[wheelgunslinger]

Lately, I've become intrigued with the new smaller caliber/ higher velocity rounds that have come to market.
A round like the .17HMR, when shot from pistol barrels (like taurus' 4" wheelgun) seems like it might make a nifty self defense setup.
Moving the projectile faster, but having it lighter seems like a good way to reduce recoil and retain a solid effect of breaching bone mass as well as large organ mass like the heart/lung complex in an attacker. And of course, the CNS.
Am I just completely misinterpreting data here? Are the small bore/ high velocity rounds not capable of much more than dispatching squirrels?
I'm a bit underschooled in the smaller caliber weapons since I've been hurling .45 caliber slugs most of my handgunning life. But, it's intriguing.

[Black Majik]

While those are valid points, for a CCW gun, I'd still rather carry a centerfire handgun.

[RyanM]

What type of knife would you rather have for self defense; a thumbtack or a bowie knife? That's the level of difference between .17 HMR and any decent caliber.

Just to give you an idea of the real, physical difference in ability to inflict damage:

.17 HMR hollowpoint that expands 1.6x:
17 gr at 1400 fps
8.3" penetration
5.7 grams tissue crushed total
0.4 effective grams crushed, modified by penetration factor

9mm 147 gr hollowpoint that expands 1.6x
147 gr at 990 fps
13.8" penetration
43 grams tissue crushed total
33.5 effective grams crushed, assuming 10" long wound path

.45 230 gr hollowpoint that expands 1.6x
230 gr at 875 fps
13.1" penetration
65.2 grams tissue crushed total
53.9 effective grams crushed, assuming 10" long wound path

In other words, 9mm is almost 84 times more effective than .17 HMR from a pistol, while .45 is nearly 135 times more effective. The general rule is that 0.22 grams crushed per pound of body weight is the minimum "adequate" performance. So for humans, 30-40 is adequate.

The 5 grams of tissue which a .17 HMR can crush is adequate for animals of about 25 pounds or less. Very small dogs, raccoons, possums, feral cats, etc.

[pauli]

17hmr is fine for self defense, so long as you move your definition of self defense from things like "shoot to stop" towards "shoot to put someone's eye out."

[GregGry]

There becomes a point where a projectile is so light that unless you crank it at light speed, its just not going to penetrate. Take a BB for example. At 400fps I can't get a bb to penetrate a polo shirt from point blank. At 800 fps I bet it would go throught he polo shirt, and maybe into a human body by a little bit. Bring it up to 1,800 fps, and it might do some damage, but its so light that it just wont be anywhere near a relaible stoper. Since the projectile has no weight, its velocity will drop off very sharply.

[Mr_Moore]

From:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/17HMR.htm


The .17 HMR was designed to outperform the .22 WMR in velocity and trajectory, and be less susceptible to wind drift


So you have a smaller bullet traveling faster - probably comprable energy - for better long range target shooting.

It seems to me that if you were carrying a .22 (someone is) for self defense (self defense is mostly short range) you would gain almost nothing by switching to the .17. Now if you were target plinking, the .17 should be the winner. I had comparision trajectory diagrams between the 2 but I can not currently find them.

I remember the .17 being flatter - less parabolic.

[MachIVshooter]

The problem with .17 HMR as a defensive round lies mostly in the bullet construction, which is extremely light. These little bullets virtually explode on impact. So penetration will be insufficient. Also, when fired from a handgun barrel they do not produce enough velocity to cause the traumatic temporary wound cavites associated with rifle cartridges.

I know of a man whose wife shot him in the side with a .17 Remington rifle (25 gr. HP @ over 4,000 FPS). The wound was about the size of a softabll cut in half (crater in his flesh, basically), but no significant bullet fragment hit an organ. He survived with a nasty scar as a reminder to check the chamber before handing off a gun.

If possible, 9mm should be considered minimum for serious self defense. .380 if nothing larger will go.

[wheelgunslinger]

Thanks for the responses.
I wasn't sure if the small caliber + high velocity would equal big wound or not. Now I know.
Thanks.
Of course, I'll continue to carry my .45 and won't be switching to any micro projectiles anytime soon. Besides, here in NC, I believe the minimum caliber for ccw is .22 anyway.

This question was brought on by my experimentation with an old milsurp flak vest. My old .45 (long) colt wouldn't even penetrate it. Of course, handloads and buffalo bore ammo can do more. And good ACP rounds can do more than the anemic silvertips, but I'm constantly evaluating my ammo choices and trying to come up with better ways to sling lead more efficiently.
Since it's winter, I've been thinking about increased clothing thickness (maybe as many as 5 layers) and how it relates to projectile slowing. The .45 ACP rounds I'm shooting (out of the box hydra shock) may not be able to penetrate and do the damage I'd like to think they can do. But having shot a friend's FN 5.7, I'm considering going to a faster/smaller cartridge. But, now I've crossed .17hmr off the list.
Maybe what I need is a simple solution like .357 mag.

[Janitor]

Maybe what I need is a simple solution like .357 mag.
Looks like you already know the answer. :)

A 158 gn Gold Dot @ 1200-1300 fps should be wonderfully adequate for most tasks.
-

[Vitamin G]

Because I'm lazy and busy with work, i'll just pose the question rather than look it up myself...
1) How many 17HMR's could you fit in a Glock 17 sized magazine?
2) How does 17HMR compare to 5.7 in bullet weight, speed, cost, capacity?

[Father Knows Best]

.17HMR on human = long range accupuncture. NOT suitable for defensive purposes. :neener:

[1911 guy]

I'll see your .17 and raise you a Red Ryder!

[pauli]

every fallout player knows to fear the red ryder le.

[Mr_Moore]

At this website:

http://www.varmintal.com/17hmr.htm

A few folks did some tests on .17 HMR. In one case the bullet penetrated a coke can filled with water and sprayed it everywhere. I did not see an exit hole on the can!

I think I'm keeping my .357.

[JJE]

Good link, Mr Moore - lots of charts, graphs, pics. The site says that the bullet did not exit the Coke can - pretty surprising.

[unspellable]

It's my opinion that the 17 HMR would make an excellent stopper if you have a problem with overly agressive rats.

BTW: The 17 HMR clocks an average of about 1975 fps out of my six inch revolver.

[MICHAEL T]

It's my opinion that the 17 HMR would make an excellent stopper if you have a problem with overly agressive rats.

BTW: The 17 HMR clocks an average of about 1975 fps out of my six inch revolver.

Small overly agressive rats Wouldn't go after the big ones I'd use a 22 mag for them :D
It's impressive on full cheap beer cans or coke cans. But I ve never been jumped by a full coke can and I never give a beer can a chance,to be full.

[unspellable]

22 Mag sounds a bit on the weak side for Coke cans.

We used to figure it took at least a 375 H&H to stop a charging milk jug.

Some things can be foolers, a 22 LR will stop a rabbit but a 30-06 won't stop a jack rabbit. (Jack rabbits ain't rabbits anyway, they're hares. You may say I am splitting hares, but I didn't do that until after skinning them.)

[MachIVshooter]

Since it's winter, I've been thinking about increased clothing thickness (maybe as many as 5 layers) and how it relates to projectile slowing. The .45 ACP rounds I'm shooting (out of the box hydra shock) may not be able to penetrate and do the damage I'd like to think they can do. But having shot a friend's FN 5.7, I'm considering going to a faster/smaller cartridge. But, now I've crossed .17hmr off the list.
Maybe what I need is a simple solution like .357 mag.

If you want a bottomfeeder that will penetrate better than the good 'ol ACP (without sacrificing ft/lbs), consider a 10mm. The factory loaded UMC 180 grain FMJ's are not exactly a hot load, but will penetrate far deeper than 200 or 230 gr. .45 FMJ. They average 1150-1200 FPS from a 5" gun. If you handload (or know someone that does), you can push 180's up to 1,400 FPS.

[MCgunner]

What type of knife would you rather have for self defense; a thumbtack or a bowie knife? That's the level of difference between .17 HMR and any decent caliber.

Just to give you an idea of the real, physical difference in ability to inflict damage:

.17 HMR hollowpoint that expands 1.6x:
17 gr at 1400 fps
8.3" penetration
5.7 grams tissue crushed total
0.4 effective grams crushed, modified by penetration factor

9mm 147 gr hollowpoint that expands 1.6x
147 gr at 990 fps
13.8" penetration
43 grams tissue crushed total
33.5 effective grams crushed, assuming 10" long wound path

.45 230 gr hollowpoint that expands 1.6x
230 gr at 875 fps
13.1" penetration
65.2 grams tissue crushed total
53.9 effective grams crushed, assuming 10" long wound path

In other words, 9mm is almost 84 times more effective than .17 HMR from a pistol, while .45 is nearly 135 times more effective. The general rule is that 0.22 grams crushed per pound of body weight is the minimum "adequate" performance. So for humans, 30-40 is adequate.

The 5 grams of tissue which a .17 HMR can crush is adequate for animals of about 25 pounds or less. Very small dogs, raccoons, possums, feral cats, etc.

Must be some new pseudo-science stuff I haven't read about for "stopping power". I haven't picked up a gun mag in five years, I guess. :rolleyes: How would, say, a .22 caliber, 45 grain bullet traveling at 3900 feet per second do for crushing tissue? Does this just consider frontal area of the bullet? You have to consider shock in a supersonic load, too.

I think if you hit a man with a .22-250 bullet at 15 feet center mass, he'd stop rather abruptly. Have you ever seen the shock damage a light centerfire rifle with a varmint bullet can do in big game? I've never used one, but I know guys that use .22-250s on deer here. Texas deer aren't huge and the gun does kill like lightening in the lungs. There's nothing left of the lungs when the bullet is placed properly. I don't know how much tissue the bullet crushed on the way through, but I know it destroyed the whole friggin' lung cavity.:eek: Hydrostatic shock is the only think I can come up with for such damage. That bullet is SIZZLING at near mach 4 out of the barrel. I'm convinced that with handgun bullets like the lighter 9s and 125 grain .357s traveling well over the speed of sound, hydrostatic shock plays a role.

However, I wouldn't carry a .17 rimfire for primary self defense. You can carry a much larger caliber in the same space. Now, if we're talking NAA mini revolver in a pocket, there might be a place for it in the scheme of things. I wouldn't want to rely on it, though, as a primary defense gun.

[RyanM]

More like based on equations written by a guy with a Master's degree in physics, who also wrote equations for the Mercury, Apollo, and Gemini rocket launches a few decades ago.

http://pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/

[MCgunner]

More like based on equations written by a guy with a Master's degree in physics, who also wrote equations for the Mercury, Apollo, and Gemini rocket launches a few decades ago.

http://pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/


Fackler's just another hack IMHO. I don't profess to know it all, but most of the stuff I've read, he's another big bullet champion with a cause. I know I've read that he doesn't have much faith in geletin testing and the "temporary stretch cavity", but I suspect that's caused by shock and I suspect it does tissue damage. I've yet to hear anyone try to quantify the effects of a supersonic shock wave in tissue, though. By observation and logical deduction, I know it exists and while all it does in air is cause a "sonic boom", water is not as compressable as air.

All the junk science about, "Strausburg tests", gelatin studies, gunfight statistics. You can believe who you'd like cause the world's full of "experts" that know it all and none of them seem to agree on anything.:rolleyes:

[RyanM]

So you're basically discounting a guy with decades of experience with treating gunshot wounds, because you don't understand basic physics. The speed of sound in tissue is over 4,900 fps. Ever seen a pistol shooting bullets over 4,900 fps? No? Then there's no "shock wave," only temporary cavity. So because you "suspect" that the temporary cavity causes damage at pistol velocities, you totally discount decades of research and firsthand experience treating gunshot wounds.

[MCgunner]

So you're basically discounting a guy with decades of experience with treating gunshot wounds, because you don't understand basic physics. The speed of sound in tissue is over 4,900 fps. Ever seen a pistol shooting bullets over 4,900 fps? No? Then there's no "shock wave," only temporary cavity. So because you "suspect" that the temporary cavity causes damage at pistol velocities, you totally discount decades of research and firsthand experience treating gunshot wounds.

Whatever you say, genius. We all have our heros. I just know there's more tissue damage than what the bullet touches. I've gutted enough deer to know that. I've gutted 'em pistol and rifle shot.

I've always figured it was about energy and the ability to transfer that energy. That's sorta what exterior ballistics and terminal ballistics are all about. I don't think because a bullet is 0.1" bigger, it's going to do that much more than the smaller bullet if both bullets are equal in energy and expand to transfer that energy and the faster bullet has the extra hydrostatic shock to go with it (admittedly not proven, just my theory).

No handgun is a rifle. So, I really don't care about all the terminal ballistic studies. They all seem to be written by guys with agendas, either one way or the other. I could chose to spout off Marshall's statistics. I mean, what better source than actual gunfights, right? But, my education was in fisheries management. I know a little something about statistics and how they can so easily be biased, by mistake or intention.

Believe what you want. I'm not into the "stopping power" debate anymore. I've heard it all, from "the 45 will blow a man off his feet" to Chuck Taylor's conjured up momentum calculations as mathematical "proof" for the big bullet theory. A man can "prove" about anything if his readers think he knows what he's talking about. Engineers I've worked with were superb at this ethic, "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS."

That said, we both seem to agree on the .17 not being a caliber to bet your life on.;)

[gbran]

Caliber doesn't matter.

It's all about shot placement!!!!!! And the larger the caliber, the less chance of proper shot placement. (/sarcasm)

[Mr_Moore]

Good link, Mr Moore - lots of charts, graphs, pics. The site says that the bullet did not exit the Coke can - pretty surprising.


Thanks for the thumbs up on the site.



I must have missed that about the bullet not exiting.

[MCgunner]

Caliber doesn't matter.

It's all about shot placement!!!!!! And the larger the caliber, the less chance of proper shot placement. (/sarcasm)

I was all set to argue this one, too, until I saw the "/sarcasm" :D

Ah, but it's all good, 100% disapproval of the .17 for CCW. I wonder about those little S&W 9 ounce J frame alloy guns, too. I mean, they're light, they're handy, but you could carry an alloy .38 just as easy! WHAT are they thinking with this one????? I do carry a .22, but only because it's so friggin' easy and it's in my pocket IN ADDITION to whatever's on my hip or in my back pocket. I'd NEVER THINK of carrying a .22 for primary carry. If S&W would put a set of sights on that alloy gun and extend the barrel 4" (heck, they probably have and I don't know about it, not reading zines like I used to) it'd be a GREAT kit gun. But, no .22 is a primary CCW weapon. If you're that recoil shy, carry pepper gas and pray a lot. It's sorta like guys that want to know if a .30 carbine is enough for deer cause they want their 9 year old to hunt this year. I tell 'em if he can't handle a .243, wait till next year. :rolleyes: If you can't handle a .380 or .38 special, practice until you can.

If I'm out without my .38 or 9, just my little NAA in a pocket, I consider myself unarmed. I consider 200 ft lbs about the bottom of what I want to carry. The .380 almost makes that. It's minimum in my feeble mind for CCW. I carry it when I can't go IWB for one reason or another. I ride a motorcycle everywhere I go, pretty much, and I can pull that .380 out in its wallet holster, doesn't look like a gun in public unless you look really close, and I can pop the seat and lock it under there if I can't legally carry it in somewhere. That's pretty handy. I don't wanna be in a parking lot taking my 9 off in front of the public.

[Red Tornado]

But having shot a friend's FN 5.7, I'm considering going to a faster/smaller cartridge. But, now I've crossed .17hmr off the list

Sound like you want to look in to the 7.62x25. :D If 85 grains at ~1400-1600fps doesn't get 'em, the bleeding eardrums from the report will. Unfortunately, you can't get it in a carry size package.
RT

P.S. Forgot to mention...no on the .17hmr. You can put an eye out with those things!

[unspellable]

The 7.62 x 25 is available in the Tokarev or in the CZ52, neither of which are particulary large psitols. Bigger than a pocket pistol but a tad on the smallish side as service pistols run. Homely as a mud fence, but reliable.

[MCgunner]

The 7.62 x 25 is available in the Tokarev or in the CZ52, neither of which are particulary large psitols. Bigger than a pocket pistol but a tad on the smallish side as service pistols run. Homely as a mud fence, but reliable.

I had a Tokarev in 9mm and it was a danged decent gun, reliable, adequate, if mediocre combat accuracy. They're single actions and the safety is anything, but user friendly, so I used to carry it condition two an just cock it on the draw. That carry, hammer on the safety notch, wasn't the safest of safe, but heck, it beat condition three or condition one and I just didn't drop it on its hammer when loaded. The thing was very flat and the grip, while full sized, was short enough to conceal well. It only weighed about 25 ounces and rode light on the belt. If you just have to have the 7.62, you could do a lot worse than a Tokarev and they're dirt cheap to boot! Also, I've found that gunsmiths can lighten triggers, do work on them. Might even be able to get it somewhat accurized since it's basically a 1911 action. It's serviceable right out of the box, though.

P.S. Forgot to mention...no on the .17hmr. You can put an eye out with those things!

My favorite Christmas movie. :D