going to hit.
6
A +p+ will cause the petals to expand faster unless the bullet design was specifically strengthened for those velocities. A normal modern JHP has barely any energy to punch into a second person. A few extra hundred ft/s of velocity will not make it go through more people, especially if that velocity induces more drag.
3
Saving up inventory slots for more quest related items. Smart.
2
@WarNoob755 How don't I understand? Most modern hollow points barely have any energy after exiting the back of a torso. They're typically found inside the clothes of the person shot or just a few feet away from the body. The statistical likelihood of hitting an innocent bystander with a through and through is negligible. You're vastly much more likely to simply miss, and hit a bystander with a full power bullet.
1
@WarNoob755 Yes. Anything that puts people down is usually designed to make it through a vital organ even after an oblique shot or if it has to penetrate an outstretched arm before entering the torso. So if you shoot someone square in the chest, it exits out the back very often.
1
@WarNoob755 I see what you're doing. You're trying to narrow the definition of overpenetration to the point where your original argument doesn't matter. If the majority of modern ammunition can't kill someone after going through a person and by your own definition doesn't "overpenetrate", then your original post is absolutely meaningless. You don't have to worry about overpenetration after all, so why the hell did you bring it up? Some of you people, I swear...
1
@WarNoob755 The one you made up?
1
@WarNoob755 Glad to know that everyone discussing overpenetration was lying, then.
1
Missing entirely is a much more common occurence than through and throughs. 400 million guns if not more out there, almost a million estimated defensive gun uses, and despite a hostile media that would love to show how dangerous guns are... this story of a through and through never comes up in the news.
1
If anything, the torso target gives green tip a greater chance to shine. Unfortunately the M855 fleet yaw issue is totally dependent on random chance, so I've never seen someone film a gel test of a M855 failure. The only one I've seen was a photo on a published study.
1
That's not necessarily true. Modern testing requires defeating the autoglass barrier and the two sheet steel panel barrier.
1
@HaloDude557 Someone doesn't cease to be a threat just because you might have to shoot through your own window to prevent a carjacking.
1
@HaloDude557 You have no duty to retreat if the retreat would cause you injury. If you can get shot while driving away, you do not have a duty to drive away. Also, this is not my problem because one should simply not live in duty to retreat states. You try and explain to my family that I had to die because the law says the window is a magical forcefield.
1
@HaloDude557 Absolutely irrelevant. If turning your back to the aggressor creates a situation where you can get shot in the back, there's no duty to retreat. Again, assuming there's duty to retreat. Some states allow the victim to stand their ground. It's justifiable. Is there a legitimate threat? That's all it takes. Unless there's political pressure to charge you, the case is closed right there.
1
@HaloDude557 No, your comments are irrelevant. You're understanding the process backwards. It's the state that has to prove you committed a crime. If you shoot someone who was a threat to your life on a state that doesn't have duty to retreat, what crime have you committed? Start from there. If you're going by "need", you're trying to engage in a process where people are guilty until proven innocent. If we're going by "need", most times you don't "need" to resist against an assailant. Imagine if you had to prove that an armed assailant attacking you was a threat... Imagine if the state could say that a gun to your head doesn't prove you were going to die. How can I make it more clear to you that if we go by your logic, most self-defense would be deemed illegal? You're doing the same thing as anti-gunners. Why do you need a gun? That's the backwards way of looking at it. It's not you who has to justify why you "need" a gun. You have a legal right to own them. Start from there. Otherwise it would be like in some countries, where to prove that you're in danger of being assassinated to justify getting a carry license, you need to have an attempt on your life first. Obviously this doesn't help if you die on the first try. Driving away, unless you have a bullet-resistant headrest, can end up with a bullet in the base of your skull. You don't know what "circumstantial" is so don't use five dollar words to wow me. "Fear of bodily injury or dead needs to be reasonable and justified" - Typically an assailant with a weapon does that for you already. "Being scared someone might shoot you in the back at 200 yards" - Not even a Tesla can launch that fast, and I don't have a Tesla. You really gonna argue a car can do 200 yards from a standstill in the quarter second it takes to pull a trigger? "through a vehicle body moving 60+ mph" - Your car does 0-60 in a quarter second? You could get in contact with the Guinness World Records.
1
@HaloDude557 Even George Zimmerman wasn't meant to go to court. He only got the murder charge due to public pressure. For you to go to court, the DA needs to think he has a case. If it's clear cut self-defense, the DA isn't going to waste his time. He wants convictions. And if you read your comment, it does make it seem you're saying even a cop has to prove his innocence in court. No, he doesn't. If there's a sketchy OIS, or you've been involved in an unusual amount of OIS, there will be an internal investigation but that's it. Most officers don't go to court over a shooting.
1
Bruh
1
@lonebikeroftheapocalypse9527 Takes them less time to create a new bot account than manually reporting. Machines are better than us at this, all we can do is wait for yt to get off their ass.
1
@basketofdeplorables4253 Most energy delivered by a bullet is wasted. Only a small fraction of a bullet's frontal area crushes tissue, the rest of the energy is used to push tissue aside. At handgun power levels, the tissue pushed aside springs back into place with no injury.
1
@vlogfriendsutopia Not really. By enlarging the caliber you actually waste more area at the cost of recoil, lower capacity, etc. Knowing that one is more accurate and faster with the smaller caliber, you get more effective working area on target, sooner.
1
@vlogfriendsutopia "if 45 ACP does between 1.5 to 2 times the damage of 9mm" - It doesn't. "you can shoot it as quickly and accurately because you've trained with it" - If you can shoot larger calibers that well, you can shoot 9mm like it's .22LR. Why would you become such a good shooter with a larger caliber but then somehow not be able to use 9mm proficiently? "Since we've established that it does in fact do at least 1.5x damage" - But we didn't. "In my personal experience, most people I know who are proficient with handguns can fire two 45s faster than 3 9mms" - And why is that? Why are they so slow with 9mm?
1
@vlogfriendsutopia First of all, you're calculating a cylinder volume when we all damn well know that only a fraction of the frontal surface area is used to crush tissue. Most of that "volume" is not wound volume and the tissue will spring back without injury. Second, you're using the diameter calculated from petal to petal. If anything, you should be using an average diameter because you didn't subtract the volume in the gaps between petals. Your calculations are inherently invalid because you're overstating the effects of expansion by calculating a much larger area, and also ignoring the inherent inefficiency of bullets at crushing tissue. Your wound cavity figures are wrong and even if they were correct, they don't translate to reality. I'd ask you to fix your numbers just for the mental exercise, because even if you got them right it would still not be as accurate as simply filling the cavity with fluid and pouring it back out to measure the actual cavity volume rather than assume a 100% crush efficiency and no springback.
1
@vlogfriendsutopia If the measurements are inherently flawed, the conclusion is not valid.
1
@vlogfriendsutopia The conclusion isn't valid because it still hinges on the bullet using 100% of its frontal area surface to crush tissue. We know most of the frontal surface is wasted by redirecting tissue rather than crushing. I didn't "request" the average diameter. I told you that even if you used it, the logic is still flawed because neither bullet can use the full frontal surface area. Coroners and surgeons pretty much agree that unless they can recover the bullet and measure it, they can't tell which caliber made which wound. You can use all the maths you want, but they don't reflect the real world.
1
@vlogfriendsutopia I do trust published studies that confirm that most of the frontal surface area is wasted pushing tissue aside. Wadcutter projectiles use more frontal area. What's why they're "wadcutters". They're known for making it easier to score on paper targets because they cut a cleaner hole rather than a star shaped rip. How many people are carrying them? Deer aren't people. Look at rifle ammunition made for deer, it's often made to stop after 25-26" of penetration in gel. .32ACP fails the FBI requirements with most ammo. If anything, .32 Super Carry is meant to be similar to 9mm. But .32 ACP was meant for older technology pistols and a world where our average stature was lower. There was also no abundance of cars and windshields for cover in the urban environment. Though a sales failure, the Colt Monitor in 30-06 was advertised to law enforcement agencies to be used against criminals on wheels as the thick gauge metal on cars helped protect occupants against small calibers. Though cars are of lighter construction these days, they're still a tough barrier for .32 ACP. Your except confirms that expanding ammunition crushes more tissue, not that it crushes the full frontal area worth of tissue.
1
@vlogfriendsutopia "unexpanded projectiles crush a path the size of the base of the projectile" - Then almost an inch of diameter of area generating a crush cavity should make holes that let you see daylight through the torso, and chest seals should be worthless at saving people considering the volume in that cavity. I've only seen daylight from gunshot wounds in hands and feet. Unexpanded projectiles are known for "icepick" wounds smaller than the caliber. "Deer and human are actually much more similar than you think; deer and humans are actually in the same class of animal in terms of hunting" - And yet bullets meant for hunting and tactical applications are different. Curious. "deer die faster from a full pass through, thus requiring the deeper penetration that you see" - This directly contradicts your assertion. Self-defense handgun ammunition and tactical loads for rifle ammunition are also meant for torso passthroughs - but shallower penetration than deer. Are you saying that deer and humans are not similar? Curious. "I actually have carried Wadcutters before" - That's great. Almost nobody does it. "actually proves the point that projectile size does make a difference" - Cool of you to ignore that I clarified that a .30 Super Carry, if it performs like it does on paper, is a .32 projectile that should perform almost on par with 9mm despite the projectile diameter difference. .32 ACP, despite being of the same diameter as .30 Super Carry, simply performs worse because nowadays we expect to have to shoot into people who are larger, more muscular, and ingest more stimulants such as sugar and caffeine. This means having to potentially shoot through the heart or even into the spine to stop someone. "all handgun rounds do NOT perform the same" - There's a difference between "performing the same" and advertising 50% improvements.
1