Stumble This | You should also watch “Bullet at 500 fps” |
Hollow Point,Bullet,jello,slow motion,slo mo Hollow Point Bullet Through Gelatine
Comments 
playlists with this video
Dreamtrip 2.0 by Eklek
• Gun Fu - The Modern Martial Art by rembar
• The World in Slow-Motion by jimnms
who voted for this video
firedoggod
- Fiver2
- rottenseed
- Zeph
- Zifnab
- JAPR
- Physics
- rembar
- Stormsinger
- kronosposeidon
- eleavitt
- ObsidianStorm
- berticus
- bealsubub
- Obsidianfire
- MarineGunrock
- doogle
- djsunkid
- fissionchips
- kingsblood
- CrushBug
- Crazy-drummer
- maatc
- MojoeMAN
- mlx
- Raytrace
- arvana
- ZuroS
- laura
- youdiejoe
- ant
- Reylor
- Mysling
- timefactor
- marinara
- Kevlar
- calvados
- Hive13
- looris
- ardeche
- oohahh
- lucky760
- smibbo
- jimnms
- cheesemoo
- xxovercastxx
- Fjnbk
- papple
- Guardian-X
- guessandcheck
- silvercord
- Hastur
- quantumushroom
- daxgaz
- flyingkitty67
- Fester_Boil
- jwray
- Krupo
- pen1234567
- FishBulb
- karaidl
- dotdude
- Selektaa
- aaronfr
- arnor
- Mixaster
- garmachi
- Plonq
- Laekroth
- boblobblaw
- punk225
- BoneyD
- wazant
- dbot2006
- pho3n1x
- coreburn
- Sketch
- sbchapm
- dw1117
- theaceofclubz
- LightningOfGods
- dag
- deedub81
- kevin143
- James Roe
- Eklek
- gorgonheap
- doremifa
- th0mas28
- MycroftHomlz
- sometimes
who has this post bookmarked
dbot2006
- ronin165
- looris
- marinara
- firedoggod
Hollow Point Bullet Through Gelatine Related Videos
 Ricochet bullet to the head, dude's OK |  Slow Motion Guns and Bullets |  Excerpt from "Shoot The Bullet" |
VideoSift Crossword
Think you know the Sift? Try your hand at the weekly VideoSift Crossword Puzzle!
Friends O' the Sift
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
It's not really a conventional hollow point, but close enough I guess. Here is an after pic of a tsx shot gelatin block that has been pumped full of red dye (scroll down a bit).
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/triple_0723/index.html
2) twist from the barrel rifling
AND
3) drop in bullet velocity
"...nobody really has the answers yet. It's a shame."
Yeah they stopped the Nazis too soon. If they'd given them another 5 years just THINK about what we'd have learned.
There I think is the problem, ACTUAL experimentation on real live people is frowned upon by some people (damn liberals).
Yeah they stopped the Nazis too soon. If they'd given them another 5 years just THINK about what we'd have learned.
There I think is the problem, ACTUAL experimentation on real live people is frowned upon by some people (damn liberals).
Right, all that you said. Of course, you do realize that FBI and NIH studies have shown that in law-enforcement related shoot-outs, bullets with more stopping power result in less death and less permanent damage to the people being shot, as well as much more safety for the LEOs doing the shooting, and the innocent bystanders? Oh, and clearly they must only draw data from experiments on people at random. Not by instead, oh, say taking data from studies, autopsies, and examinations on shooting victims or through studying gunshots in gelatin as shown above.
You knew all this, because you're a well-educated, intelligent person who has taken the time to learn about firearms and ballistics and their use in society, regardless of your conclusions, before, while choosing to not submit any reasonable argument and instead rely on smug self-congratulation, wildly casting your aspersions on a field of research and a person you don't know, particularly a person who has multiple friends whose lives just MIGHT have been saved because of the stopping power of bullets fired in self defense.
Because you're smart. Right? Right. As long as you keep telling yourself that. And maybe toss in another Nazi reference while you're at it, that'll do the trick.
We use the smaller 5.56 round instead of the world-over 7.62mm. Why? Well, let's see: the 5.56 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and oh yeah, bounces all around your insides creating a much more serious wound.
forgive me, i am still sore from the way CSS doesn't work the same in all browz0rz
As best as I can recall, the only reason for switching calibers was weight. A soldier could carry seventy 30-06, ninety 7.62mm (essentially a shortened .30 cal), or a whopping 210 5.56mm at a given weight. The potential reduction in the weight of the rifle was also a factor (bigger calibers require heavier rifles). There was initially great resistance to this caliber switch, precisely because it produced a much less significant wound. Yes, the velocity was slightly higher, but the 50-grain bullet is hard pressed to produce a wound channel anywhere near the size of a bullet weighing 150-grains and almost twice the cross-sectional area. The disparity increases rapidly when you factor in how much more quickly the lighter caliber loses energy over distance.
Lower lethality, however, was considered a worthwhile trade-off, especially since wounding the enemy is tactically almost as good as killing him and the extra 120 bullets made such wounds significantly more likely. There were also small concerns about the diminished range of the 5.56mm, but that's why we have snipers that carry larger calibers. As far as I am aware, most states do not allow 5.56mm for deer hunting because it is significantly more likely to produce a non-lethal wound. It's been a while (a decade or more) since I've looked into this, but I recall seeing that ballistic tests in every kind of medium showed the 5.56mm to be far less deadly than the 7.62mm, and that's without giving any consideration to how much more quickly the lighter 5.56mm loses energy to range and/or shielding, let alone loss of accuracy to crosswinds or intervening light cover.
History has proven the move to 5.56mm to be the right one but it was definitely a trade-off.
Interestingly, the Soviets made a similar decision about calibers but stuck with a heavier round. They shaved off weight, but not as much, by going with a 7.62x39mm as compared to a 7.62x51mm NATO round with a 110-gr(?) vs. 150-gr round. Their heavier round could punch through shielding a little better than the 50-gr 5.56mm, but they gave up a lot of velocity and the flatter trajectory and accuracy that comes with it. And they still couldn't carry as many rounds as soldiers equipped with the 5.56. I don't know who made the right choice, but I do know that in both case, weight (and hence more ammo) was the determinative factor that outweighed the loss of lethality.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/cbsnews_investigates/main1692346.shtml
There are obviously situations where having a more powerful first shot is more important than having more shots, especially when supply lines are not as much of a concern. The modern prevalence of mechanized infantry might make the weight consideration less of an issue. Close-in, urban environment also make lower-velocity, large calibers like the AK-47's 7.62x39mm more appealing because of its greater "stopping power" and ability to punch through shielding.
Here's a great page with wound ballistics data (and pictures):
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm
In essence, all bullets "tumble" or yaw once they hit flesh. The 5.56mm tumbles more quickly, increasing the chance it will fully turn inside the body rather than after exiting. Nice. Perhaps more significantly, it's designed to fragment. Therefore, under ideal conditions, the 5.56mm will transfer a higher percentage of it's energy to the target before exiting, if it exits.
So when using full-metal jacketed military round, the tumbling (and fragmenting) factor is a significant consideration. Using hollow-point rounds, tumbling is a non-issue.
I stand corrected.
ROTFLMAO@karaidl and Drachen.
@rembar: why did you take his comment personally? and seriously? he was plainly jocking, not criticizing, and it was damn funny.