View Full Version : Yet another scientific(?) study of "stopping power."
BuckskinJoe
07-08-11, 18:14
Here we go, again.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866
I think the author was well-intentioned, however....
Here we go, again.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866
I think the author was well-intentioned, however....
I have seen this "article" (or portions of it) posted on other 'sites as well.
Given the documented inadequacies of such methodology, I find it difficult to be enthusiastic about its ultimate outcome and value, especially since the author of this "study" fails to define the term "stopping power" other than in a colloquial manner among other things.
Given the documented inadequacies of such methodology, I find it difficult to be enthusiastic about its ultimate outcome and value, especially since the author of this "study" fails to define the term "stopping power" other than in a colloquial manner among other things.
I give the guy credit for another attempt at trying to nail jello to a wall. I have to agree with his conclusion that caliber is less important than it was once thought to be.
I think it's a pretty good attempt.
I actually like that he basically says all handgun launched bullets suck at stopping bad guys, and shot placement is by far the most important factor.
Since this pretty much jives with my street observations, and directly counters all of the bullshit thrown around by folks who want to preach "YOU GOTTA HAVE A .45 OR YOU"RE DEAD!!!!!!" and similar lines of crap, it's no surprise that I like this article.
I actually like that he basically says all handgun launched bullets suck at stopping bad guys, and shot placement is by far the most important factor.
You are right about that.
I hear the 'handgun bullets suck at stopping' statement frequently. I think that may be a little too harsh. The uninformed may start thinking getting hit by one is no big deal. Perhaps we should modify the statement to: 'handgun bullets suck at stopping when the CNS is not struck' or something like that.
I also hate when it is said that some service calibers were/are 'woefully inadequate'. Anything that can punch a hole completely through a human body, from any angle, has the potential to do a lot of major damage and gets my respect. Incapacitation may be quick or it may not. That's the nature of the beast so be prepared for the worst case.
People expect, and search for, what is unavailable from handguns; "instantaneous stopping power".
I used the quote above as it was exact wording from an LEO from Pennsylvania who had gotten on to several sites and LE firearms instructor lists that I am on asking for info ref the .357Sig.
He was asking because the .40 180gr Gold Dot "lacks stopping power".
He was being completely serious.
One of the examples he used was the case that ended up on the FBI PowerPoint that so many of us have already seen. The other was a case where a maniac with a chain saw attacked officers and didn't go down until he was shot several times.
I would submit that "maniac with a chain saw" might be a strong clue that the guy will be hard to put down.
When I asked if anybody had thought to deploy a long gun on that activity dude stopped talking to me. Apparently I was keeping too real.
Last January I had a clean shot at about 35 yards on a big doe, over 200lbs she was. She had no idea I was in the area and was relaxed and eating acorns when I shot her, so fight-or-flight response/etc. wasn't an issue or factor.
Even after most of her heart was blown out the side of her chest due to a .308 150gr JSP flying through her chest she managed to jump a creek, jump a ravine, and run 50-75 yards through heavy timber before laying down.
I tell that type of hunting story to folks who don't hunt, and ask if a .308 can't give "instantaneous stopping power" on a deer, why would anybody expect that bullets of far less than half the horsepower would instantly stop a meth freak?
I give the guy credit for another attempt at trying to nail jello to a wall. I have to agree with his conclusion that caliber is less important than it was once thought to be.
No one frequenting this forum should be operating under the mistaken assumption that calibrated ordnance gelatin (a reasonably homogeneous soft solid) is somehow the equivalent of striking a human body (heterogeneous density and viscosities) and for that reason there is no need to "nail jello to a wall".
Calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is a perfectly acceptable and proven test analog that permits the direct comparison of two (or more) different projectiles' terminal performance in a consistent and repeatable medium.
The conclusion drawn by the author ("caliber is less important than it was once thought to be") has been evident through testing in calibrated gelatin long before the article being discussed here ever appeared.
Wayne Dobbs
07-09-11, 13:49
Tongue in cheek reply to tpd223:
Chuck, obviously you need a .300 Win. Mag or similar to kill deer with if you didn't achieve an instant one shot stop with your .308!
Placement with ANY small arm cartridge is job one. Penetration is job 1.1 and all else is gravy on the potatoes.
Tongue in cheek reply to tpd223:
Chuck, obviously you need a .300 Win. Mag or similar to kill deer with if you didn't achieve an instant one shot stop with your .308!
Placement with ANY small arm cartridge is job one. Penetration is job 1.1 and all else is gravy on the potatoes.
Ha! You beat me to it-
I was gonna recommend a .460 Wby Mag loaded with solids for those tenacious deer.
Last January I had a clean shot at about 35 yards on a big doe, over 200lbs she was. She had no idea I was in the area and was relaxed and eating acorns when I shot her, so fight-or-flight response/etc. wasn't an issue or factor.
Even after most of her heart was blown out the side of her chest due to a .308 150gr JSP flying through her chest she managed to jump a creek, jump a ravine, and run 50-75 yards through heavy timber before laying down.
I tell that type of hunting story to folks who don't hunt, and ask if a .308 can't give "instantaneous stopping power" on a deer, why would anybody expect that bullets of far less than half the horsepower would instantly stop a meth freak?
VERY well put. But people expect magic...
VERY well put. But people expect magic...
They do, and then when it doesn't happen they start to look for magic bullets, or magic calibers.
I am forced to tell people regularly that there are no magic bullets, or magic beans, that Santa is dead and the Tooth Fairy never existed.
Nephrology
07-09-11, 18:09
Decent amateur attempt at a study. Clearly acknowledges the shortcomings of his approach. made for an interesting read.
I know of a guy who was convinced by another nimrod that .357 SIG was the Lord's answer to their prayers for a magic death bullet. Both of them went out and blew 100 bucks a piece of .357 SIG fmj (250 rounds a piece :lol:) - one got a Glock 32 and the other a .357 SIG barrel for his p229 plus whatever doubletap is charging for their JHPs these days. But they sure are definitely safer with that magic bullet of theirs :rolleyes:
Needless to say it is pretty funny. They could've just given me the money instead, I would've definitely made better use of it.
Google "Claude Werner" to find out a little about a guy that is way ahead of the pack. He has maintained for years that a small caliber handgun is perfectly adequate for civilian personal defense. And you are more likely to have it too!
Ever since they came out, my personal defense handgun has been a tuned Kel-Tec .32. FMJ rounds penetrate adequately and multi-hits are easier than with the heavier recoil "pocket" guns. Not that it has ever been necessary, I also keep a very light coat of grease on the cartridge cases for added insurance. I also clean it thoroughly (especially the chamber) after every shooting session. And I have a duplicate practice gun, which is easy since they are so inexpensive. Reliability has been perfect.
If they hate you (if you are police or military) or are on meth, nothing is 100% anyway unless it is a CNS hit. If it is a good CNS hit, anything will do. When it comes to handgun stopping power, think about shooting elephants. That tiny solid .458 Magnum round has to hit the right spot!
BuckskinJoe
07-09-11, 18:58
I think it constructive to insert a reminder here:
Bullet terminal performance (a function of technology) and shot placement (a training issue) are independent--one neither depends on nor is influenced by the other. In a thoughtful discussion of bullet terminal performance, one should not introduce shot placement, and vice versa.
They are, both, important components of physiological incapacitation--with shot placement the most important--but they are independent.
No one frequenting this forum should be operating under the mistaken assumption that calibrated ordnance gelatin (a reasonably homogeneous soft solid) is somehow the equivalent of striking a human body (heterogeneous density and viscosities) and for that reason there is no need to "nail jello to a wall".
Calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is a perfectly acceptable and proven test analog that permits the direct comparison of two (or more) different projectiles' terminal performance in a consistent and repeatable medium.
The conclusion drawn by the author ("caliber is less important than it was once thought to be") has been evident through testing in calibrated gelatin long before the article being discussed here ever appeared.
Perhaps you missed his point. Perhaps you are trying to turn a figurative expression and turn into a reference at something literal, which it was never intended to be.
Actually, his initial post was pretty spot on and one of the better attempts at injecting some reality and meaningful commentary into things while refusing to repeat all of the worn out cliches and hyperbole attached to topics such as this
I hear the 'handgun bullets suck at stopping' statement frequently. I think that may be a little too harsh. The uninformed may start thinking getting hit by one is no big deal. Perhaps we should modify the statement to: 'handgun bullets suck at stopping when the CNS is not struck' or something like that.
I also hate when it is said that some service calibers were/are 'woefully inadequate'. Anything that can punch a hole completely through a human body, from any angle, has the potential to do a lot of major damage and gets my respect. Incapacitation may be quick or it may not. That's the nature of the beast so be prepared for the worst case.
Perhaps you missed his point. Perhaps you are trying to turn a figurative expression and turn into a reference at something literal, which it was never intended to be.
Thanks for confirming what I thought he was trying to say. No pun was intended by my mention of Jello.
Nail Jello to a wall = exercise in futility
Old expression.
Nail Jello to a wall = exercise in futility
Old expression.
Unfortuanately, it is looking that way.
I have been studying this for a long time. There have been a lot of nice trys since the unscientific conclusions of the Thompson Lagarde tests. But all we have for these efforts are different opinions on what flips the 'off switch' to human animation.
There are just too many variables involved in the study of human incapacitation induced by the impact of service caliber handgun projectiles.
Even weary veterans like Marshall etc. are more inclined these days to tell people to use a gun in a caliber you can shoot accurately and to concentrate on bullet placement, not to worry so much about a particular caliber/bullet combination.
I'm not so sure that the tests they did back in the 1800's were that far off the mark. They rated bullets by how many pine boards they could penetrate. Some gun fighters and military organizations seemed satisfied with .36 Navy Colts. The new fangled cartridges of the day employed round nosed lead bullets in varying calibers that seemed to do the job. Seemed most were happy until the Philippine uprising at the turn of the last century. From then on, we have been trying to nail that jello to the wall without success.
I, myself have formed my own conclusions and am quite happy with them. My preferred arm and caliber is something that I was not happy to carry so many years ago when one of the factions convinced me that my issued arm was woefully inadequate. I tried a lot of guns and cartridges and have actually come full circle back to where I started. Wish I knew what I know now, back then. I could have saved some money. But then again, I had a lot of fun getting here.
Wish I knew what I know now, back then. I could have saved some money
Me too, big time.
I know Evan Marshall has a very poor reputation on this site, and many others. I am not trying to debate those issues, or stir the crap.
I just noted that recently I saw a couple of quotes from him that bear to this thread;
"The one shot stop was never a tactical philosophy, it was just meant to be one unit of measurement".
and;
"Shoot them to slide lock"
So it appears that he advocates, like so many of us, that whatever you choose don't count on the first few rounds working.
In a recent class in Tulsa the instructor quoted a line from a friend of his that was a tanker in WWII;
"Shoot until your target changes shape or catches fire".
Seems like good advice.
Perhaps you missed his point. Perhaps you are trying to turn a figurative expression and turn into a reference at something literal, which it was never intended to be.
Actually, his initial post was pretty spot on and one of the better attempts at injecting some reality and meaningful commentary into things while refusing to repeat all of the worn out cliches and hyperbole attached to topics such as this
Perhaps I did. :p
I've never encountered that particular phrase before.
From every appearance, it would seem that 200RNL and I have a difference in our respective idiomatic backgrounds and find myself in agreement with him after reading his post (#3) in that light although I still stand by my assertion (in post #7) that the conclusion drawn by the author ("caliber is less important than it was once thought to be") has been evident through testing in calibrated gelatin long before the article being discussed here ever appeared.
:smile:
I always find it refreshing when real world observations agree with lab testing.
In the past that was actually an issue. Anyone else recall the RII crap from like the 1970s, IIRC? That was where rounds such as the 110gr +P+ .38 special came from.
Thanks for confirming what I thought he was trying to say. No pun was intended by my mention of Jello.
And I've learned a new phrase, too.
I'll lay it on my wife and enjoy the look of annoyed confusion on her face. She already thinks I am nuts and this'll push her over the edge. :D
Reagans Rascals
07-10-11, 23:23
Stopping power means just that... the amount of force it hits with. Internal ballistics and wound cavities and this and that have no place when talking in terms of stopping power. A .44 magnum is going to have much more stopping power than a 9mm, plain and simple. Law of momentum... One round might be more lethal in terms of yawing effects once inside but stopping power means having the most force to flat out put a target down right when it is hit, not when it succumbs to fatal injuries later. Therefore, the harder hit of the heavier round wins.
A semi-truck impact will trump a car impact any day of the week.....
Seriously, you did not just post that.
Anyone else recall the RII crap from like the 1970s, IIRC? That was where rounds such as the 110gr +P+ .38 special came from.
Yep. Whenever I see pictures of the "computer man", it reminds of an unsophisticated attempt at finite element analysis.
For the early attempt that it was, the Thompson-LaGarde tests produced pretty decent correlation for the relative performance of non-expanding projectile designs and is addressed by Duncan MacPherson on pages 270-275 of his book, "Bullet Penetration".
Who'da thunk it?
Seriously, you did not just post that.
It would appear that he did.
It is said that one should go to bed with little laughter.
I have mine now and I am out for the evening.
Thanks, Reagans Rascals.
Reagans Rascals
07-10-11, 23:48
Seriously, you did not just post that.
enlighten me with your infinite wisdom
@tpd223, if only this site had a "like" button. :P
@Reagan, I'm no physicist, but here's my understanding of it…
More mass and or velocity simply does not make a round better able to knock over a target; it's entirely possible to cleanly punch a hole through a target without knocking it over – this is what you do when you shoot paper. Surely any bullet has sufficient kinetic energy to "knock down" a sheet of paper stapled to a cardboard stand, but if you can't transfer the energy completely, it does you no good. Any bullet that doesn't stop inside the target is "wasting" energy.
Nevermind the fact that the force propelling the bullet forward is the same amount of force driving the shooter back from recoil… if a gun doesn't "knockdown" a flatfooted shooter, the projectile cannot "knockdown" the shootee.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 01:03
@tpd223, if only this site had a "like" button. :P
@Reagan, I'm no physicist, but here's my understanding of it…
More mass and or velocity simply does not make a round better able to knock over a target; it's entirely possible to cleanly punch a hole through a target without knocking it over – this is what you do when you shoot paper. Surely any bullet has sufficient kinetic energy to "knock down" a sheet of paper stapled to a cardboard stand, but if you can't transfer the energy completely, it does you no good. Any bullet that doesn't stop inside the target is "wasting" energy.
Nevermind the fact that the force propelling the bullet forward is the same amount of force driving the shooter back from recoil… if a gun doesn't "knockdown" a flatfooted shooter, the projectile cannot "knockdown" the shootee.
we are not talking about shooting paper, which has no ability to absorb impact, it simply allows the round to pass right through. We are talking about targets with actual mass, such as a human torso. If I fire a larger grain round such as a .45 acp it will transmit more momentum into said target than a round of smaller mass. It is basic physics. Have a man in a SAPI plate, I shoot him in the chest with a .45, and then I shoot him in the plate with a 9mm. The potential energy absorbed by the plate is higher with the .45 than the 9mm. Basic physics once again.
If both rounds were hollow points, the larger round will win due to momentum.
As as for the comment on Newtons Second Law. There are devices within modern weapons that reduce the perceived effect. Especially present in semi-automatic weapons in which the rearward force is absorbed into springs and the reloading action of the weapon. It is still occurring but it not as noticeable as with a bolt action weapon.
"Stopping power means just that... the amount of force it hits with. Internal ballistics and wound cavities and this and that have no place when talking in terms of stopping power. A .44 magnum is going to have much more stopping power than a 9mm, plain and simple. Law of momentum... One round might be more lethal in terms of yawing effects once inside but stopping power means having the most force to flat out put a target down right when it is hit, not when it succumbs to fatal injuries later. Therefore, the harder hit of the heavier round wins."
This is completely erroneous. You might wish to review: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 01:23
This is completely erroneous. You might wish to review: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714
so I guess you would use a 5.56 or .22 for big bear defense?
For the early attempt that it was, the Thompson-LaGarde tests produced pretty decent correlation for the relative performance of non-expanding projectile designs and is addressed by Duncan MacPherson on pages 270-275 of his book, "Bullet Penetration".
Who'da thunk it?
I'm not so sure about that and it appears that Thompson and Lagarde were not sure about it either when they stressed the importance of bullet placement at the end of their report:
"Touching upon the question of shock effects and stopping power, so essential in pistol firing, the Board is of the opinion that soldiers armed with pistols or revolvers should be drilled unremittingly in the accuracy of fire, and that the vital parts of the body, their location and distribution in the organism, should be intelligently explained. Based upon the distribution of the vital parts, and parts of the body which when hit insure sudden stoppping of an adversary, the Board hopes, in its complete report, to furnish a target of a shape to include the more essential points to be hit in the body. It is thought that men drilled at such a target could do more effective firing at close range with pistols and revolvers. The Board has been prompted to refer to this point because of the prime importance of decisive shooting at close quarters, and of the large amount of the target area of the human body which offers no hope of stopping an adversary by shock or other immediate results when hit."
Link to the report: http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/tlgr.html
Leon Day wrote an article entitled 'The Holes In The Stopping Power Theory' in the 1983 Gun Digest that was critical of the Thompson Lagarde tests. I haven't read what MacPherson wrote about the tests.
so I guess you would use a 5.56 or .22 for big bear defense?
Doc, Good Luck........and Good Night.
Reagans Rascals--I recommend projectiles that offer the terminal performance characteristics for the intended target. I also recognize the reality of the laws of physics, as well as the basic anatomic and physiological effects caused by penetrating projectiles. You appear to be off base in your comments and reasoning.
so I guess you would use a 5.56 or .22 for big bear defense?
You have no idea who you are arguing with, do you?
Didn't think so.
Momentum has ZERO to do with making bad people stop being bad.
Period.
I'm going to guess that Doc would recommend a 45-70 over a .223 for bear defense, but that would be because of the wound ballistics brought to the table by the particular round in question, not due to momentum.
I'm not so sure about that and it appears that Thompson and Lagarde were not sure about it either when they stressed the importance of bullet placement at the end of their report:
"Touching upon the question of shock effects and stopping power, so essential in pistol firing, the Board is of the opinion that soldiers armed with pistols or revolvers should be drilled unremittingly in the accuracy of fire, and that the vital parts of the body, their location and distribution in the organism, should be intelligently explained. Based upon the distribution of the vital parts, and parts of the body which when hit insure sudden stoppping of an adversary, the Board hopes, in its complete report, to furnish a target of a shape to include the more essential points to be hit in the body. It is thought that men drilled at such a target could do more effective firing at close range with pistols and revolvers. The Board has been prompted to refer to this point because of the prime importance of decisive shooting at close quarters, and of the large amount of the target area of the human body which offers no hope of stopping an adversary by shock or other immediate results when hit."
Link to the report: http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/tlgr.html
Leon Day wrote an article entitled 'The Holes In The Stopping Power Theory' in the 1983 Gun Digest that was critical of the Thompson Lagarde tests. I haven't read what MacPherson wrote about the tests.
A tidbit of trivia, IIRC, was that the quickest "stop" of the live cows that were shot was the hit with the .30Luger.
How is this you ask?
Because that little bullet penetrated really deep, and in this case hit the cow in the heart or aorta, I forget which. These results were thrown out of the report as an anomaly.
It would seem that hitting just the right spot makes quite a bit of difference.
"It would seem that hitting just the right spot makes quite a bit of difference."
Bingo...we have a winner!
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 03:23
Reagans Rascals--I recommend projectiles that offer the terminal performance characteristics for the intended target. I also recognize the reality of the laws of physics, as well as the basic anatomic and physiological effects of caused by penetrating projectiles. You appear to be off base in your comments and reasoning.
bigger rounds make bigger holes.... plain and simple... there is no replacement for displacement... try and argue your way out of that.
if everything you guys are saying is based on the luck and chance of that "perfect shot", then yes a small round with the right luck can do more than a big one. However, there is a low probability of this occurring. A larger round has a higher probability of sustaining that "perfect shot" because it is indeed larger and has a larger footprint...
and I could care less who I am talking to.... common sense is common sense... I don't care if someones resume` gets your dick hard... I'm not that easily aroused...
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 03:43
Rascal:
Your incomplete understanding of the basics of small arms terminal effects are leading you to incorrect conclusions.
The good Doc has provided us with a wealth of information you can learn, all stickied here in the Terminal Ballistics forum.
DocGKR tends to be concise and direct, I advise people to read and research his responses before responding.
And trying to play stump the chump with him will result in frownie-face time.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 03:46
Rascal:
Your incomplete understanding of the basics of small arms terminal effects are leading you to incorrect conclusions.
The good Doc has provided us with a wealth of information you can learn, all stickied here in the Terminal Ballistics forum.
DocGKR tends to be concise and direct, I advise people to read and research his responses before responding.
And trying to play stump the chump with him will result in frownie-face time.
so because I challenge someones opinion... it's frownie face time.. makes sense
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 04:01
so because I challenge someones opinion... it's frownie face time.. makes sense
No, it's due to your phallic references to a highly respected and recognized expert on the matter when he is trying to educate you.
Terminal ballistics isn't common sense, it's a science, one that DocGKR is at the forefront of and elects to share with out of his desire to inform, not to play on the Internet with semantic arguments with those that can't be bothered to actually learn.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 04:05
was I referring to him when I made said "phallic" comments?... I believe not... the context of the comment were in reference to what someone else had said in reference to him... I didn't ask for his education, nor do I need it. My original comments were to the original OP not to him.
and as it stands... I was correct in my original assertion. The entire point of self-defense shooting is to stop the intended target for continuing. That doesn't mean solely separating the thoracic artery to induce rapid exsanguination, or destroying the brain stem, it simply means stopping the target from continuing. Which could be a combination of anything. Death is not the intent. A larger round is going to do more damage because it has the ability to do so. That's it. Yes you can make some smaller rounds do some fancy spalling or yawing inside a target to get a greater desired effect, but that works conversely with a larger round. And this being the case, why opt for a smaller round, when you can just as easily carry a bigger one.
You can make a 1.8 liter engine put out 800 horsepower... or you can make 427 put out 1200.... it all comes down to preference. and I choose displacement. I'd rather see what kind of hole a .45 does to a man trying to hurt me than hope a smaller round lives up to its ballistic reports.
Unfortunately your erroneous comments tend to indicate you are in fact in need of additional knowledge on the subject of wound ballistics and the pathophysiology of penetrating trauma.
Just for the record, as I have publicly stated numerous times, I recommend either 12 ga Brenneke slugs or .45-70 loads like those produced by Buffalo Bore or Garrett for close range large bear defense--since they meet the required penetration depths and tissue disruption for those animals.
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 04:40
Rascal, this is becoming tiresome.
You are essentially trying to talk basic addition in a conversation about Trigonometry. You are out of your knowledge depth and your continued pestering is detrimental to the thread.
Consider this a warning. Additional childish behavior will result in deletion of your posts and infractions levied against you.
This is not because you have a dissenting opinion, it's because you refuse to educate yourself on the matter and continually attempt to "get the last word". Follow my guidance and nothing will be held against you.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 04:50
then please educate me.
terminal ballistics between:
115gr 9mm +p hollow point
230gr .45 ACP +p hollow point
I am simply asking to be educated on it.
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 05:01
then please educate me.
terminal ballistics between:
115gr 9mm +p hollow point
230gr .45 ACP +p hollow point
I am simply asking to be educated on it.
Have you read:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Does not include the 115gr 9, but gives good info on 9, 40, and 45 ammo.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 05:07
Have you read:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Does not include the 115gr 9, but gives good info on 9, 40, and 45 ammo.
I apologize but.... the first sentence proves my point...
"As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers"
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 05:31
I apologize but.... the first sentence proves my point...
"As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers"
If you read onto sentence 3 you would see:
As is quite obvious from the photo above, NONE of the common service pistol calibers generate temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue damage.
You also see from the chart below:
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/Handgun_expanded_JHP.jpg
That the "massive" difference in expansion between the manly .45 and the "puny" 9mm is .12", and penetration is virtually identical.
It also makes a simple and concise point:
Basically all the standard service calibers work when using good quality ammunition.
The difference between good 9mm and good .45 is orders of magnitude below the difference between good 5.56 and good 7.62.
I also highly doubt that you read the entire post and associated links in 6 minutes, the difference in timestamp between my post and your reply. Simply perusing a post and cherry-picking a single sentence out of context does not constitute a valid point.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 05:36
I'm in no way a ".45 will kill a man even if you hit him in the hand" advocate but I do believe that larger rounds will establish larger amounts of damage.
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 05:39
I'm in no way a ".45 will kill a man even if you hit him in the hand" advocate but I do believe that larger rounds will establish larger amounts of damage.
Yes.
.12" worth.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 05:40
If you read onto sentence 3 you would see:
You also see from the chart below:
That the "massive" difference in expansion between the manly .45 and the "puny" 9mm is .12", and penetration is virtually identical.
It also makes a simple and concise point:
The difference between good 9mm and good .45 is orders of magnitude below the difference between good 5.56 and good 7.62.
I also highly doubt that you read the entire post and associated links in 6 minutes, the difference in timestamp between my post and your reply. Simply perusing a post and cherry-picking a single sentence out of context does not constitute a valid point.
So because I "cherry picked" a statement that validates my point, because it was indeed the first sentence of the post, without taking 25 minutes to read the entire thing, Its somehow not valid?
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 05:47
So because I "cherry picked" a statement that validates my point, because it was indeed the first sentence of the post, without taking 25 minutes to read the entire thing, Its somehow not valid?
This is your last chance.
I cannot fathom how you can be serious with this reply.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 05:53
Is there, or is there not, documented evidence within that report that substantiates my claim that a larger round produces a bigger cavity. It doesn't matter if its .12 or .0012... that is still a quantifiable amount and therefore I was correct. The generalization " All duty calibers will get the job done" is a moot point. A .45 caliber did indeed produce a larger effect. That was simply my entire argument.
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 06:05
If your point is that a larger diameter projectile will make a larger diameter hole when using comparable performing components, then yes, you are generally correct, but you are missing the point.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 06:11
If the point you are trying to make is that through aerodynamic and metallurgical process smaller diameter rounds can produce the same if not better effects than a standard larger round, then yes I do agree. However I am comparing tit for tit, a +p hydroshok .45 and the same in 9mm. The .45 will produce a bigger stopping effect because of the force behind it. I am not referring to yawing tendencies, just simply stating the law of mass. If I shot steel, with both and measured the impact force, it would be higher with the .45. And that is the intent, to transmit as much kinetic energy into the target as possible, in order to get them to stop as fast as possible. Killing ability is different than stopping power.
If I hit you in the chest with a golf club or with a 4x4, the 4x4 will knock you down harder. Yes both can kill you, but that's not the point, the point is to stop you.
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 06:30
The problem is that you seem to believe that the force of the bullet strike will cause movement of the target through momentum.
This is false.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 06:34
I never said movement of the target due to anything at all. I said kinetic transfer from the round, as in terms of damage to the intended target. The round in no way will hit them and blow them away like in the movies. However, the higher the kinetic energy... the greater the impact force... therefore... the greater the damage sustained....
The only way the target will be moved from the force of the round, is if the round impacts them directly in the plate... you get hit and fly back.. the plate took it... you get hit and slump... your body took it
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 06:47
Perhaps, it is time to lock or eliminate this thread before the deceased equine becomes an unrecognizable grease spot. "RR" has convinced me of his position and wisdom.
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 06:56
I never said movement of the target due to anything at all. I said kinetic transfer from the round, as in terms of damage to the intended target. The round in no way will hit them and blow them away like in the movies. However, the higher the kinetic energy... the greater the impact force... therefore... the greater the damage sustained....
Projectiles with greater force have the capability to do more work. Projectile designers build the projectile to use it's force to penetrate or to expand. The correct balance must be struck to have optimal effect on the intended target. As weight is increased penetration has the tendency to likewise increase, which is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on circumstance. Penetration past the thickness of the target is wasted energy, energy that would be better spent on expansion. But excessive expansion will result in fragmentation, and no "service" type handgun produces enough of a temporary cavity to take advantage of fragmentation, which is generally fairly shallow due to the relatively low forces involved. So, the bullets must be built to be robust enough to stay in one piece during it's journey through tissue and bone. Projectile designers know this and work to get as much expansion as possible with realistic materials and manufacturing but with enough penetration to meet the FBI penetration criteria.
So, we know that handgun ammo does not produce enough of a temporary cavity to be an effect in tissue destruction, and given the elastic nature of tissue a 1mm increase in projectile diameter does not equal a 1mm increase in permanent cavity.
The point is that the minor gain in expanded diameter is basically irrelevant at handgun velocities.
ETA- hits to plates do not throw people backward either. Personal experience as well as numerous observations.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 07:03
So then there really is no difference between the popular carry calibers? One is just as good as the other? .380 vs. a .45 or a 9mm vs. a .357 all result in the same event?
and yes... taking a round to the plate will knock you back.. I have experience with and without the plate.
prime example of the force of taking a round to the plate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTwqV0ybwc
So then there really is no difference between the popular carry calibers? One is just as good as the other? .380 vs. a .45 or a 9mm vs. a .357 all result in the same event?
and yes... taking a round to the plate will knock you back.. I have experience with and without the plate.
prime example of the force of taking a round to the plate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTwqV0ybwc
In terms of terminal effects? I believe that every study I have seen, every body I have seen, every medical person I have spoken to has made it quite clear:
The primary calibers all tend to penetrate within the same envelope, so basically 9mm and up, all have the velocity and mass to penetrate enough to get to or through the vital organs in the body, including through thick clothing.
Permanent cavities between the various calibers are so close as to be indistinguishable, so long story about tissue elasticity and how flesh behaves during a gunshot event cut short, pistol calibers do not vary enough between each one to make a huge impact.
WHERE the person is shot is FAR more important than what size the bullet is. Presuming quality ammunition is used, you're going to likely penetrate through bone, sever arteries, and pierce organs. Shoot as often as it takes, and shoot for the core of the body.
"Something else to look at here is the question of how fast can the rounds be fired out of each gun."
"In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one."
These are the points that interested me the most, especially the second.
If 3 shots were fired rapidly, how do you know 1 wouldn't have been sufficient with any caliber. An earlier post made reference to shooting a deer through the heart. Since a deer doesn't understand they have been shot they act differently than a human might, at least those not heavily influenced by drugs, etc.
I haven't read what MacPherson wrote about the tests.
I would encourage you to obtain the book (if you can) and have a look at his commentary on the listed pages. Very informative and insightful.
so because I challenge someones opinion... it's frownie face time.. makes sense....And due to your complete misunderstanding of a well developed field of study.
Momentum has NOTHING to do with causing bad guys to stop. I won't even use the term "stopping power" as the concept is no more than a common term of use, and basically meaningless.
Momentum might be useful in knocking down Pepper Poppers, but it does nothing for people.
Your analogy of shooting two different people wearing SAPI plates with a 9mm and a .45 to compare effect is meaningless, completely.
Another idea that you have, bigger holes, is a common one as well, and has some small amount of merit, however, comma.....
The fact is that rounds such as the 9mm and .45acp, so commonly compared, are so close together in actual wound ballistic effect, the permanent wound cavity, that it basically becomes a wash.
While there are some other factors at play, tissue elasticity, etc., it is an irrefutable fact that all service caliber handguns leave holes in tissue that trained observers can not differentiate from one another.
Basically this; If a doctor, be they a trauma doc or coroner, is looking at a bullet hole in a human body, be that person alive or dead, if they do not find the bullet they will have no idea what caliber pistol bullet made the hole.
Fact.
I am not saying that a .32 FMJ round leaves the same hole as a 12 gauge slug or a 7.62X39 round (although many 7.62 rounds can wound no more than a standard velocity .38RNL bullet, but I digress...), but that ALL of the service caliber handguns leave basically the same hole.
I have this on authority of four different trauma docs, my local coroner (who has allowed me to observe on autopsies, so first hand experience here as well, in addition to 24 years on the street dealing with shooting victims and being a shooting review board member, also 40 years of hunting experience looking at bullet holes in meat), Doc on this site, Doc Williams of "Tactical Anatomy" fame (Google it up if you don't know), and other sources such as THE textbook on the subject, 'Gunshot Wounds' by Vincent J. M. Di Maio, and personal conversations with friends such as Jim Cirillo.
My observation is that if a trained doc can't tell the difference, then how does the guy who got shot know?
As long as you are launching sufficient projectile, and all of the service caliber pistols do, then what you hit is by far the most critical factor at play.
That you are not impressed with resumes, in this case, makes you a bit obtuse.
Doc and Buford Boone are the two most prominent, and busy, wound ballistics researchers currently in the field.
You would do well to read the stuff Doc wrote, in that link he posted for you.
While I was working on that reply an entire page popped up in the mean time.
I throw out a personal observation to so the problem with relying solely on one's personal experience and observation;
The only total failure to stop events I have observed have been; a .45 at very close range right through the sternum of the bad guy, clipped the aorta and left a 7/7" hole in the guy's back.
Effect was he didn't even flinch, and most certainly wasn't knocked back.
Another was a full 9 pellet OO buck at close range, guy didn't get knocked back or collapse, and was a complete asshole, fighting the officers all the way into the ambulance after they got him into custody.
Lastly a few of our guys had to shoot a crazy lady who was firing a shotgun at the end of a stand-off. Two 12 gauge bean bags rounds, a .223 BTHP to the left rib cage, and a 12 gauge slug to the pelvis, she drops the shotgun, but then goes to try and pick it up again, she had to be physically restrained to get her stopped.
Contrast this with the fact that we have carried 9mm service pistols since 1989, and in that time we have shot a few people. In all of those cases we have never had a "fails to stop" event, and several dramatic "one stop stops" on record.
So in my personal observation the 9mm is better than the 12 gauge, the .45 and the .223, but posting such an opinion would be just plain retarded.
If 3 shots were fired rapidly, how do you know 1 wouldn't have been sufficient with any caliber. An earlier post made reference to shooting a deer through the heart. Since a deer doesn't understand they have been shot they act differently than a human might, at least those not heavily influenced by drugs, etc.
You don't, and it's unsafe to assume.
The deer probably won't try to kill you for shooting it, the bad guy might, and probably was already trying to do so, that's why he got shot to begin with.
Getting shot in a rifle plate, even by .308/7.62x51mm, will NOT in and of itself knock you back--ask Alex Jason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaS_2l8nGdg
You don't, and it's unsafe to assume.
The deer probably won't try to kill you for shooting it, the bad guy might, and probably was already trying to do so, that's why he got shot to begin with.
This. A human MIGHT register and understand he's been shot and be affected psychologically. However, he MIGHT not. You can't count on psychological incapacitation in any way.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 10:48
If in the end, all handgun calibers perform the same against soft tissue, why then do they sell so many different calibers. It seems that one standard caliber such as the 9mm would be sufficient to replace all others then.
You can't physically take the math behind the impact of a .45 ACP or a .44 magnum and say it is negligible when compared to that of a 9mm... there is no way it cannot be accounted for. That is essentially the same as comparing jet engines, one with a thrust of 1200 lbs and one with 1250 lbs. The 50 pounds of the second engine is not negligible. It may perform similar to the first, however it is not the same. And under certain conditions it will perform differently.
In the earlier post it stated the .45 ACP had 00.12" expansion more than a 9mm. That may seem negligible, but you then have a 19% increase in total surface area of impact, I'm no scientist but adding 1/5 to the total effected area is a substantial amount and is not small enough to disregard...this could be the difference between hitting a vital artery or nervous system, and just simply hitting muscle tissue.
Failure2Stop
07-11-11, 11:06
So then there really is no difference between the popular carry calibers? One is just as good as the other? .380 vs. a .45 or a 9mm vs. a .357 all result in the same event?
and yes... taking a round to the plate will knock you back.. I have experience with and without the plate.
prime example of the force of taking a round to the plate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTwqV0ybwc
Going by paragraph:
1- Of course they are not all identical, but comparing top 9 to top 40 and 45, they are very similar, especially in their wounding mechanism.
2- Bullshit. Period. I've seen plenty of people, within feet of me, take rounds to the plate and helmet. Some of them didn't even know they were hit until hours later. I have seen shocked individuals drop, but not independent rearward movement. Think about it...shoulder fired...
3- I can't believe you posted that video as support of your argument. The victim clearly was suprised and dropped when he felt the impact. In fact, he stated so in interviews afterward. Are you saying that it was you, or that he lied in his interviews?
Finally, I promise the world is round. You might not be able to tell from your vantage point, and you obviously don't trust those with a better perspective, so maybe you can take my word on this one.
And with that, I'm done with this.
Something about singing pigs.
The main advantage the increased mass of larger service calibers (.40/180gr & .45/230gr) offer is an enhanced ability to defeat intermediate barriers like auto windshields while exhibiting decreased deflection and retaining adequate penetration on target. That is pretty well described here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887.
If in the end, all handgun calibers perform the same against soft tissue, why then do they sell so many different calibers. It seems that one standard caliber such as the 9mm would be sufficient to replace all others then.
You can't physically take the math behind the impact of a .45 ACP or a .44 magnum and say it is negligible when compared to that of a 9mm... there is no way it cannot be accounted for. That is essentially the same as comparing jet engines, one with a thrust of 1200 lbs and one with 1250 lbs. The 50 pounds of the second engine is not negligible. It may perform similar to the first, however it is not the same. And under certain conditions it will perform differently.
In the earlier post it stated the .45 ACP had 00.12" expansion more than a 9mm. That may seem negligible, but you then have a 19% increase in total surface area of impact, I'm no scientist but adding 1/5 to the total effected area is a substantial amount and is not small enough to disregard...this could be the difference between hitting a vital artery or nervous system, and just simply hitting muscle tissue.
You're not accounting for a lot of factors. The slower, larger projectile will stretch tissue more before punching through, compared to the smaller, faster projectile. You can prove this to yourself by taking a small phillips screwdriver, and a LARGE phillips screwdriver, and attempting to poke through a piece of meat, the smaller going faster.
Also, while there's a marginal chance of one missing what another might hit, it's just that, a marginal chance. You can't rely on it being the case.
As to the energy...false analogy. All the extra energy does, overall, is increase the penetration depth capability. NO handgun generates significant enough velocities to do damage by temporary cavitation, so, all you have is the direct tissue interaction. in this case, the energy of the bullet, small or large, is going to be spent in overcoming the resistance of tissue as the bullet penetrates. It does not cause more damage peripheral to the wound.
Looking at a few hundred wounds caused by various calibers, they are all indistinguishable in terms of diameter or anything else, and regardless of bullet used, 90% of handgun wounds are survivable with proper medical treatment.
Anyway, some people just don't learn.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 11:16
181gr 7.62x54 at a muzzle velocity of close to 2,700 fps. impacting a solid target such as a SAPI plate will hit with 2,800 pound feet of force... simple math... it is absorbed into the plate and the OTV.. that someone is wearing.. therefore.. they too take the hit... it's simple math...
do I need to write the physics equations as well?
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 11:20
I am done. You carry what you carry and I'll carry what I carry. And in the event either of us ever have to use it... then we'll know... that's all that can be said.
181gr 7.62x54 at a muzzle velocity of close to 2,700 fps. impacting a solid target such as a SAPI plate will hit with 2,800 pound feet of force... simple math... it is absorbed into the plate and the OTV.. that someone is wearing.. therefore.. they too take the hit... it's simple math...
do I need to write the physics equations as well?
You missed the Mythbusters episode where they shot a hanging carcass on a quick-release rack with a .50 Caliber rifle from 2', and the carcass fell back a total of 2', didn't you?
Or you didn't pay attention in physics when they covered the most basic principle: With every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So, the amount of force imparted by the expulsion of gasses and the forward push of the bullet is equal to the rearward force of the rifle on the shooter in recoil. it is impossible for a bullet to impart enough energy to "blow a person back" without equally doing so to the person doing the shooting.
that is basic physics.
I am done. You carry what you carry and I'll carry what I carry. And in the event either of us ever have to use it... then we'll know... that's all that can be said.
You're making the assumption that those of us talking in this thread haven't ever had to use their weapons in self defense.
i propose that that is a piss-poor assumption to make...
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 11:22
And with that, I'm done with this.
Something about singing pigs.
:thank_you2:
Please put us out of his misery.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 11:24
You missed the Mythbusters episode where they shot a hanging carcass on a quick-release rack with a .50 Caliber rifle from 2', and the carcass fell back a total of 2', didn't you?
Or you didn't pay attention in physics when they covered the most basic principle: With every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So, the amount of force imparted by the expulsion of gasses and the forward push of the bullet is equal to the rearward force of the rifle on the shooter in recoil. it is impossible for a bullet to impart enough energy to "blow a person back" without equally doing so to the person doing the shooting.
that is basic physics.
I never said it would blow anyone back, in fact I specifically stated that if the round was absorbed into the body it will cause the body to just slump, lifeless, not be blown back. However, if the energy is dispersed over a hard surface, such as a steel target or a plate carrier, it hits will full force and therefore will cause movement. Set a steel target down and shoot it with a rifle round and tell me if it moved when you shot it...
I never said it would blow anyone back, in fact I specifically stated that if the round was absorbed into the body it will cause the body to just slump, lifeless, not be blown back. However, if the energy is dispersed over a hard surface, such as a steel target or a plate carrier, it hits will full force and therefore will cause movement. Set a steel target down and shoot it with a rifle round and tell me if it moved when you shot it...
...they shot the pig at the same distance while it was wearing a vest on the same basic theory, same thing happened. It barely moved.
In fact, there was NO movement when the person was shot with 9mm, .357, a shotgun, or a .30-06 rifle. Sorry to say.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 11:30
...they shot the pig at the same distance while it was wearing a vest on the same basic theory, same thing happened. It barely moved.
In fact, there was NO movement when the person was shot with 9mm, .357, a shotgun, or a .30-06 rifle. Sorry to say.
It was wearing soft armor, not hard armor
If I hit you in the stomach with a bat, your body would absorb it and you would probably double over in pain, however if you were wearing a hard plate and I hit you in the stomach, it would knock you back... you cannot argue that
It was wearing soft armor, not hard armor
If I hit you in the stomach with a bat, your body would absorb it and you would probably double over in pain, however if you were wearing a hard plate and I hit you in the stomach, it would knock you back... you cannot argue that
I can, because the physics required to do it isn't there. You're just wrong on this one.
As a side note, I've been whacked at about 40 miles per hour on the back of a 4-wheeler wearing a hard body plate by a stiff tree limb. Smacked me pretty hard, too. But other than knocking the wind out of me, severely bruising things, and laying me back on the seat as the branch pushed me outta the way, i didn't go flying from the impact.
I am done. You carry what you carry and I'll carry what I carry. And in the event either of us ever have to use it... then we'll know... that's all that can be said.
Yep...
WHAT IS A TROLL?
1. An Internet "Troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
2. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.
3.Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.
4. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
1. Some people — particularly those who have been online for years — are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."
2. It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.
3. Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.
4. Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.
WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT TROLLS?
1. When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.
2. However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:
3. The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
4. When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.
WHAT NOT TO DO
1. As already stated, it is futile to try to "cure" a troll of his obsession. But perhaps you simply cannot bear the hostile environment that the troll is creating and want to go away for a while.
2. If you do that, then for the sake of the others on the system, please do not post a dramatic "Goodbye!" message. This convinces the troll that he is winning the battle. There is, perhaps, no message you can write on a message system that is as damaging as an announcement that you are leaving because of the hostility that the troll has kindled.
3. If you feel you must say something, a discreet message to the Administrator (and some of the others users, if you have their email addresses) is the best course of action. Incidentally, if you are writing the letter in an agitated state, it is a good idea to wait an hour and then give it one last review before you actually send it. That might spare you the pain of saying things that you don't really mean to people you like.
I DID NOT WRITE THAT MESSAGE, IT'S A FAKE!
1. Of course, sometimes you will find that people who know you well have already identified the message as a fake and have tagged it as such. After all, one of the troll's goals is to make you look bad. If you have a good reputation, people will be tipped off if a message that you apparently wrote is completely out of character.
2. Trolls have been known to become so irritated at having their spoofs identified that they have learned to write in another person's style. They may end up writing an intelligent message that is indistinguishable from your own golden words. If that happens, you can always just let the post stand and take credit for it!
3. Trolls will also sometimes write a "That Wasn't Me" message after a genuine one, attempting to elicit a denial. There really is no reason to give him what he wants, since a "That Wasn't Me" warning merely reminds people to be skeptical. That is to say, it is of no real consequence if somebody isn't sure that you wrote a normal message, since in the long run it is the ideas that are important.
OUR CHALLENGE
1. When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed.
2. The Moderator or Administrator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.
3. Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a Administrator is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the Administrator has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one — himself
WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
1. When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed.
2. When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a FORUM.
WHY DO THEY DO IT?
1. Affirmation.
2. Trolls crave attention, and they care not whether it is positive or negative. They see the Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture.
3. If you want a deeper analysis than that, perhaps a psychologist can shed some additional light on the matter.
CONCLUSION
1. Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and only type only that.
2.The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
3. By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 11:56
I am in no way trying to create discord between any other users, I am simply defending my position. Am I not allowed to do that, I just have to take what other say as fact and that is that?
I have in no way "trolled" because I defended my point of view. Simply because you don't agree with it does not mean you are required to reply. I you think I am stupid and uneducated then so be it, no one is making you read my posts or reply to them, I've never went looking for an argument, it came looking for me to defend myself.
All I have done is reply to the multiple comments that have been levied against my point of view.
Stopping power means just that... the amount of force it hits with. Internal ballistics and wound cavities and this and that have no place when talking in terms of stopping power. A .44 magnum is going to have much more stopping power than a 9mm, plain and simple. Law of momentum... One round might be more lethal in terms of yawing effects once inside but stopping power means having the most force to flat out put a target down right when it is hit, not when it succumbs to fatal injuries later. Therefore, the harder hit of the heavier round wins.
A semi-truck impact will trump a car impact any day of the week.....
Momentum (or energy) transfer from service handgun projectiles is not a mode of incapacitation. Causing damage to the CNS is, as well as damaging the circulatory system and causing significant blood loss/loss of blood pressure.
We can talk about steel plates being knocked down by small, fast moving projectiles in inelastic collisions all day long, but humans are not physiologically incapacitated by the impact of a handgun bullet. The only thing that we should be discussing as a matter of "putting a target down right when it is hit" is a CNS hit.
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 12:44
I understand everything everyone has said. What I am simply stating is this:
A larger round has a greater potential to cause damage to the CNS.
An example would be: a .44 magnum round to the head, or a 9mm round to the same point in the head. I believe logic would suggest the .44 magnum would produce a larger wound. This is the simplest form of what I am trying to say.
I understand everything everyone has said. What I am simply stating is this:
A larger round has a greater potential to cause damage to the CNS.
An example would be: a .44 magnum round to the head, or a 9mm round to the same point in the head. I believe logic would suggest the .44 magnum would produce a larger wound. This is the simplest form of what I am trying to say.
And that isn't born out by the evidence we have.
Once again, permanent wounds in tissue are indistinguishable from one another, regardless of caliber. It may be against logic, but it's how it is and is provably so.
And, no, a larger round doesn't necessarily have a greater potential to cause damage to the CNS, there's no evidence to support such a claim, since there are so many ifs and buts in the logic train to get to that statement that you can't make it with a straight face.
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 13:32
Once again, permanent wounds in tissue are indistinguishable from one another, regardless of caliber. It may be against logic, but it's how it is and is provably so.
I have difficulty with this--logic, stock, and bagel. :)
If so, then .45 = 9mm and .45 - .355 = 0, and it must follow that .355 = .25 and .45 - .25 = 0 in terms of tissue disruption. Then, .25 must be the same as .22 and .45 - .22 = 0 in terms of tissue disruption.
The conclusion must be that, if a .22 handgun bullet can be constructed to give adequate penetration and barrier blindness, it would, necessarily, be the best choice--unless, of course, an even smaller caliber had adequate penetration and barrier blindness.
Even Doc has stated in another thread that, other things equal, a .45 makes a bigger hole.
Not trying to "stir the pot." I simply have a problem with the position that a very large caliber projectile has the same effect on human tissue as a very small caliber--that, not considering barrier blindness, calilber is not a factor. If so, then expanding projectiles are irrelevant.
For you folks still in fantasy land about a hit to a hard plate causing you to be knocked down, I guess you missed the link I provided above directly showing someone being shot at point blank range with a full power .308 round:
"Getting shot in a rifle plate, even by .308/7.62x51mm, will NOT in and of itself knock you back--ask Alex Jason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaS_2l8nGdg"
I have difficulty with this--logic, stock, and bagel. :)
If so, then .45 = 9mm and .45 - .355 = 0, and it must follow that .355 = .25 and .45 - .25 = 0 in terms of tissue disruption. Then, .25 must be the same as .22 and .45 - .22 = 0 in terms of tissue disruption.
The conclusion must be that, if a .22 handgun bullet can be constructed to give adequate penetration and barrier blindness, it would, necessarily be the best choice--unless, of course, an even smaller caliber had adequate penetration and barrier blindness.
Even Doc has stated in another thread that, other things equal, a .45 makes a bigger hole.
Not trying to "stir the pot." I simply have a problem with the position that a very large caliber projectile has the same effect on human tissue as a very small caliber--that, not considering barrier blindness, calilber is not a factor. If so, then expanding projectiles are irrelevant.
Expanding projectiles are what makes this work, however. It all comes back to tissue elasticity and how bullets interact with tissue.
If a slower, larger projectile stretches tissue to a greater point before it pushes through compared to a smaller, faster projectile, which will punch through sooner, then the holes will be fairly close in size.
Adding to that, tissue will distort and some may relax more than others.
It's well documented that looking at holes in tissue alone, the size of the projectile is not identifiable due to this.
however, what I should note is that this is not true for all projectiles. Small sub-caliber (.22, .25, .32, .380 and similar) rounds do not have the velocity and energy to have as much of an effect on tissue as a primary caliber (9mm, .357, .40 Smith, 10mm, .45 ACp, etc.) will. So, a .380 won't perform like a .357. But comparing the wound channels between primary calibers, they are nearly identical.
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 14:09
Expanding projectiles are what makes this work, however. It all comes back to tissue elasticity and how bullets interact with tissue.
If a slower, larger projectile stretches tissue to a greater point before it pushes through compared to a smaller, faster projectile, which will punch through sooner, then the holes will be fairly close in size.
Adding to that, tissue will distort and some may relax more than others.
It's well documented that looking at holes in tissue alone, the size of the projectile is not identifiable due to this.
however, what I should note is that this is not true for all projectiles. Small sub-caliber (.22, .25, .32, .380 and similar) rounds do not have the velocity and energy to have as much of an effect on tissue as a primary caliber (9mm, .357, .40 Smith, 10mm, .45 ACp, etc.) will. So, a .380 won't perform like a .357. But comparing the wound channels between primary calibers, they are nearly identical.
Looking at collapsed holes in elastic tissue and not seeing discernable differences does not, necessarily, mean tissue disruption was identical.
Introducing variables in elasticity among types of tissue invalidates any discussion of bullet tissue disruption. For example, we cannot, legitimately, compare one bullet's effect on bone to another's effect on a quadricep muscle.
I am not sure what "this" is in your statement, "Expanding projectiles are what makes this work."
Please take no offfense; I am aware of the "holes look the same" argument, but I remain unconvinced that, for instance, there is no difference between the tissue displacement of the 9mm 147 gr. HST and and .45 230 gr. HST, other things equal.
Looking at collapsed holes in elastic tissue and not seeing discernable differences does not, necessarily, mean tissue disruption was identical.
Introducing variables in elasticity among types of tissue invalidates any discussion of bullet tissue disruption. For example, we cannot, legitimately, compare one bullet's effect on bone to another's effect on a quadricep muscle.
I am not sure what "this" is in your statement, "Expanding projectiles are what makes this work."
Please take no offfense; I am aware of the "holes look the same" argument, but I remain unconvinced that, for instance, there is no difference between the tissue displacement of the 9mm 147 gr. HST and and .45 230 gr. HST, other things equal.
The problem is that the initial/temporary tissue displacement is not what does the damage/causes the bullet to be effective. it is the wound channel it leaves and what structures it has punctured that prove to be the most injurious.
Remember, temporary cavitation and the like are not great enough with handgun bullets to cause damage. Therefore, we can only rely on the hole created in tissue, and the tissues actually damaged to allow blood to escape or to have severed the connections of CNS structures to turn off the power to bodily functions.
In that regard, the size of temporary cavitation and the size of the hole/disruption made at the initial point of tearing through the tissue is not relevant, the size of the hole left behind is relevant, hence looking at the permanent cavities and damage done to organs after the fact is of value.
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 14:32
The problem is that the initial/temporary tissue displacement is not what does the damage/causes the bullet to be effective. it is the wound channel it leaves and what structures it has punctured that prove to be the most injurious.
Remember, temporary cavitation and the like are not great enough with handgun bullets to cause damage. Therefore, we can only rely on the hole created in tissue, and the tissues actually damaged to allow blood to escape or to have severed the connections of CNS structures to turn off the power to bodily functions.
In that regard, the size of temporary cavitation and the size of the hole/disruption made at the initial point of tearing through the tissue is not relevant, the size of the hole left behind is relevant, hence looking at the permanent cavities and damage done to organs after the fact is of value.
Yes, I remember temporary cavitation, and we are not discussing temporary cavatation; therefore, I do not introduce it.
I agree that the "size of the hole"--permanent cavity--left behind is relevant and important. The bone (excuse the pun) of contention is whether the "size of the hole" varies with caliber. You, and others, argue that collapsed hole in elastic tissue caused by different caliber handgun bullets "look" the same. I agree. I disagree that casual observation of collapsed holes in elastic tissue means the tissue disruption is the same.
Perhaps, other things equal, a .69 cal wound track in elastic tissue is identical to the wound track of a .22 in the same tissue, but I remain unconvinced.
Yes, I remember temporary cavitation, and we are not discussing temporary cavatation; therefore, I do not introduce it.
I agree that the "size of the hole"--permanent cavity--left behind is relevant and important. The bone (excuse the pun) of contention is whether the "size of the hole" varies with caliber. You, and others, argue that collapsed hole in elastic tissue caused by different caliber handgun bullets "look" the same. I agree. I disagree that casual observation of collapsed holes in elastic tissue means the tissue disruption is the same.
Perhaps, other things equal, a .69 cal wound track in elastic tissue is identical to the wound track of a .22 in the same tissue, but I remain unconvinced.
Well, no, i never said a .69 cal wound track was the same as a .22.
Also, since we have no way to precisely measure and quantify it, then we have to go with what we know right now. And that is, in the opinion of over 50 different medical experts who deal with wounds that I have personally spoken to, either pre-mortem or post-mortem, that the size of the projectile is not discernable by the wound tract, and very little difference is seen between the various primary calibers. I'll take their word for it.
WHAT IS A TROLL?
They love "stopping power" threads. Or "hydrostatic shock" or "ballistic wave" or....:bad:
For you folks still in fantasy land about a hit to a hard plate causing you to be knocked down, I guess you missed the link I provided above directly showing someone being shot at point blank range with a full power .308 round:
Doc, here's a better quality image:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACsxUgdhRlI
Watch this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIhyETXW1u0
hard armor, soft armor, no diff, Mr. Davis just stands there without flying through the air or whatever.
Note the bit with AK fire to the hard plates. Note the first shot with the long barreled revolver is a full house .44mag
Why are so many calibers sold? Because people buy them, and it's the job of gun and ammo makers in the end to make money, through making what sells, not what you actually need.
Can anybody really say that the world actually needed the .223WSSM?
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 15:43
Well, no, i never said a .69 cal wound track was the same as a .22.
Also, since we have no way to precisely measure and quantify it, then we have to go with what we know right now. And that is, in the opinion of over 50 different medical experts who deal with wounds that I have personally spoken to, either pre-mortem or post-mortem, that the size of the projectile is not discernable by the wound tract, and very little difference is seen between the various primary calibers. I'll take their word for it.
I would love to see the scientific forensic research and data supporting the position. Do you have such or know where it can be obtained? For me, it would need to be more precise than a "little difference is seen" statement.
I would love to see the scientific forensic research and data supporting the position. Do you have such or know where it can be obtained? For me, it would need to be more precise than a "little difference is seen" statement.
Read this again;
I have this on authority of four different trauma docs, my local coroner (who has allowed me to observe on autopsies, so first hand experience here as well, in addition to 24 years on the street dealing with shooting victims and being a shooting review board member, also 40 years of hunting experience looking at bullet holes in meat), Doc on this site, Doc Williams of "Tactical Anatomy" fame (Google it up if you don't know), and other sources such as THE textbook on the subject, 'Gunshot Wounds' by Vincent J. M. Di Maio, and personal conversations with friends such as Jim Cirillo.
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 15:58
Read this again;
Doing so, right now.
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 16:48
Went one better--I just got off the phone from an extended conversation with Dr. DiMaio. A synopsis of the conversation follows:
Dr. DiMaio agrees that there is, indeed, a difference in size of the wound track among 9mm, .40, and .45 calibers, but that difference is not observable by just looking--visible inspection--because of the elastic nature of most tissue.
No entity, to his knowledge, has done a detailed forensic study to identify the actual differences in tissue disruption variance among the 9mm, .40, and .45 calibers, and such is not likely to happen.
We agreed that the difference in actual (although not apparent, visually) tissue displacement among the popular calibers is modest at best in the overall scheme of things involving human gunshot wounds.
Using an example of the 9mm 147 gr. Federal HST, the .40 cal. 180 gr. Federal HST, and the .45 cal. 230 gr. HST, shooting through the same live, elastic human tissue, the larger caliber will do finitely more damage, but without recovering the bullet or knowing from other evidence, he would not be able to identify the caliber or observe the difference.
There is, indeed, a difference among permanent cavities caused by similar 9mm, .40, and .45 bullets.
The exact difference is not known and is subject to discussion; however, at best, the difference is modest in comparison to the myriad variables in human gunshot wounds.
Some other input from Dr. DiMaio (for what they are worth):
Law enforcement agencies select Glocks because they are cheap.
He doesn't like handguns without hammers.
The .357 Sig is a superior choice because it duplicates the performance of the .357 magnum.
Bottom line:
The difference among permanent cavities for the 9mm, .40, and .45 is not zero but cannot be identified, visually, on autopsy.
BuckskinJoe
07-11-11, 17:06
BuckskinJoe--Good Job!
Thanks, Doc!
Reagans Rascals
07-11-11, 21:01
Thanks, Doc!
I appreciate your input, clear and concise. And I will concede the same that yes a larger round will do more damage but it will not be of significant value to be instantaneously measurable from the others if the round was not recovered.
I am interested in what exit wound patterns might exhibit. Does one exit through a larger cavity because of cavitation or yawing effects? Would an exit wound be observable as a specific round? Have there been any studies in this?
Bottom line:
The difference among permanent cavities for the 9mm, .40, and .45 is not zero but cannot be identified, visually, on autopsy.
Exactly the point I was getting at.
Although we know there is a difference, it is small whatever it is. This would directly contradict the folks who make statements like, "A 9mm is a ,45 set on stun" and other such garbage.
One may be better than the other to a slight degree in raw wounding ability, but it is hardly the difference between the ball peen in my garage and the Hammer of Thor.
Then there are the other issues that come to the table with said differences; recoil, gun/grip size, ammo cost for more ability to train, etc.
One may be better than the other to a slight degree in raw wounding ability, but it is hardly the difference between the ball peen in my garage and the Hammer of Thor.
Also, if we could accurately measure the difference in wounding ability, we would also have to find a way to translate that small difference into a measure of relative effectiveness, which is probably close to impossible.
BuckskinJoe
07-12-11, 05:08
Also, if we could accurately measure the difference in wounding ability, we would also have to find a way to translate that small difference into a measure of relative effectiveness, which is probably close to impossible.
It is not at all impossible, but cost-benefit aspects make such research unlikely to happen. Issues Dr. DiMaio and I discussed include:
Live tissue must be used, because "meat" responds very differently to gunshot wounds. It would be exceedingly challenging to get a large number of people to agree to be shot; so, something on the order of anesthetized pigs would have to be used.
A lot of pigs would be needed to achieve adequate sample sizes for each caliber/bullet and tissue type to do proper statistical analysis.
It would require at least one anesthesiologist and at least one veterinarian (likely more than one) along with researchers and associated equipment. The process would be long and arduous.
Bottom line:
A careful, scientific, forensic study of the differences among permanent cavities caused by various calibers/bullets would be exceedingly expensive to conduct. The results might be interesting and enlightening but unlikely to produce truly useful or needed information for the medical community, the military, or ammunition manufacturers. Consequently, no such study has been done (to Dr. DiMaio's knowledge), and it is doubtful one will be done.
Reagans Rascals
07-12-11, 06:26
I think adequate testing would probably never be able to be attained. The effects of rage and adrenaline wouldn't be able to be accounted for in those kinds of studies. A very large mentally ill human being high on PCP and adrenaline, with the sheer will to do harm, is going to behave much differently when shot, even if multiple organ systems are effected and destroyed.
This stuff has always fascinated me. I've had the pleasure and distinct honor of speaking with Doc on the phone when he went out of his way to help a dumb street cop. The work that he and those like him have done over the years are a treasure to guys like us. My hat's off.
That said, all this talk of permanent channels, expansion diameters, terminal effect and the like are interesting and make for great research materials and forum discussions but I want to know one thing. When I'm faced with some meth freak bent on my destruction in some alley or my crosshair is settled on the eyebox of a guy with a pistol to the head of his hostage, does the tool I have in my toolbox have the capability to flip his switch? At that moment I don't care about bleeding him out or taking out as many vital organs as possible. I want him done...now. To that end I train for that cns shot, understanding it's not always going to be possible, but training for it nonetheless. I also know that in the real world, not always having access to the cranial vault poses other issues, most importantly (to me) are intermediate barriers. It's for that reason alone I choose to carry the largest caliber I'm authorized in my sidearm and carbine. Heavy clothing in the winter, windshields and windows, etc. are what I plan/train for. Not a fan of the .223 or 9mm for those reasons.
Keep up the good work Doc.
I think adequate testing would probably never be able to be attained. The effects of rage and adrenaline wouldn't be able to be accounted for in those kinds of studies. A very large mentally ill human being high on PCP and adrenaline, with the sheer will to do harm, is going to behave much differently when shot, even if multiple organ systems are effected and destroyed.
Yes, almost impossible, you end up with data about pig incapacitation and that's about it. Animal experiments have been done for over 100 years and we still have people arguing about the best bullets and calibers. We still can't nail that jello to the wall.
Like I said before, I made my own decision about this subject and am content with it. It is an interesting subject, I must say. I guess that's why I still come back here to read about it.
That said, all this talk of permanent channels, expansion diameters, terminal effect and the like are interesting and make for great research materials and forum discussions but I want to know one thing. When I'm faced with some meth freak bent on my destruction in some alley or my crosshair is settled on the eyebox of a guy with a pistol to the head of his hostage, does the tool I have in my toolbox have the capability to flip his switch?
I'm not advocating its use in the situations you gave, but that's what a Taser seems to do more effectively than handguns....flip that switch. Perhaps someone will invent an electrically charged .22 Long Rifle bullet that will punch a wound channel and shock the CNS at the same time. Then we won't need any other calibers. Oh well, only dreaming.
QuietShootr
07-12-11, 13:45
Google "Claude Werner" to find out a little about a guy that is way ahead of the pack. He has maintained for years that a small caliber handgun is perfectly adequate for civilian personal defense. And you are more likely to have it too!
Ever since they came out, my personal defense handgun has been a tuned Kel-Tec .32. FMJ rounds penetrate adequately and multi-hits are easier than with the heavier recoil "pocket" guns. Not that it has ever been necessary, I also keep a very light coat of grease on the cartridge cases for added insurance. I also clean it thoroughly (especially the chamber) after every shooting session. And I have a duplicate practice gun, which is easy since they are so inexpensive. Reliability has been perfect.
Say what?
I tend to like to use analogies. I have been reading up on this topic quite a bit from reputable sources (i.e. DocGKR, etc.) and what I get from it is this:
Pistol caliber bullets (UNLIKE rifle caliber bullets) are like arrows. They merely punch holes in people. Nothing fancier than that. Therefore, as others have stated, the .45 will punch a slightly larger hole. The issue is that the hole (relative to the entire human torso/COM, NOT the caliber we are comparing against) will NOT be much larger than say a 9mm.
This increase is only significant if you happened to be in a situation where .10 or so would have made the difference between a hit and miss of vital organ, etc. Not saying this does not happen, but it is relatively unlikely.
This especially true when we factor in the BENEFITS of the 9mm. Being able to put MORE shots on target QUICKER has a greater benefit, relative to the small increase in diameter of the .45.
Speed and capacity matter more so than a slight increase in diameter. For barriers the larger calibers do seem to do better though. This is why knowledgeable shooters recommend 9mm for 90% of LE and Civ. situations.
This is all coming from someone who was (still is) a .45 fan. However, I am now making the switch to 9mm Glocks for the majority of my SD needs.
My. $.02
BuckskinJoe
07-13-11, 13:10
I tend to like to use analogies. I have been reading up on this topic quite a bit from reputable sources (i.e. DocGKR, etc.) and what I get from it is this:
Pistol caliber bullets (UNLIKE rifle caliber bullets) are like arrows. They merely punch holes in people. Nothing fancier than that. Therefore, as others have stated, the .45 will punch a slightly larger hole. The issue is that the hole (relative to the entire human torso/COM, NOT the caliber we are comparing against) will NOT be much larger than say a 9mm.
This increase is only significant if you happened to be in a situation where .10 or so would have made the difference between a hit and miss of vital organ, etc. Not saying this does not happen, but it is relatively unlikely.
This especially true when we factor in the BENEFITS of the 9mm. Being able to put MORE shots on target QUICKER has a greater benefit, relative to the small increase in diameter of the .45.
Speed and capacity matter more so than a slight increase in diameter. For barriers the larger calibers do seem to do better though. This is why knowledgeable shooters recommend 9mm for 90% of LE and Civ. situations.
This is all coming from someone who was (still is) a .45 fan. However, I am now making the switch to 9mm Glocks for the majority of my SD needs.
Although I still remain a bit of a big bore "fan," I agree with CQC.45's arguement for the 9mm. In fact, since we are well out in the "nit-pick" realm, anyway, I agree with people preferring the 9mm or the .40 or the .45.
Here is some elementary geometry pertaining to "the size of the hole:"
Assuming the 9mm expands to an average diameter of 0.60", it produces a "hole" of 0.285 square inches cross section.
Assuming the .40 expands to an average diameter of 0.65", it produces a "hole" of 0.332 square inches. 16.5% larger than the 9mm.
Assuming the .45 expands to an average diameter of 0.70", it produces a "hole" of 0.385 square inches. 16.0% larger than the .40.
Then, assuming each penetrates 12 inches, we get the following:
17 shots of 9mm yields a total wound channel of 57.7 cubic inches.
15 shots of .40 yields a total wound channel of 59.7 cubic inches.
13 shots of .45 yields a total wound channel of 60.0 cubic inches.
Six to one; half a dozen to the other?
I hereby sentence the deceased equine to another 40 lashes!
(the beatings will continue) :smile:
I am interested in what exit wound patterns might exhibit. Does one exit through a larger cavity because of cavitation or yawing effects? Would an exit wound be observable as a specific round? Have there been any studies in this?
Too many variables to offer a precise answer, but in a sample of 150 gunshot patients there were frequent cases where the appearances of the wounds were not helpful in determining entrance or exit site. Obviously that only applies to cases with 2 or more wounds. Things get complicated when you get 3 or more wounds.
One of the patients in my study had 10 individual wounds!
Clothing evidence can help determine which wound is the entrance and which is the exit, and also bone fracture patterns as seen radiologically. You then need to employ skin breach markers prior to X-ray. Even then, it may not be easy!
In some cases the distribution of the projectile fragments in the clothing and in the person's body will indicate which breach is the entrance.
There are many, many variables!
Failure2Stop
07-29-11, 12:27
Assuming the 9mm expands to an average diameter of 0.60", it produces a "hole" of 0.285 square inches cross section.
Assuming the .40 expands to an average diameter of 0.65", it produces a "hole" of 0.332 square inches. 16.5% larger than the 9mm.
Assuming the .45 expands to an average diameter of 0.70", it produces a "hole" of 0.385 square inches. 16.0% larger than the .40.
Then, assuming each penetrates 12 inches, we get the following:
17 shots of 9mm yields a total wound channel of 57.7 cubic inches.
15 shots of .40 yields a total wound channel of 59.7 cubic inches.
13 shots of .45 yields a total wound channel of 60.0 cubic inches.
Six to one; half a dozen to the other?
I hereby sentence the deceased equine to another 40 lashes!
(the beatings will continue) :smile:
The problem with your conclusion is that you are assuming that if something has a cross-section of 0.65" it will produce a hole with a 0.65" diameter. This is not the case with pistol caliber wounds.
Tissue is squishy and stretchy, and gunshot wounds are more like puncture wounds, at least until the hollow-point petals open up, and even then a great deal of the tissue that comes in direct contac with the projectile will simply slide around it, suffering only negligible damage. The expanded frontal section of the HP bullet will crush more tissue than an FMJ, but it won't have a 100% return in diameter. Also, where the petals open during the bullet's travel through tissue will effect the wound profile.
So, I can't look at a spend round at tell you exactly what kind of performance the projectile gave in 1 10,00th of a second any more than someone could determine performance based solely on caliber, which is why we have gelatin wound-profile analysis to provide witness of performance.
BuckskinJoe
07-29-11, 14:31
The problem with your conclusion is that you are assuming that if something has a cross-section of 0.65" it will produce a hole with a 0.65" diameter.
Incorrect.
I neither make that assumption nor make any such claim. I merely presented some elementary geometry calculations as an illustration. Please read my other posts.
Side question, to add to my own knowledge base, who exactly is Dr. DiMaio?
BuckskinJoe--Good Job!
Aww, I never get a "Good job" from Doc! :cray::laugh::sarcastic:
The .357 Sig is a superior choice because it duplicates the performance of the .357 magnum.
Interesting conclusion. However, the .357sig is by an engineer's standpoint a deadend caliber, just like the 7.62 Tokarev. It is limited to a small selection of bullet lengths and weights and cannot duplicate the versitility of the .357mag which can shoot loads as light as 90gr, or as heavy as 180gr.
If indeed the .357mag is somehow superior, then a better auto cartridge alternative would be the 9x23 Winchester which has the capability to be loaded more to .357mag specs.
Perhaps we can get Michael Courtney to submerge another deer and blast away at the water around it. :D
Side question, to add to my own knowledge base, who exactly is Dr. DiMaio?
Vincent DiMaio wrote the book "Gunshot Wounds"
http://tinyurl.com/3fke3ht
Vincent DiMaio wrote the book "Gunshot Wounds"
http://tinyurl.com/3fke3ht
Thanks. Another book to add to my list. You learn something new every day
Failure2Stop
08-01-11, 06:18
Incorrect.
I neither make that assumption nor make any such claim. I merely presented some elementary geometry calculations as an illustration. Please read my other posts.
I didn't do the math and you didn't show your work, so I made an assumption by your end-numbers of how you generated your conclusion. If you used a different method for wound diameter (such as measuring a gel shot) then my accusation falls flat and I fully withdraw it.
Went one better--I just got off the phone from an extended conversation with Dr. DiMaio. A synopsis of the conversation follows:
Dr. DiMaio agrees that there is, indeed, a difference in size of the wound track among 9mm, .40, and .45 calibers, but that difference is not observable by just looking--visible inspection--because of the elastic nature of most tissue.
No entity, to his knowledge, has done a detailed forensic study to identify the actual differences in tissue disruption variance among the 9mm, .40, and .45 calibers, and such is not likely to happen.
We agreed that the difference in actual (although not apparent, visually) tissue displacement among the popular calibers is modest at best in the overall scheme of things involving human gunshot wounds.
Using an example of the 9mm 147 gr. Federal HST, the .40 cal. 180 gr. Federal HST, and the .45 cal. 230 gr. HST, shooting through the same live, elastic human tissue, the larger caliber will do finitely more damage, but without recovering the bullet or knowing from other evidence, he would not be able to identify the caliber or observe the difference.
There is, indeed, a difference among permanent cavities caused by similar 9mm, .40, and .45 bullets.
The exact difference is not known and is subject to discussion; however, at best, the difference is modest in comparison to the myriad variables in human gunshot wounds.
Some other input from Dr. DiMaio (for what they are worth):
Law enforcement agencies select Glocks because they are cheap.
He doesn't like handguns without hammers.
The .357 Sig is a superior choice because it duplicates the performance of the .357 magnum.
Bottom line:
The difference among permanent cavities for the 9mm, .40, and .45 is not zero but cannot be identified, visually, on autopsy.
I agree with this, although one of the things I would want to look at is the differences in size when you factor in variance of velocity and how that affects the puncture point of tissue in its elastic cycle.
For example, a slower projectile might stretch tissue further before puncturing simply because the tissue has more time to stretch before tearing through compared to a faster projectile. If that is indeed the case, then the larger, slower projectile that stretches tissue more would, theoretically, relax back to a smaller diameter than a projectile that punches through sooner.
Or, I could be completely full of it. It would be interesting to study, if for no other reason than to understand more about how it works.
BuckskinJoe
08-01-11, 11:16
I didn't do the math and you didn't show your work, so I made an assumption by your end-numbers of how you generated your conclusion. If you used a different method for wound diameter (such as measuring a gel shot) then my accusation falls flat and I fully withdraw it.
Good grief!
First of all, in the post you addressed, I demonstrated, geometrically and mathematically, the percentage differences among 9mm, .40, and .451 holes. I fully understand that those differences will not, necessarily hold with handgun projectiles penetrating live, human tissue. I am fully aware of that; so, there is no need for an "accusation."
Even Dr. Roberts has stated, in another post and thread, that, other things equal, a .45 makes a bigger hole, and Dr. DiMaio agrees a larger caliber (other things equal) does more damage than a smaller caliber; although the difference is not observable on autopsy. In the entire scheme of terminal ballistics, such differences are modest at best, but we continue to batter the deceased equine.
If, however, we say, because we can't see it, there is no wounding difference among calibers, then:
1. expanding projectiles have no effect, at least, nothing caused by larger effective diameters.
2. a bowling ball sized projectile would have the same wound channel as a BB, which is ludicrous.
Other things equal, a bigger bullet makes a bigger hole, but other things are never equal.
Among 9mm, .40, and .45, the difference is not observable in elastic human or animal flesh.
There have been no scientific studies (to Dr. DiMaio's knowledge) to determine the difference in tissue damage done to similar live tissue by similar bullets in 9mm, .40, and .45.
Again, I agree: it ain't no big deal, when there are so many other variables and more important variables.
Gonna need some DNA testing to determine the origin of the pulped pile of flesh, here. I think it was a horse, but there is no way to tell on autopsy! :)
Good grief!
First of all, in the post you addressed, I demonstrated, geometrically and mathematically, the percentage differences among 9mm, .40, and .451 holes. I fully understand that those differences will not, necessarily hold with handgun projectiles penetrating live, human tissue. I am fully aware of that; so, there is no need for an "accusation."
Even Dr. Roberts has stated, in another post and thread, that, other things equal, a .45 makes a bigger hole, and Dr. DiMaio agrees a larger caliber (other things equal) does more damage than a smaller caliber; although the difference is not observable on autopsy. In the entire scheme of terminal ballistics, such differences are modest at best, but we continue to batter the deceased equine.
If, however, we say, because we can't see it, there is no wounding difference among calibers, then:
1. expanding projectiles have no effect, at least, nothing caused by larger effective diameters.
2. a bowling ball sized projectile would have the same wound channel as a BB, which is ludicrous.
Other things equal, a bigger bullet makes a bigger hole, but other things are never equal.
Among 9mm, .40, and .45, the difference is not observable in elastic human or animal flesh.
There have been no scientific studies (to Dr. DiMaio's knowledge) to determine the difference in tissue damage done to similar live tissue by similar bullets in 9mm, .40, and .45.
Again, I agree: it ain't no big deal, when there are so many other variables and more important variables.
Gonna need some DNA testing to determine the origin of the pulped pile of flesh, here. I think it was a horse, but there is no way to tell on autopsy! :)
I'll just leave this here...
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231027/uncyclopedia/images/archive/1/11/20080202231407!Beating-a-dead-horse.gif
Interesting conclusion. However, the .357sig is by an engineer's standpoint a deadend caliber, just like the 7.62 Tokarev. It is limited to a small selection of bullet lengths and weights and cannot duplicate the versitility of the .357mag which can shoot loads as light as 90gr, or as heavy as 180gr.
If indeed the .357mag is somehow superior, then a better auto cartridge alternative would be the 9x23 Winchester which has the capability to be loaded more to .357mag specs.
While the .357 magnum is certainly more versatile, it(along with the 9x23) doesn't fit in guns that the .357 Sig will. You can't discount that. ;)
Other things equal, a bigger bullet makes a bigger hole, but other things are never equal.
Among 9mm, .40, and .45, the difference is not observable in elastic human or animal flesh.
There have been no scientific studies (to Dr. DiMaio's knowledge) to determine the difference in tissue damage done to similar live tissue by similar bullets in 9mm, .40, and .45.
:)
And even if those differences are determined, how do we translate them into a measure of relative effectiveness? I suspect the differences in tissue damage caused by those handgun cartridges are inconsequential when compared to the mass of a human body.
Well, we can say that a bigger hole will let out more blood more quickly, so in theory the time it takes for the body to become incapacitated from blood loss will be reduced with the larger hole.
Now, there comes the next step in that discussion which has to qualify the difference between multiple smaller holes or lesser numbers of larger ones, or precisely how tissue reacts to various projectiles, which may or many not affect how things happen...
needless to say, I don't believe we have the resources to study the minutia that it would take to determine all of these fine details, which would add little to the question of effectiveness.
Well, we can say that a bigger hole will let out more blood more quickly, so in theory the time it takes for the body to become incapacitated from blood loss will be reduced with the larger hole.
That is true. Maybe a glug glug test firing at liquid filled ballistic gelatin containers is in order.;)
needless to say, I don't believe we have the resources to study the minutia that it would take to determine all of these fine details, which would add little to the question of effectiveness
I agree, which brings us full circle. The definitive, scientifically determined answer to the question of adequate service handgun effectiveness refuses to be found no matter how hard we try. Those interested in the subject believe one current dogma vs another. They accept it as their religion and are happy with their chosen arm.
Sixty+ years ago they shot into pine boards to measure handgun capabilities and were fine with that. To each his own. I have my own belief and I am content with it. Basically, choose something that can launch a dull piece of metal that has enough velocity to plow through any human from any angle and break every bone encountered along the way before exit.
Glock17JHP
08-02-11, 13:30
"The .357 Sig is a superior choice because it duplicates the performance of the .357 magnum."
Really??? Really???
Since I think the best .357 Magnum loads are HP's that are 145 grains up to 180 grains... I disagree. I am not aware of a Winchester 180 grain Partition Gold HP in .357 Sig... :confused:
"The .357 Sig is a superior choice because it duplicates the performance of the .357 magnum."
Really??? Really???
Since I think the best .357 Magnum loads are HP's that are 145 grains up to 180 grains... I disagree. I am not aware of a Winchester 180 grain Partition Gold HP in .357 Sig... :confused:
Agreed. The .357mag 180gr PG is one incredibly good performing load which the .357sig cannot come close to duplicating. You really need at least a .45acp/10mm/.38 Super action length, in order to come close to the case capacity of the .357magnum. That's why the 9x23 Winchester is a better alternative. There's also the 9x25mm Dillon.
The .357mag 180gr PG expands a little less and penetrates a little more than the Sig 125 Gold Dot. Not sure how that's so much better. The Sig has 14+ inches of penetration, which is well within the acceptable zone. I'm sure Speer could redesign the Sig bullet to duplicate the PG mags performance if they wanted.
Glock17JHP
08-03-11, 13:28
The .357mag 180gr PG expands a little less and penetrates a little more than the Sig 125 Gold Dot. Not sure how that's so much better. The Sig has 14+ inches of penetration, which is well within the acceptable zone. I'm sure Speer could redesign the Sig bullet to duplicate the PG mags performance if they wanted.
Can you tell me the expansion and penetration figures for both the Winchester .357 Magnum 180 grain Partition Gold HP and the Speer .357 Sig 125 grain Gold Dot HP?
Can you tell me the expansion and penetration figures for both the Winchester .357 Magnum 180 grain Partition Gold HP and the Speer .357 Sig 125 grain Gold Dot HP?
http://mp-pistol.com/boards/index.php?/topic/13576-docgkr-357-ammo-question/page__view__findpost__p__130202
http://le.atk.com/pdf/GoldDotPoster.pdf
hatt,
Wow... that info was like a sucker punch!!! I had no idea!!!
Firstly, let me say that I was unaware of any .357 Sig load that could expand to that diameter and still go that deep... especially with that light of a projectile weight!!! However, Speer Gold Dot HP's can be pushed faster than many of the other bullet designs without breaking apart and losing jackets, for obvious reasons. I personally used to load the 90 grain Gold Dot HP that is designed for the .380 ACP at maximum safe velocities, and it held together well in spite of it. I will say, though... I am not fond of bullets loaded that fast for SD purposes, and would expect recoil above what I like, too.
As for the Winchester .357 Magnum 180 grain PG HP... I trust DocGKR enough to accept the data given for that load, but am a bit disappointed because it is not real close to what I got in my testing, and what I have seen from someone else. In my testing (same revolver model and barrel length as the data you posted), I got expansion from .646 to .696", or roughly .65 to .70", and the 'petals' of the HP stuck almost straight out at about 90 degrees in relation to the sides.
So... this came as a surprise to me...
Glock17JHP,
Don't forget that "recovered diameter" takes two points on the JHP to be measured.....the max and min diameter, and then divides them by two. So even though the PG may expand to .70", the portion around the truck of the bullet doesn't expand hardly at all. Gold Dots and other common JHPs mushroom a little more evenly so that that minimum diameter measurement is wider.
Glock17JHP
08-04-11, 19:45
hatt,
Wow... that info was like a sucker punch!!! I had no idea!!!
Firstly, let me say that I was unaware of any .357 Sig load that could expand to that diameter and still go that deep... especially with that light of a projectile weight!!! However, Speer Gold Dot HP's can be pushed faster than many of the other bullet designs without breaking apart and losing jackets, for obvious reasons. I personally used to load the 90 grain Gold Dot HP that is designed for the .380 ACP at maximum safe velocities, and it held together well in spite of it. I will say, though... I am not fond of bullets loaded that fast for SD purposes, and would expect recoil above what I like, too.
As for the Winchester .357 Magnum 180 grain PG HP... I trust DocGKR enough to accept the data given for that load, but am a bit disappointed because it is not real close to what I got in my testing, and what I have seen from someone else. In my testing (same revolver model and barrel length as the data you posted), I got expansion from .646 to .696", or roughly .65 to .70", and the 'petals' of the HP stuck almost straight out at about 90 degrees in relation to the sides.
So... this came as a surprise to me...
http://mp-pistol.com/boards/index.php?/topic/13576-docgkr-357-ammo-question/page__view__findpost__p__130202
http://le.atk.com/pdf/GoldDotPoster.pdf
". . . frequently penetrated deeper than ideal for use on biped opponents."
Over penetration!? Clearly the good Doc hasn't faced down an angry 6'6" Emu racing toward him at 30 mph! Biped, indeed ;) (Wasn't it Plato who gave Socrates' definition of "man" as a "featherless biped", So Diogenes plucked a chicken and tossed it over the Academy wall? Something on that order. . .)
This is an intriguing thread for the uninitiated, such as myself. It appears a great deal of elementary classical physics knowledge put forward by high school science teachers fell stillborn. But alas! It seems to have quickened some of those long deceased ramblings from my high school and college physics teachers/profs. I am now motivated to look into this dead horse subject, myself. Ab ovo it is.
Thanks for sparking an interest for an old man
hatt,
Wow... that info was like a sucker punch!!! I had no idea!!!
Firstly, let me say that I was unaware of any .357 Sig load that could expand to that diameter and still go that deep... especially with that light of a projectile weight!!! However, Speer Gold Dot HP's can be pushed faster than many of the other bullet designs without breaking apart and losing jackets, for obvious reasons. I personally used to load the 90 grain Gold Dot HP that is designed for the .380 ACP at maximum safe velocities, and it held together well in spite of it. I will say, though... I am not fond of bullets loaded that fast for SD purposes, and would expect recoil above what I like, too.
As for the Winchester .357 Magnum 180 grain PG HP... I trust DocGKR enough to accept the data given for that load, but am a bit disappointed because it is not real close to what I got in my testing, and what I have seen from someone else. In my testing (same revolver model and barrel length as the data you posted), I got expansion from .646 to .696", or roughly .65 to .70", and the 'petals' of the HP stuck almost straight out at about 90 degrees in relation to the sides.
So... this came as a surprise to me...
The 357 Sig can also push a 147 1200 f/s. That would be a great round for guys that like heavier bullets. Should penetrate a mile with great expansion if the design's right. The Sig gets type cast as a one25 trick pony but it's got a little versatility.
What got me into the 357 Sig round is I'm from the old light fast camp. Later, I noticed the other side made a lot of sense too. With modern bullets the Sig gives me fast, along with good expansion, weight retention, and deep penetration.
Glock17JHP
08-05-11, 13:20
KhanRad,
OK... I have been educated on this thread... and that is a good thing.
hatt,
I think I see where you are coming from... however, I still like the Winchester Ranger 147 grain JHP at about 975 FPS. I was in the light-fast camp in the 1970's and 1980's, but then I got into the IWBA and became a heavy-slow follower. In the former days I liked the .357 Magnum, and in the latter days I liked the .45 ACP. After learning that there was less difference in wounding effect between handgun calibers than was previously thought, I eventually downsized to the 9mm (Glock 17, then 19). Really, though... I would grab my 12 gauge if I knew I were going to a shootout and wasn't limited to a handgun...
Wow - now I've seen it all: A guy with no credentials arguing with one of the foremost experts in the field. It'd be like me telling a neurosurgeon about the brain and arguing with him based on my (incorrect) preconceived notions!
Glock17JHP
08-06-11, 18:33
Zhukov,
I jumped in late on this thread. However... I decided to go back a page or so to try to figure out who you were talking about.
I think I am done here.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.