It's not as bad as some of the shootings in Massad Ayoob's files, though.  Ayoob has cases where the 147s went THROUGH the bad guy and hit innocent bystanders, and some of those incidents were fatal.  He seems to think that Marshall's closer to the mark than Fackler. Ayoob's not known for holding back on stuff that he considers junk, and he knows his stuff. Mr. Ayoob is overrated, and this thing about over-penetration is a total canard. Most rounds fired in a gunfight miss the target entirely, and as a result, there's little sense getting all that worked up about over-penetration. Best result for a shooting if for your bullet to go in one side and out the other. The subject bleeds out faster that way. Lensman Hey, Mr. Taliban, tally me munitions. Here they come, and they gonna go boom

The Tactical Machine Pistol. A well-made 9mm that's a bit too big for a pistol and too small for a SMG. Has Steyr been suffering in sales? Haven't heard one way or another. Their website doesn't list the TMP any more, though. (People seem to still like the AUG) It is a pretty interesting package. I wonder if it is hard for small arms companies to keep up defense research with only defense contracts, if civilian sales are hurting? The thing about the TMP, while I am sure it was excellent, is it always seemed that there might have been plenty of Mac-10s, M-11s, Uzis, Tec-9s and so on that would be able to do similar jobs, as well as many other high end competitors in the 9mm security service SMG market. Perhaps Steyr's gun arrived either too late (to compete with the other 9mms) or too early (Before the wave of PDWs with the custom high-velocity ammo.) I have to compliment your knowledge of weapons, Mr. Adam. DEP - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

:Best result for a shooting if for your bullet to go in one side and out the :other. The subject bleeds out faster that way. Well, I have to disagree with that.  Best result for a shooting is for your largish caliber round to give up all its energy in the body and not come out.  Better hydrostatic shock effects that way, everything else being equal.

:Best result for a shooting if for your bullet to go in one side and out the :other. The subject bleeds out faster that way. Well, I have to disagree with that.  Best result for a shooting is for your largish caliber round to give up all its energy in the body and not come out.  Better hydrostatic shock effects that way, everything else being equal. Not to mention that there is no telling who might be BEHIND the guy you're trying to shoot. In one end and out the other works great for hunting or in linear combat situations, but when you can't be sure of what's behind the guy you need to shoot, it kinda makes sense to make sure the round stays in the bad guy.

Mr. McCall enlightens us: Well, I have to disagree with that.  Best result for a shooting is for your largish caliber round to give up all its energy in the body and not come out.  Better hydrostatic shock effects that way, everything else being equal. Fred, you are a victim of a widely held, but false, belief. There is no such thing as hydrostatic shock from a pistol bullet. A .45 ACP has about the same kinetic energy as a fastball (run the numbers yourself), which rarely kill batters, even when hitting one in the head. Except for the brain and the liver, human tissue is very flexible material, and its being stretched and released causes no more damage than a minor bruise. A bullet damages tissue only though one mechanism, physically destroying it (crushing) by passing through it. Thus a .45 bullet makes a a half-inch (or so) hole, and people bleed into and out of that hole. If the bullet goes in and out, they bleed somewhat more efficiently. Death comes only when the brain and/or central nervous system is denied oxygen and stops functioning. There is no other way for a person to die. (Yes, a bullet through the brain has a similar effect.) Similarly, there is no such thing as damage from a “temporary cavity” caused by a bullet‘s passage. This is easily proven. When a surgeon operates on a person, he pushes intervening tissue out of his way. That is, and must be a “temporary cavity,” but people do not die from it, else surgery would be largely impossible as a remedial form of medicine. Also, just about everything you see in the movies about guns and wounding people is fantastically false. Hollywolod does not understand conservation of momentum. Science and experience show that Colonel Colt got it right back in 1850 or so. A large, heavy, slow bullet has more adverse effects on people than a small, lighter, high-speed bullet. The weapons used in the American Civil war were the most lethal ever placed on a battlefield. They were replaced by other weapons not because of wounding effects per se, but because they can reach farther (military rifles back then had sights running to ranges of more than a thousand yards), be shot more rapidly (bolt action, etc.), and were much lighter (hence more rounds could be carried by the soldiers). Being hit by a M1860 Springfield rifled musket was pretty damned bad, but a 30-06  FMJ hit if not in a particularly vital area heals pretty easily—DESPITE its greater kinetic energy, generated by its far greater velocity. If you want chapter and verse on this, I can deliver. Lensman Hey, Mr. Taliban, tally me munitions. Here they come, and they gonna go boom

There is no such thing as hydrostatic shock from a pistol bullet. A .45 ACP has about the same kinetic energy as a fastball (run the numbers yourself), which rarely kill batters, even when hitting one in the head. Except for the brain and the liver, human tissue is very flexible material, and its being stretched and released causes no more damage than a minor bruise. Maybe you should study incompressible flow.  Fluid mechanics is useful for  lot more than just aerodynamics, you know.  You've also overlooked what happens when a bullet hits bone. Mary