Originally Posted by
Bigslug
I believe the the theory was that a fast RN bullet's passage through tissue was similar to yanking a tablecloth so quickly that all the plates, glasses, bud vases, etc... remain in place. A slow one would tend to drag and tear to a greater degree. In practice, I think the low velocity rendering the bullet instantly unstable on impact would have had more to do with it - if these things DO in fact tumble with any kind of reliability.
I think the British GOT that given the limitation of the Hague Convention and the velocities in question - or anything even close to them - it was going to be all about penetration and nothing else was going to factor much, if at all.
The post-Miami FBI studies hint that hydrostatic displacement is not a factor in permanent damage until you close in on 2000 fps for an impact velocity. What the Brits opted to do was go for the lightest, most controllable pistol that would perform adequately. The wisdom in this approach becomes IMMEDIATELY and ABUNDANTLY clear when you have to teach pistol marksmanship to large groups of people who don't have much time, interest, or desire to learn it.