05-08-2011, 12:55 PM
As we move forward, we need to think about experimental standards to assess whether a bullet will "...expand or flatten easily in the human body..." This would give us a more objective standard.
The language above uses the term "easily" as a modifier. Further the exposed lead and slits were specifically cited.
So, has the UK already adopted a standard for testing to determine if a particular bullet deforms or flattens easily?
If not, I would suggest the classic gelatin test as a standard. For example, the bullet not deform beyond a specified amount on penetration a gelatin block placed 20 meters from the muzzle for a standard velocity cartridge.
Further, I would argue against including barriers or bone simulators in the gelatin. Any barrier is beyond the scope of the agreement. A rigid projectile impacting bone will generate secondary fragments (chunks of bone) so the additional requirement could be argued as excessive.
The language above uses the term "easily" as a modifier. Further the exposed lead and slits were specifically cited.
So, has the UK already adopted a standard for testing to determine if a particular bullet deforms or flattens easily?
If not, I would suggest the classic gelatin test as a standard. For example, the bullet not deform beyond a specified amount on penetration a gelatin block placed 20 meters from the muzzle for a standard velocity cartridge.
Further, I would argue against including barriers or bone simulators in the gelatin. Any barrier is beyond the scope of the agreement. A rigid projectile impacting bone will generate secondary fragments (chunks of bone) so the additional requirement could be argued as excessive.
