Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

GaryArkansas
August 26, 2007, 09:54 PM
I looked at a couple of threads tonite, and I keep seeing a couple of terms repeated - energy dump and energy transfer. I thought these ideas were debunked in the mid 1990's?

Bad guys do not fall down because one bullet has more kinetic energy than another bullet.

Kinetic energy, also called energy transfer, does not, by itself, kill bad guys. It does not knock them down. It is not, by itself, a man stopper.

"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding."

Overpenetration - realistically, its just not an issue. "... virtually none have ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander through an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large numbers of officers have been killed because their bullets did not penetrate deeply enough."

http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html

Your comments?

If you enjoyed reading about "Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The_Antibubba
August 26, 2007, 11:17 PM
Temporary cavity does not wound.

But it can have a debilitating effect on nerve tissues, right?

fletcher
August 26, 2007, 11:40 PM
Keep in mind that I'm talking about handguns in all of the following:

I believe that your stop/kill/injure/whateveryouwanttocallit is a function of many variables. The easiest ones to measure are energy, momentum, initial diamer of the round, and final diameter of the round. Most everything else is an approximation (even ballistic gelatin), regardless of accuracy.

I also believe that after you reach a caliber capable of sufficient penetration and hole-making ability, "Bad guys do not fall down because one bullet has more kinetic energy than another bullet" is true. But, energy transfer results in failure of materials, including human tissue.

Penetration is probably the #1 requirement, I won't argue that.

As far as I knew, "knock down power" was completely figurative. It was just terminology for "will the BG go down after he gets shot with ___" a time or two. No handgun round will result in a literal knockdown on a grown person. Sounds like this was taken a little too seriously.

Now shock, hrm, that's debatable. I understand that some people who might know they have been shot might have a mental reaction to it, causing them to cease what they're doing and essentially go into shock. I would not use this as a given when choosing ammunition or anything else.

I definitely believe that the temporary cavity has an effect on overall damage because of the stresses associated with it. However, it may just be proportional in some manner to the size of the permanent cavity, and not really have much significance.

The only true stop will come from a sucessful CNS hit. Everything else is banking on causing mental shock, which results in the BG going down, or physically incapacitating the BG by blood pressure drop - passing out.

Bottom line - carry something sufficient, shoot what you carry well, and all of this arguing won't matter.

Hook686
August 27, 2007, 02:49 AM
hmmmmm .... from ""Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding.",

it sounds to me as though you are postulating penetration to be independent from the kentetic energy of the projectile. Does it not take energy to break the bonds of the tissue, and bones on its way to the "large, blood bearing organs"?

silversport
August 27, 2007, 08:08 AM
isn't that what you take after a Cliff Bar???...:neener:...serioulsly...No one has ever been sued for hitting a bystander after the bullet went through a baddie??? Mas Ayoob talked about LEOs being sued from time to time...not sure if it was true but I'm just sayin'...I will agree that too many people put too much faith in the terms that some experts throw around....22LRs have "knocked down" people from fright and .45ACPs have failed to do the same on determined individuals...so...

Bill

GaryArkansas
August 27, 2007, 05:13 PM
True enough - you must have sufficient kinetic energy for the projectile to penetrate tissue. What I'm talking about is the concept that the momentum of a handgun round will physically injure someone, as distinct from the trauma caused by the crushing and tearing from direct projectile contact.

A Randy Johnson fastball has way more kinetic energy than any handgun round. If "energy dump" is to be accepted as truth, then he should've killed several opponents by now.

Unless body tissue is actually torn, as occurs with a high velocity rifle round, the body shrugs off a handgun's temporary cavity pretty quickly. Think about the times you've whacked your thumb with a tool, or stubbed your toe on a door frame.

It smarts, true enough. However, your finger or toe was probably not permanently damaged, and you were able to walk it off. The amount of kinetic energy transmitted by a handgun round is probably not too far off those scenarios (although much more focused in its location and duration).

jon_in_wv
August 27, 2007, 07:03 PM
Of course kenetic energy wounds. See how effective a bullet with 300 lbs of STORED energy is.

Lone_Gunman
August 27, 2007, 07:33 PM
What I'm talking about is the concept that the momentum of a handgun round will physically injure someone, as distinct from the trauma caused by the crushing and tearing from direct projectile contact.



Momentum injuring someone? What does that mean? Please explain. I have been treating gunshot wounds for about 15 yrs and have never seen an injury from momentum.

Momentum helps with penetration, and penetration wounds by crushing, cutting, and tearing.

But there is no distinct injury from momentum that can be seperated from that.

W.E.G.
August 27, 2007, 07:42 PM
It is the momentum of the mythical concept of "knockdown power" that is most formidable.

Even after all these years, and despite all the science, the term is still used by people who should know better.

Kentak
August 27, 2007, 08:23 PM
Momentum injuring someone? What does that mean? Please explain. I have been treating gunshot wounds for about 15 yrs and have never seen an injury from momentum.

Are you a physician, then?

Ever see a gunshot wound caused by a bullet with zero momentum?

Perhaps you are playing with semantics. Gunshot wounds are caused by bullets. But, bullets that have more momentum are more likely to cause more serious wounding, all other things being equal.

K

mavracer
August 27, 2007, 08:47 PM
A Randy Johnson fastball has way more kinetic energy than any handgun round. If "energy dump" is to be accepted as truth, then he should've killed several opponents by now
actually assuming 100 mph fastball and 5.5 oz = 115 ft.lb.

mavracer
August 27, 2007, 08:51 PM
15 yrs and have never seen an injury from momentum.
unbelievable 15 years and not one car accident

Kentak
August 27, 2007, 09:00 PM
What I'm talking about is the concept that the momentum of a handgun round will physically injure someone, as distinct from the trauma caused by the crushing and tearing from direct projectile contact.

Good grief. What do you think keeps the bullet moving forward to continue to crush, tear, and penetrate? Answer: Momentum.

Suppose it were possible to do a perfectly controlled experiment on the same living subject. Obviously, this has to be hypothetical, but the answer should be obvious.

In the experiment, we will fire a certain bullet that will enter the subject at a specific point and at a specific angle. We then examine the wound and document all injury.

Next, (this is the hypothetical part) we reanimate the subject and heal him. Now we fire an *identical* bullet that enters the subject at the *identical* point and at the *identical* angle as before. Except we have increased the velocity to increase the momentum of the bullet.

Any doubt trial 2 will have more severe trauma?

You can repeat the experiment keeping velocity constant, but increasing the bullet weight to increase the momentum. All other variables being equal, any doubt that a 147 grain 9mm bullet traveling at 1000 fps will cause more injury than a 115 grain 9 mm bullet traveling at 1000 fps?

So, of course momentum is a factor in "stopping" a threat--to the extent that bullet momentum allows a bullet to perform as intended.

It's important to understand that other variables come into play as well. Which will cause more trauma, a slow heavy bullet or a fast lighter bullet that has equal momentum? Despite what the proponents of each camp might claim, there is no hard and fast answer to that question. What clothing is the target wearing? Where does the bullet hit? What kind of tissue and what anatomical structures are in the bullet's path?

As I said in a previous post, you won't see any injury caused by a bullet with zero momentum.

K

Lone_Gunman
August 27, 2007, 09:20 PM
But, bullets that have more momentum are more likely to cause more serious wounding, all other things being equal.


First, yes I am a physician... a surgeon.

Second, the momentum doesn't directly cause tissue trauma. Momentum increases penetration that causes trauma. I realize a bullet with no momentum will cause no trauma, but it causes no trauma because there is no penetration. Maybe we are playing semantics here, but it sounded like the original poster refered to momentum injuries as being something seperate from the actual penetration injuries, and I took that to mean he was talking about some other wounding technique he thought bullets with a lot of momentum had, kind of like energy of high powered rifle rounds causing tissue trauma that is in excess of the actual penetration.

Third, my comments were about gunshot wounds, not motor vehicle accidents.

The Original Poster refered to momentum injuries as being something seperate from the actual penetration injuries, and I took that to mean he was talking about some other wounding technique he thought bullets with a lot of momentum had.

He had stated: "What I'm talking about is the concept that the momentum of a handgun round will physically injure someone, as distinct from the trauma caused by the crushing and tearing from direct projectile contact."

What does that sentence mean?

critrxdoc
August 27, 2007, 09:39 PM
:confused: I have read the FBI summary and other papers on handun wounding and still am skeptical. It does not make sense that from rationale physics we would deduce that a 9mm and (.355) a .357sig (both 9mm bullets) can have the same mass, same penetration and the 9mm has ballistics : 115gr @ 1415fps / 511ft. lbs, and the sig has ballistics : 1550fps / 614 ft. lbs, that 100 FPE is just going to vanish into thin air. Or an even better example the .357mag at 125gr @ 1700 fps / 802 ft lbs. Are we going to say that now 300FPE energy is going to evaporate given equivalent penetration and expansion? Do we then assume that given equal placement and penetration that a .357mag is no better than a 9mm? I vehemently disagree!

The laws of physics don't change! Humans are not like terminator 2 in which projectiles are absorbed into a liquid matrix. Temporary cavities cause injury in ways that we may not understand completely, but we cannot dismiss them because of our ignorance.

Lone_Gunman
August 27, 2007, 10:05 PM
The higher velocities of the 357 sig and 357 magnum result in more violent expansion of the projectiles. This causes more tissue trauma. I do not believe the small amount of additional energy the 357 sig has directly contributes to its wounding ability, other than by increasing bullet expansion and permanent cavity.

At some point, additional injury does contribute to wounding. This is seen with high powered rifles, where velocities are much much higher.

Kentak
August 27, 2007, 10:08 PM
Ok, Doc, thanks for clarifying.

No disrespect for the work you do as a surgeon intended. But, your comment about momentum not causing injury really had me wondering what you meant.

Obviously, a bullet must penetrate in order to reach and cause enough damage to the CNS or circulatory structures needed to convince an attacker to stop.

Let me make a point about momentum and penetration and I would welcome your comment.

I assume you would agree that if I had a 9 mm diameter steel rod with a tip similar to a bullet, I could, given a way to get a firm grip, thrust it into the thoracic area to a depth of, let's say, 8 inches. Would you, as a surgeon, agree that the nature of the wounding caused by that rod would be less severe than that of a 9 mm bullet that had enough momentum to penetrate the same area the same 8 inches? As I see it, the rod would tend to *pierce* tissue and structures. Maybe even crack a bone. But, wouldn't a bullet, following the same path, do more damage? First, there would be the trauma of a temporary wound cavity that would not exist with the rod. Also, wouldn't the bullet cause more tearing and ripping (and, thus, bleeding), rather than piercing? Finally, wouldn't the bullet hitting bone, due to the physics of momentum transfer, be able to shatter bone and cause secondary fragments?

My point in all this relates to the OP's contention that it's penetration alone and not momentum that is the agent of wounding. I'm maintaining that the momentum of the bullet is also important, not only to ensure adequate penetration, but to contribute to the wounding as described above.

Is my point valid?

K

Kentak
August 27, 2007, 10:26 PM
critrxdoc,

I agree with you completely. Basic physics. Energy is the ability to do work. Work, like in violently moving tissue, tearing, ripping, shattering, fragmenting, all that good "sheet." Energy dump is not a meaningless concept.

Remember when Reagan was shot with a .22 handgun? It caused a very serious wound because it penetrated. It penetrated even though it was a relatively low energy round because the bullet did not fragment and had a small cross-section to offer less resistance to penetration.

Now, if Reagan had been shot in an identical manner, but with a .223 (same .22 diameter) having much greater energy, does anyone think that additional energy won't have an effect? Darn right it will. First, some of that energy will likely go into fragmenting the bullet, and each fragment will have enough energy to continue to wound and penetrate. Perhaps the bullet will hit a rib and splinter it, shredding lung tissue or blood vessels. More energy means more slicing and dicing, folks.

K

WinchesterAA
August 27, 2007, 10:41 PM
What kills is breaking things inside of a living creature.

A well placed shot will take anything down with anything, but you could nail someone with a .50 and just miss the heart by milimeters and they'll be up and running in a couple of months.

Provided they don't get shot again, that is.. Hence the key -

anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice (or more).

antsi
August 27, 2007, 11:00 PM
Kentac,

I think there are two different questions here.

1) does momentum or energy have anything to do with wounding from firearm projectiles? To this question, the obvious answer is "yes." Energy is what gives the projectile the ability to do work. Moving it through the air, penetrating tissue, fragmenting or expanding the projectile itself, crushing or cutting tissue - these are all different kinds of physical work and all require energy to make them happen.

2) Does energy or momentum make any additional contribution to wounding, above and beyond the physical work that is done? I don't think there is any proof of this at handgun velocities.

turtlehitman
August 27, 2007, 11:00 PM
First I would like to say that I agree that "knock down" power is very misused.

I have used the term "energy transfer", I think they are not the same. IMO energy transfer is simply the target absorbing energy from the bullet. it takes energy to do damage. logicly the more energy the more damage(to a degree).

the bullet transfers energy into organs which they absorb. thereby damaging them. thats what stops the threat.

thats how I think of "energy transfer"

Soybomb
August 27, 2007, 11:20 PM
it sounds to me as though you are postulating penetration to be independent from the kentetic energy of the projectile. Does it not take energy to break the bonds of the tissue, and bones on its way to the "large, blood bearing organs"?
What modern terminal ballistics say with regards to that is that kinetic energy itself does not indicate how well a bullet will stop a person. We need to examine the type of wound the bullet can create with that energy, beause the wound is the end result we're interested in. We're wanting a bunch of tissue damage, not to win a dungeons and dragons numbers game.

Any yes the idea of energy dump/energy transfer as playing a significant role in handgun wounding is generally considered hogwash today and instead we realize there is no magic to it, you need to destory the important parts of the body to break it and force it to stop. Some people still believe it, but thats nothing new..

Kentak
August 27, 2007, 11:52 PM
Any yes the idea of energy dump/energy transfer as playing a significant role in handgun wounding is generally considered hogwash today and instead we realize there is no magic to it, you need to destory the important parts of the body to break it and force it to stop.

Energy transfer is hogwash? Please explain to me how you "...destroy the important parts of the body to break it..." *without* transferring energy from the bullet to those parts.

This is high school physics, people. Not magic at all.

Let's explain this in street physics. You're playing pool and want to really scatter the balls after the rack up. The numbered balls represent tissue, blood vessels, organs, and bones. The cue ball represents the bullet.

Assuming you aim for the same point on the racked balls, are you going to hit is softly (low energy) or hard (high energy)? Why?

Ever hit the point ball dead on and see the cue ball just about stop in place? What happened to all the momentum that cue ball had? Did it evaporate? Nope, every bit of it *transferred* to the racked balls and set them in motion. If those balls were body parts, they would move, tear, break, etc. And, the harder you hit that cue ball, the more energy is transferred to the balls and the more they move.

That's an energy dump. Now, what happens if you hit the racked balls with a glancing blow so that the cue ball is just deflected and goes on to smack a rail? The balls don't move as much. Why not? The cue ball didn't "dump" all it's energy into the balls, but retained some and carried it to the rail instead.

A bullet that does not dump all it's energy into the target is letting some of the energy escape to do work elsewhere.

K

Kentak
August 28, 2007, 12:03 AM
2) Does energy or momentum make any additional contribution to wounding, above and beyond the physical work that is done? I don't think there is any proof of this at handgun velocities.

I don't know of anyone who is claiming that. Certainly I am not. Every bit of physical work done in the target is due to the energy brought into it by the bullet's momentum. Yes, bone fragments can cause their own wounding, but only from the momentum transfered to the fragments by the bullet.

K

tkendrick
August 28, 2007, 12:17 AM
A well placed shot will take anything down with anything, but you could nail someone with a .50 and just miss the heart by milimeters and they'll be up and running in a couple of months.

I don't want be insulting, but this is nonsense.:banghead:

Don't generally like to get too graphic, but.....

A solid hit in the upper chest cavity at three hundred yards with a fifty BMG will generally create an exit wound 12 or more inches in diameter, and will pretty much turn the heart and lungs into pate and then spread them, along with bone fragments, meat and blood all over country side behind that target. That, with a FMJ bullet.

Following much of the penetration arguement I'm seeing here, you would expect to see a simple half inch hole drilled through that body.

May sound good in theory, but I can tell you from personal experience, it just aint so.

Soybomb
August 28, 2007, 12:20 AM
Energy transfer is hogwash? Please explain to me how you "...destroy the important parts of the body to break it..." *without* transferring energy from the bullet to those parts.
I think everyone with a 5th grade education realizes that when we're talking about damaging the body we're talking about using energy to do something. Enegery dump in the terminal ballistic sense refers to the idea that we should in some way be concerned about the kinetic energy a round has as something that is itself a distinct component of wounding. We obviously need energy to make the holes we want to make, but that doesn't mean that the round with the most energy is going to make the biggest hole. We should instead just look to see which round makes the best hole with the energy it has since the hole is all that we care about.

You've cherry picked a quote and used it out of context, I think this was all quite clear in my post
What modern terminal ballistics say with regards to that is that kinetic energy itself does not indicate how well a bullet will stop a person. We need to examine the type of wound the bullet can create with that energy, beause the wound is the end result we're interested in.

Lone_Gunman
August 28, 2007, 07:01 AM
Would you, as a surgeon, agree that the nature of the wounding caused by that rod would be less severe than that of a 9 mm bullet that had enough momentum to penetrate the same area the same 8 inches? As I see it, the rod would tend to *pierce* tissue and structures. Maybe even crack a bone. But, wouldn't a bullet, following the same path, do more damage? First, there would be the trauma of a temporary wound cavity that would not exist with the rod. Also, wouldn't the bullet cause more tearing and ripping (and, thus, bleeding), rather than piercing? Finally, wouldn't the bullet hitting bone, due to the physics of momentum transfer, be able to shatter bone and cause secondary fragments?


I don't think the 9mm bullet would do any additional damage that I could perceive as a surgeon. The nature of both injuries is penetration. That does not mean that in the field I think both would perform the same. There is a psychological effect of being shot that tends to make people quit doing whatever they were doing in the first place. I have heard of people responding to gun shot wounds kind of like they do to a blow to the epigastrium, kind of like the wind is knocked out them. Obviously I have never seen this, and have only gotten verbal reports of bystanders, so I am just passing that along for what its worth. But as for actual physical trauma that you could see with the eye or even microscope, I don't think the 9mm wound would be any different than a would from a steel rod of the same diameter.

Now, if instead of comparing a 9mm handgun round to a steel rod, you had compared a high powered rifle round to a steel rod, I would tell you the high powered round would do much more damage than the rod. The kinetic energy and velocity of the high powered rifle round (and for purposes of this discussion, I would define that as any projectile moving greater than 2000 fps +/-) is high enough that it does cause tissue trauma above and beyond simple tearing and penetration of tissue.

In general, it has been my experience that below about 2000 fps (again, +/-), velocity and energy wound indirectly by causing improved expansion and penetration. Above that value, the energy (shock wave, if you will, though this is an imprecise term) can cause direct tissue trauma.

I will site a recent case to explain. Most handgun wounds to the leg that are just "flesh" wounds (ie, no large vessels, bones, or nerves are damaged) require very little treatment, and almost never need surgery. Recently I took care of a woman shot through the thigh with a 30-06. There was a 30 caliber entrance wound, and maybe at most a 1" exit wound. It didnt look all that bad to be honest, and I was surprised. However, over the next few days, it became apparent that a large core of soft tissue around the wound was dying. We ended up debriding (removing) an core of dead tissue around the wound channel about 2 or 3 inches in diameter. There were no secondary fragments noted. This injury, as far as I could tell, had to come from the energy of the round and not direct trauma between bullet and flesh.

mavracer
August 28, 2007, 10:10 AM
First, yes I am a physician... a surgeon.
so you practice medicine.
obviously you have read HWFE great.Fackler never makes the eronious statement that fragmentation and hydrostatic shock don't happen at pistol velocity.he felt in his opinion it should not be given undue weight when determining handgun effectiveness. 2000fps is not a magic # where it starts to appear.now read Dr. Courtney's works on balistic pressure wave.
I don't think the 9mm bullet would do any additional damage that I could perceive as a surgeon.
maybe not but IMHO you seem like you may not be very perceptive.
I Know I've seen a bullet,that I chrono'd the ammo,was going less than 1300fps hit a 225 lb boar in the back muscle. that never entered the chest cavity,do enough damage to the lungs the animal died within' seconds.and in case you need a second and third opinion this was witnesed by my brother and father both of whom are veterinarians.
so don't try to feed me any male bovine fecal matter about kinetic energy not having any effect.

Kentak
August 28, 2007, 11:25 AM
L.G.

That's interesting.

First, on a lighter note, for the record, a steel rod thrust into my chest will probably cause me to quit what I'm doing.

Look, you're the doc, I've never been inside a bullet wound. But, what then, are we to make of ballistic gelatin tests? Are they valid, or not? I've seen plenty of pics of all kinds of rounds fired into gelatin and almost all the usual handgun rounds show penetration, a permanent wound cavity considerably larger than the diameter of even an expanded HP, and long fissures, which I suppose can represent tissue tearing. I've never seen a pic of a steel rod thrust into gelatin, but I assume it would show a relatively small wound channel and minimal fissuring. I can't think of any mechanism by which it would show the same kind of results as a handgun round. Can you?

Either ballistic gelatin is a valid model and the bullet does more damage than the rod in living tissue, or it isn't a valid model and we shouldn't use it.

I guess my point is, if gelatin is a valid model, it shows that even at handgun velocities, wounding is accomplished by more than just small diameter penetration.

In all of my posts, I never maintained that energy numbers *alone* determine the wounding potential of a round. Of course, we want to know caliber, weight, velocity, and bullet construction. I did say, all other things being equal, the higher energy round will do more damage.

About that woman with the rifle wound through the leg, any idea how close the round may have passed to the major arteries?

K

mpmarty
August 28, 2007, 11:53 AM
OK so in a self defense round one wants maximum velocity with sufficient penetration and in a handgun that pretty well means something in the 41 magnum or better class. So how come nobody uses it? I guess I'll stick to my 10mm with 135 gr. jhps at 1600fps and hope for the best.

Lone_Gunman
August 28, 2007, 03:28 PM
What is HWFE?

I agree the 2000 fps is not a magic number, thats why I said +/-. But there is some threshold near 2000 fps, above which additional wounding occurs. My 2000 fps is a little on the high end of what I have seen other people state, but again that is based on my experience treating GSW victims, but its close to the general ballpark. I have seen some people say 1500-2000. I haven't generally seen that effect from 357 magnum, but the number of GSWs I have seen from 357 magnum is pretty low. I guess its not a popular caliber for criminals.

In the case of the wild boar, what exactly did the lungs look like? What was the injury that lead to his death? I think in general the 1300 fps round you were using would be too slow to cause an indirect injury from the energy alone, as seen with high powered rifle rounds, and would like to know more about what the lungs looked like. I don't doubt that the lungs would have been contused from a bullet passing near them, but I don't see how that would have caused an immediate death. Could the lung injury have been caused by the bullet hitting a rib, which then bluntly contused the lung or caused it to collapse? When you opened the boar's chest did you hear any thing that sounded like a gush of air? I'd really like you to describe the lungs if possible, because I don't understand what they must have looked like to cause an immediate death.

I would like to discuss this with you, with out the derogatory comments if possible. I am only describing what I have seen taking care of a lot of gunshot wound vicitims over the years, and am happy to admit this is my opinion based on my experiences, and experiences of other surgeons I have talked with and listened to, including some who are considered experts in the field of penetrating trauma. I would like to hear your experiences also, but lets keep it civil. Obviously any surgeon you talk to about gunshot wounds is going to have his experience based on people who were not killed at the scene, so wounds that are so bad the person dies from them immediately are not something we usually see... they go straight to the morgue. For what its worth, I have never seen or heard of a case where a person died from lung damage from a gunshot wound where the bullet did not actually enter the thoracic cavity itself. I would think that would be possible with a high powered rifle round, but the death would certainly not be immediate and probably be the result of lung contusion developing into pneumonia that was not treated, with resultant death days later.


Also, on the subject of ballistic gelating, the pattern you see in ballistic gelatin is not something you can see when you look at a person shot with a handgun round. If you look at a 9mm FMJ bullet tract, the only tissue damage that occurs that is visible with the eye or microscope is right along the wound channel. The wound channel looks much more impressive in gelatin than it does in real tissue.

I did say, all other things being equal, the higher energy round will do more damage.


And I would agree, but for handgun velocities, the higher energy round does more damage because of increased penetration and bullet expansion more than the direct effect of energy.

mavracer
August 28, 2007, 05:58 PM
sure no problem,sorry about the snideness,HWFE is the FBI's Handgun wounding factors and effects,which you seamed to almost be reading from.
While its good reading,I don't agree with all of it.ofcourse I seldom agree with all of anything.
As for the boar,death was not immediate it took ~30-40 seconds. the bullet entered between ribs on left side went through back muscle and between t6 and t7 or t7 and t8 and came to rest just under the hide on the right side.there was no perferation in the chest cavity,the lungs were heavily contused and 1/2 to 3/4 full of blood.now I will admit this was a 300 grn 44 mag they averaged 1250 fps.
IMHO I don't think handguns in general do enough physical damage to incapasitate without neurological damage.once again IMHO the vast majority of the time its "dang this guy shot me,dang that hurts,dang I quit if your gonna play that way".the reason 357 and 45 work better than 32 and 380 is easily explaned a flyweight boxer(108 lb IIRC) hit with 300 ft.lb. heavyweights are more like 750 ft.lb. now I'm 5'8" 250 fat but athletic I think I might be able to wip a flyweight ,But I'm sure if George Foremans old butt hit me I'd never want it to happen again (George if your reading this, just kidding I don't ever want you to hit me)
also in my experiance I've seen animals with fatal heart/lung shots (I mean thouroughly destroyed) remain active for 15-20 seconds.and I've seen many a IPSC/IDPA competetor finish a course of fire in less than 20 seconds.So if I were you I'd think about practicing a head shot every once in a while,cause that may be the only way to make sure you survive an encounter with a determined coked up BG.

YMMV Mav

Lone_Gunman
August 28, 2007, 09:56 PM
mavracer, is HWFE available online? I'd like to read it and see what they say. The information earlier was based on my own experience and training.

The 44 mag round you used had a lot of energy, despite its low velocity when compared to a rifle round. Just ball-parking it, I don't think it has too much less energy than a 5.56 nato round, which I certainly believe could cause trauma related to energy alone. So I guess its possible your round could cause the injuries you describe. Perhaps it would be better to discuss this in terms of energy rather than velocity.

jon_in_wv
August 28, 2007, 10:06 PM
The thing about the FBI "penetration is everything" crowd is that they are totally unencumbered by facts, physics, or the laws of nature. They simply trump you with catch phrases like "I never seen kenetic energy kill no one."
Well in fifteen years working in prisons I've never seen a shank kill anyone either. They all bled to death through the hole in their skin while the shank sat safely in an evidence locker. Doesn't make sense you say? Exactly, I say.

Soybomb
August 28, 2007, 10:22 PM
is HWFE available online? I'd like to read it and see what they say.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

The thing about the FBI "penetration is everything" crowd is that they are totally unencumbered by facts, physics, or the laws of nature. They simply trump you with catch phrases like "I never seen kenetic energy kill no one."
See now my take on it is the exact opposite. I think the fackler students have said, there is no magic component to handgun wounding. Instead they look for actual wounds and the likelyhood of those kind of wounds forcing an attacker to stop. The opposing camp cites things like M&S, a scientifically invalid work, and doesn't offer a real explanation for how the attacker is stopped but chalks it up to the ft/pounds fairy.

mavracer
August 28, 2007, 10:44 PM
after reading HWFE studying Marshall & Sanow's data and reading Dr. Courtney's work http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org the only thing I know for sure is .357 and 45 acp might work better than a .380 given the same bullet placement,well ok I'm pretty sure.
I think I'll just continue rotating my carry guns and let Mr. BG choose which he gets shot with, because he knows the time and place, I hope I call in sick.

boomstik45
August 29, 2007, 01:38 AM
It's the shots that miss, and hit unintended targets that get officers into trouble. You probably won't have to ever deal with the shots that go through a bad guy and into someone else. Most of the time, there's enough trouble getting THOSE shots to go far enough into the body in the right places.

innerpiece
August 29, 2007, 03:27 AM
omg..lol so much over so little imo....
spedcific loads have specific purpose.......plain and simple.

a bullet will kill, if its placed correctly. more bullets placed correctly, will kill faster!

so many silly refrences to rifle caliber and their effect.. DUH! but that isnt relevant to the pistol Cal discussion as seen in this thread/forum..


pistol bullets that hit hard and continue to travel thru the path of aim, cause damage... the more holes you put into a target area the more effective a "stop" will be....

what really is the question here...
seems like folks wanna pick at the technichs that dont really matter when yer actually shooting somone........


more holes, deader person........

btw, yes, impact/shock can incapacitate people.... just because it takes a lil while for some one to bleed out, does NOT mean they will run around rampantly violating other life-forms while they do..... many times (more times than not) the human body shuts down when confornted with seriuos injury...
its the bodys defence to injury..

I like heavier loads fer the 9mm I carry.... but Ive always wanted to try out the Aigula 65gr IQ (or whatever they are) in my test lineup... to find out what kind application it might have... plus a lightweight load in such a light gun as the Kahr would be a nice combo if it worked....



ip.

WinchesterAA
August 29, 2007, 02:55 PM
Tkendrick, this is the pistol forum bro. I aint speaking of .50BMG =)

might still be a bit absurd, but I've heard a lot of people in a lot of different places that say the .357 is a dead solid man stopper from hell.

They make a good argument, too, almost good enough for me to completely overlook the fact my dad got shot from a few feet away by a car thief.

has slightly diminished lung capacity in one lung, couple of bullet fragments show up on the x-ray still, and the scar goes in and out in such a way that you could almost swear he got shot directly through the heart. Couple of millimeters closer and he'd have been DRT so I figure if a crazy manstopper like the .357 can't kill a cop from a few feet away with a shot to the chest then maybe a .50AE might screw it up too.

Kentak
August 29, 2007, 04:32 PM
LG,

I just thought of something. I suppose, if you dig a bullet out of someone, you might be able to determine, or estimate the caliber of the round. I wouldn't think you'd be able to guess at the loading, mild, or wild.

And, as you said, you get the ones that survive the trip to the hospital, not the ones whose innards were emulsified by a massive "energy dump."

K

easyg
August 29, 2007, 06:47 PM
Well, I've shot coconuts and melons with a wide variety of handguns, and the rounds with more energy are much more impressive and literally explode the target.
Yep, instead of just penetrating or breaking the coconut or melon, they literally blow it to pieces.
So it's easy to see that if a person was shot then that same explosive force would be distributed to their internal organs, no?

BTW, the billiards explaination was terrific IMO.

Ol` Joe
August 29, 2007, 08:11 PM
Energy and momentum are related in reguards to a moveing bullet. Momentum is the resistance to change in speed or direction. This is what moves a bullet, out of a barrel, overcomes air drag, and drives it into a target. It is the product of its mass, not weight, and velocity.

Energy is the amount of work capable of being done buy the bullet. This isn`t just penetration but also the force that expands/destroys the bullet, disrupts tissue, breaks bone, plus heat, ect. It is figured by multiplying the velocity (fps) squared by the weight in grs and dividing by 450,00.

Soybomb
August 29, 2007, 08:18 PM
Well, I've shot coconuts and melons with a wide variety of handguns, and the rounds with more energy are much more impressive and literally explode the target.
Yep, instead of just penetrating or breaking the coconut or melon, they literally blow it to pieces.
So it's easy to see that if a person was shot then that same explosive force would be distributed to their internal organs, no?
Assuming we were filled with watermelon, yes. The generally elastic tissue of a person is going to react much differently than your exploded fruit.

mavracer
August 29, 2007, 09:25 PM
Assuming we were filled with watermelon, yes. The generally elastic tissue of a person is going to react much differently than your exploded fruit.
he wasn't trying to compare fruit to flesh.I'm pretty sure,while flesh and fruit will react differently, the more powerful rounds that blow up fruit will likely do more damage to flesh.

Soybomb
August 30, 2007, 12:37 AM
he wasn't trying to compare fruit to flesh.I'm pretty sure,while flesh and fruit will react differently, the more powerful rounds that blow up fruit will likely do more damage to flesh.
You can outright call me an ass, no reason to go cute with bolding. Anyway its a moving demonstration visually but still irrelevant to damaging people. A super light super fast frangible round like extreme shock, or rbcd would make an even more impressive fruit or water jug show. Both are considered quite subpar as a defensive rounds though. Its like a late night infomercial demonstration, you may be wowed but its really no indicator of performance.

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 12:51 AM
I think we all understand that fruit and pot roast aren't suitable models for wounding in a live human, but, the exploding watermelon DOES make a point. The point being that a higher energy round does more than just penetrate further. It messes things up in a violent way. Yes, our internals can take more stretching and are more reboundable than watermelon guts. Still, it helps to explain why a quarter inch rifle round can cause damage, bleeding, and shock not explained by penetration alone. Not to mention big exit wounds.

K

easyg
August 30, 2007, 08:17 AM
Assuming we were filled with watermelon, yes. The generally elastic tissue of a person is going to react much differently than your exploded fruit.
While humans are not composed of fruit, they're not composed of rubber either!

Besides, it's not a matter of elasticity...
It's a matter of energy transfer.
The bullet obviously transfers enough energy to explode a watermelon, and that same energy transferred to internal human organs must be damaging.
Otherwise humans could swallow and detonate explosives without ill effect.

Anyone want to volunteer to swallow a lit M-80 firecracker?

It's no surprise that rifle rounds (rounds with more energy) generally kill humans more reliably than handgun rounds (rounds with less energy), all other things being equal (penetration, bullet deformation, etc...).

It's also worth noting that the bullet designers are not working tirelessly to develope rounds with LESS energy.

40SW
August 30, 2007, 08:27 AM
started a new thread with my response in general gun disscusion. Its the only one I have there.

Riktoven
August 30, 2007, 11:29 AM
Can energy kill? Yes. If it couldn't, no one would ever burn to death.

Can kinetic energy alone kill? Of course, anyone who's lost a loved one to an IED and still had the benefit of an open casket funeral can vouch for that one. A massive shockwave of air mollecules moving at high speeds hitting your body can create a massive shockwave in the fluids of a human body strong enough to liquify organs.

Smaller scale examples can be seen in animal wounds caused from rifle rounds moving at high velocity.

To expect anything like that from a handgun is laughable though. Watermelons and water jugs are closed systems of inelactic liquid bound by inelastic materials. You can make similar "explosions" by punching these objects. Using them as a basis for choosing defense ammunition is utterly STUPID.

If Energy dump worked as so many people posting here seem to think, one should be able to go fishing by shooting a handgun into a pond, as the energy dump will kill all the fish in close proximity like a small stick of dynamite (or the M-80). Guess what, you aren't going to catch any fish like that.

Energy is expended penetrating clothing and tearing tissues. Energy is expended expanding (deforming in any way) bullets. Energy is expended by the bullet fragmenting (which is the true cause of the severity of most high velocity rifle wounds). For these reasons, having ample energy is a good thing. The famed 125gr. .357 Magnum doesn't do so well because of some tiny pressure wave traveling through the target. It does so well because it's 125gr. soft lead bullet fragments violently on impact, creating a cone shaped shrapnel wound. This is why most rifle rounds are hardcast, can you imagine cleaning an animal shot with soft lead traveling 3000+fps?.

The problem comes when people see high energy rounds being vaulted as the end-all be-all manstopper. They go out and buy crap ammo (Extreme Shock, Aguilla) expecting to have pressure waves or rifle-like fragmentation stop an attacker. Without enough mass to have enough momentum to penetrate and disrupt tissue, this ammunition is useless. Pre-fragmented bullet designs like Glaser Safety Slugs also don't get suffiecient penetration for the fragmentation effect to reach vital organs.

Face it guys, until we are launching true exploding bullets or launching solid bullets at 4000fps, the only handgun round you should be confident in is the one with the energy, momentum, and proper aim to hit Central Nervous System targets (Cerebral Cortex and spinal cord).

mavracer
August 30, 2007, 12:21 PM
The problem comes when people see high energy rounds being vaulted as the end-all be-all manstopper. They go out and buy crap ammo (Extreme Shock, Aguilla) expecting to have pressure waves or rifle-like fragmentation stop an attacker. Without enough mass to have enough momentum to penetrate and disrupt tissue, this ammunition is useless. Pre-fragmented bullet designs like Glaser Safety Slugs also don't get suffiecient penetration for the fragmentation effect to reach vital organs.
to agree another way, in a world where all the BG were 6' 150 lbs and never hide behind doors or glass,glasers/extreme shock would be great.but in the real world you need penatration if you have enough (and I don't know what thats gonna be) energy to do more damage along the way i'm shure that its a good thing.

easyg
August 30, 2007, 12:59 PM
Watermelons and water jugs are closed systems of inelactic liquid bound by inelastic materials. You can make similar "explosions" by punching these objects.
This is total BS.

Go ahead and punch a watermelon, a water jug, or a coconut as hard as you can....it will NOT explode the way it does when a large caliber rifle hits it.
Not even close to "similar".

Again, any volunteers to swallow a lit firecracker?

Or maybe stick one somewhere else (your sphincter is elastic, right)?:evil:

I'm guessing that we'll get no volunteers.
Why?
Because we all know that it would be painful and would probably damage us in someway.

Riktoven
August 30, 2007, 01:19 PM
You do understand that bullets don't 'explode' when they hit their target, right? There is no explosive charge like an M80 going off inside the human body, unless you are toting a 20mm handgun concealed.

And, no the water jug thing is not BS. Maybe you just punch like a girl. Grab a baseball bat and give it a try. Same result, broken container with the contents spread over 20+ feet. I was talking about them being shot with a handgun, not a rifle, but when talking about water jugs and watermelons the infomation gleaned is worth about as much (that being Jack $*it).

You are right about one thing though, I won't punch a coconut or take an M80 internally.

Ah yes, frantic rudeness, the last bastion of hope for someone on the wrong end of a debate.

fletcher
August 30, 2007, 01:25 PM
Besides, it's not a matter of elasticity...
It's a matter of energy transfer.
The bullet obviously transfers enough energy to explode a watermelon, and that same energy transferred to internal human organs must be damaging.
Elasticity allows for the absorption of energy without permanent deformation/failure. It's highly relevant to the issue being discussed.

Go to 1:55 in this video to see what I mean:
http://www.break.com/index/awesome_high_speed_compilation.html
See how elastic the gelatin is? It's able to stretch, leaving a relatively small final hole, instead of just shredding, shattering, or exploding.

Riktoven
August 30, 2007, 01:33 PM
You do understand that bullets don't 'explode' when they hit their target, right? There is no explosive charge like an M80 going off inside the human body, unless you are toting a 20mm handgun concealed.

And, no the water jug thing is not BS. Maybe you just punch like a girl. Grab a baseball bat and give it a try. Same result, broken container with the contents spread over 20+ feet. I was talking about them being shot with a handgun, not a rifle, but when talking about water jugs and watermelons the infomation gleaned is worth about as much (that being Jack $*it).

You are right about one thing though, I won't punch a coconut or take an M80 internally.

Ah yes, frantic rudeness, the last bastion of hope for someone on the wrong end of a debate.

JesseL
August 30, 2007, 01:35 PM
Energy transfer is hogwash? Please explain to me how you "...destroy the important parts of the body to break it..." *without* transferring energy from the bullet to those parts.

Ever seen a demonstration of someone with a sword cutting trough melons and such? Sometimes they can slice completely through the melon and still leave the two halves sitting in place, almost undisturbed. This is critical damage with minimal energy transfer.

Obviously the mechanics of terminal ballistics with bullets precludes this kind of action, because of the shape of the bullet. The point stands though, that it is entirely possible to cause massive amounts of tissue damage with minimal energy transfer. How else could a broadhead tipped arrow that carries less energy than a 22 rimfire cause enough damage to take down all but the very largest game?

The thing that really cracks me up is when people think that direct energy conversion can have some wounding effect. The only thing that a bullets kinetic energy can really be directly converted to is heat. Even if the total energy of a rifle bullet was converted to heat in the target it would result in less heat than it takes to warm a cup of coffee.

fletcher
August 30, 2007, 01:43 PM
The only thing that a bullets kinetic energy can really be directly converted to is heat.
The energy from a bullet is converted to small amounts of heat from friction, but it does primarily transfer the energy to its surroundings as kinetic energy. That's the principle on which ballistic pendulums work.

mavracer
August 30, 2007, 02:15 PM
OK for all of you who say kinetic energy transfer has nothing to do with wounding concider this the .45 230 hydro shock and .357 magnum 125 fed classic JHP both long concidered about equal and very sound stoppers ( many actually give the edge to the .357) but the 45 has more momentum 195500 to 181250 and will consistantly expand to a larger diameter and out penatrate the .357 through most mediums.IMHO the reason is kinetic energy transfer.I may be wrong but I don't think so.

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 02:21 PM
The thing that really cracks me up is when people think that direct energy conversion can have some wounding effect. The only thing that a bullets kinetic energy can really be directly converted to is heat. Even if the total energy of a rifle bullet was converted to heat in the target it would result in less heat than it takes to warm a cup of coffee.

Only really directly converted to heat? If that were true, a bullet would strike a target, stop, get very hot, and the target would walk away.

Come on, you know better. A moving bullet has kinetic energy. Any kind of energy has the ability to do work. Work, like punching through clothing or hide. Work, like penetrating into tissue. As that bullet moves forward, the fluids and tissue are flung out of the way. That takes energy. Some of the tissue may be ripped or torn. Bone may be splintered and fragments projected. ALL of that comes from the kinetic energy of the moving bullet. Yes, penetration is important--obviously. But energy helps penetration.

As for the broadhead arrow. I'm no bowhunter, but I've watched a few of the hunting programs regarding such. In almost every case, the animal bolts and runs away to bleed out elsewhere. Once in a while there will be a spinal cord hit or a heart or major artery hit. Then the animal goes down quickly.

I've also seen hunting vids where high powered rifles (high energy) drop animals where they stand, or after a few seconds of running.

There are many factors that make a good defensive handgun round. One of them is enough energy to perform as intended.

Why aren't we all choosing .22LR handguns for defense? They penetrate well with solid bullets.

K

Riktoven
August 30, 2007, 02:47 PM
I actually wouldn't be totally against using a .22 if they were made as cente-fire catridges (rimfires jam in automatics) and had enough energy to shatter any human bones they hit.

Kinetic energy of a moving bullet can only be dissipated in two ways. One is conversion into heat. The other is having an opposite force applied to it. When a moving bullet strikes anything (even air molecules) whatever it hits pushes back with equal energy (stopping the bullet). If the object being struck with the bullet can't supply that kind of force over the surface area of the bullet, it gives in some way (tissue tearing, bones breaking).

Tx_Jim
August 30, 2007, 03:00 PM
True enough - you must have sufficient kinetic energy for the projectile to penetrate tissue. What I'm talking about is the concept that the momentum of a handgun round will physically injure someone, as distinct from the trauma caused by the crushing and tearing from direct projectile contact.

A Randy Johnson fastball has way more kinetic energy than any handgun round. If "energy dump" is to be accepted as truth, then he should've killed several opponents by now.

Unless body tissue is actually torn, as occurs with a high velocity rifle round, the body shrugs off a handgun's temporary cavity pretty quickly. Think about the times you've whacked your thumb with a tool, or stubbed your toe on a door frame.

It smarts, true enough. However, your finger or toe was probably not permanently damaged, and you were able to walk it off. The amount of kinetic energy transmitted by a handgun round is probably not too far off those scenarios (although much more focused in its location and duration).

I am not a doctor but I would have to guess that blunt trauma is significant to some point. Blunt Trauma being caused by the rapid deceleration of an object during which it departs it’s remaining energy into another object, disprupting vital organ function. This concept can kill or disable a person and has nothing to do with penetration. The Randy Johnson example given above is a fallacy and all though it might not have happened yet, it is totally possible… theoretically anyway. Suppose Randy throws 100+ mph fast ball and hits someone in the head who is not wearing a helmet. The sudden deceleration of the ball, imparting its energy, against the cranium could in fact cause the brain to bounce around and bruise / hemorrhage. This could knock them down or cause death….and has absolutely nothing to due with penetration (if you don’t believe this to be true…please step up and be a guinea pig to test the theory). The problem is not with the theory of momentum or kinetic energy…the problem in regards to this theory relative to ballistics has everything to due with mass. For example, the biggest difference between the Randy example and a bullet is the mass difference between a bullet and the baseball. The baseball is able to impart more energy into the target because it weighs so much more and has a much larger impact area. Let’s use “less than lethal” means of defense as an example. Shot guns that shoot bean bags. A bean bag to the head given its velocity (from a shot gun) and mass would put most people lights out (knock down power), and has little to zero penetration…and could even be lethal given enough blunt trauma to critical areas. A bullet requires the tearing and cutting to be effective because of its mass…kinetic energy and momentum do play a part in it (however insignificant it might be). One last example, A bullet of any caliber, is fired and hits a rib and departs all of it’s energy into said rib. The rib flexes inward and thumps the heart. The heart is thumped hard enough to cause it to go into D-fib. I would assume this would stop the attacker fairly quickly but yet there was minimal penetration and only minor flesh wounds (I know this would only be one in a million shot).

Bottom line…I would not bet my life on hoping a single round (of any size) will be enough to knock down or stop and assailant and I would continue to put as many rounds in them as necessary to stop the attack.

Smeg
August 30, 2007, 03:03 PM
Why aren't we all choosing .22LR handguns for defense? They penetrate well with solid bullets.
(1), they are *not* good penetrators. Hit bone with them and they will stop. (2), they don't make a big enough hole (permanent cavity).

Hypothetically, if you were to go grizzly hunting, you would want to take along a weapon chambered for, I dunno, .458 SOCOM over a .308 any day.

Typical energy for a .308 rests in the neighborhood of 2600+ ft*lb's. The .458 SOCOM only has approximately 2110 ft*lb's on its best day with its 500 gr load. However, it has more than 50% more momentum than the .308, which makes it more suitable for maximizing a wound channel in big, dangerous critters.

Hell, I guess you could go bear hunting with a Glaser Safety Slug. I wouldn't recommend it, though. Funny how they market a non-lethal projectile with the "high energy" buzz words.

I'd like to see them market a non-lethal "high momentum" round.

Soybomb
August 30, 2007, 04:30 PM
While humans are not composed of fruit, they're not composed of rubber either!

Besides, it's not a matter of elasticity...
It's a matter of energy transfer.
The bullet obviously transfers enough energy to explode a watermelon, and that same energy transferred to internal human organs must be damaging.
Otherwise humans could swallow and detonate explosives without ill effect.

Anyone want to volunteer to swallow a lit M-80 firecracker?

It's no surprise that rifle rounds (rounds with more energy) generally kill humans more reliably than handgun rounds (rounds with less energy), all other things being equal (penetration, bullet deformation, etc...).

It's also worth noting that the bullet designers are not working tirelessly to develope rounds with LESS energy.
You're comparing a handgun wound to swallowing explosing?

You might be quite sure that the energy must be damaging but I would encourage you to read the previously linked to handgun wounding document at http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm Its very readable and has many citiations from doctor's papers in ballistic jornals that refute what you're imagining andexplain why. No matter how cool exploding melons and water jugs are, that huge temporary cavity doesn't ensure a good wound.

easyg
August 30, 2007, 05:27 PM
You do understand that bullets don't 'explode' when they hit their target, right?
Maybe you should re-read my post and try to comprehend it this time...
The melon exploded, not the bullet.
Got it?

And, no the water jug thing is not BS. Maybe you just punch like a girl. Grab a baseball bat and give it a try. Same result, broken container with the contents spread over 20+ feet. I was talking about them being shot with a handgun, not a rifle, but when talking about water jugs and watermelons the infomation gleaned is worth about as much (that being Jack $*it).
Check out this video....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5081675134672419097&q=watermelon&total=5268&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Now show me someone, exploding a watermelon just like in the video, with their fist or even a baseball bat.

No way, no how!

easyg
August 30, 2007, 05:29 PM
No matter how cool exploding melons and water jugs are, that huge temporary cavity doesn't ensure a good wound.
So you'll swallow a firecracker then?

Come'on, it doesn't "ensure a good wound", so you have nothing to fear.:D

jon_in_wv
August 30, 2007, 06:34 PM
Kinetic energy is the energy that a body possesses as a result of its motion. It is formally defined as the work needed to accelerate a body from rest to its current velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. Negative work of the same magnitude would be required to return the body to a state of rest from that velocity.

Under certain assumptions, this work (and thus the kinetic energy) is equal to:

E=1/2 m x v squared.

where m is the object's mass and v is the object's speed.

So I say again, if your talking about KENETIC ENERGY killing you don't even have a clue what you are talking about. A BULLET with a higher kenetic energy is capable of doing more work. This is simple physics. What you are shooting makes no difference the physics is the same. Two bullets, equal diameter, penetrating the same depth, the one with the higher "kenetic energy" is capable of doing more work and will be more effective as a defensive round. There is NO evidence to contradict this. The FBI report simply stated that strech cavity and bruising and stretching tissue is not a RELIABLE means of stopping and therefore discounted it in favor of reliable penetration. This was years ago. Modern bullets can match or exceed the penetration requirements of the FBI while still delivering a LOT of KE to the target which is a GOOD thing. For those who are constantly stuck on the FBI report I would note the top rounds cited by the FBI were the powerful 10mms and the 145gr Sivertip .357 magnums.
I would wager that no one in this discussion is using either of those rounds. Additionally, these two rounds shared one common factor. They were the rounds with the most KENETIC ENERGY. Booyah.

Note: To be intellectually honest they might of not been "the" highest but they were definitely among the highest.

fletcher
August 30, 2007, 06:50 PM
Two bullets, equal diameter, penetrating the same depth, the one with the higher "kenetic energy" is capable of doing more work and will be more effective as a defensive round. There is NO evidence to contradict this.
Pretty much sums it all up right there.

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 07:12 PM
Smeg,

I was *not* advocating .22LR for defensive use. I was making a point that penetration can be obtained by a low energy round, like the .22LR, but one that is recognized as a poor stopper. The point being that penetration alone is not a reliable indicator of stopping ability. Obviously, *any* round can stop if the round hits and damages the heart, major blood vessel, or CNS.

A .223 Rem round is the same diameter as the .22LR, with a *little* more mass, at least three times as much velocity, and about ten times more energy. No one doubts a .223 is a much better stopper than the .22LR.

K

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 07:17 PM
Two bullets, equal diameter, penetrating the same depth, the one with the higher "kenetic energy" is capable of doing more work and will be more effective as a defensive round. There is NO evidence to contradict this.

That's, effectively, the point I've been making all along.

K

Lone_Gunman
August 30, 2007, 07:45 PM
Two bullets, equal diameter, penetrating the same depth, the one with the higher "kenetic energy" is capable of doing more work and will be more effective as a defensive round. There is NO evidence to contradict this.

What evidence is there to support this statement with respect to the small amounts of kinetic energy involved with handgun rounds?

Also, if the bullets are the same, and penetrate the same depth, then would they not have to have had the same kinetic energy when they hit the target?

Riktoven
August 30, 2007, 07:45 PM
How much work do you need to do? A bullet traveling along a horizontal path can only crush tissue along that horizontal path. Hollowpoints increase the diameter of that line of travel, and surely deflect some of that energy along other vectors. However, until you can find a way to focus that energy at a right angle to the bullet's line of travel after penetrating, isn't that extra energy just going to be wasted after the bullet exits?

Unless the bullet yaws quickly there won't be much energy directed along vectors other than the bullets line of travel. No 'pressure wave' or whatever you call it. I can't imagine the possibility of this happening trumping using a bigger slower round or the same size round with a greater capacity, either of which would have less recoil to slow down follow-up shots. A fragmenting bullet would help here. There is a reason why most IEDs have shrapnel built in.

The 'pressure wave' from handgun ammunition, according to the FBI at least, isn't enough to permanently damage most tissue. I will concede that it could (should?) cause more pain, and that COULD be a factor in stopping a fight. Just the same, I doubt I could shoot a full bore 10mm or any magnum round half as fast as a nice slow 230gr .45 or 147gr 9mm. Until one of you guys invents a bullet who's energy dump will CONSISTENTLY drop someone with the first shot, I'm gonna stick to the good old 'shoot em fast and until they stop' line of thinking. If 5.56x45mm is getting mixed reviews at over 1200 ft.lbs. energy, I think you need to focus on a new bullet design :-)

fletcher
August 30, 2007, 07:46 PM
How much work do you need to do? A bullet traveling along a horizontal path can only crush tissue along that horizontal path.
Sort of. Any pressure that builds up from the displacement of matter (it will tear the material ahead of the bullet, not crush - not until the very end at least) will transfer energy in all directions. If I understand you correctly, there's plenty of "pressure wave", look at high-speed video of bullets in gelatin. Large displacements on a path perpendicular to that of the bullet are quite visible.

There is a reason why most IEDs have shrapnel built in.
I think it's for a different reason. An explosion of gas alone won't send things flying through your organs. There needs to be something present (added shrapnel) to really kill.

The 'pressure wave' from handgun ammunition, according to the FBI at least, isn't enough to permanently damage most tissue.
I won't argue that.


Two such high-speed videos (may need to right click => save as):
http://blueridgearmory.com/media/9mm_highspeed.mpg
http://blueridgearmory.com/media/45_highspeed.mpg

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 08:23 PM
What evidence is there to support this statement with respect to the small amounts of kinetic energy involved with handgun rounds?

9mm and .357 Mag. Same diameter, but the Mag has higher energy. Which one is more destructive and has better stopping ability?

Also, if the bullets are the same, and penetrate the same depth, then would they not have to have had the same kinetic energy when they hit the target?

Not necessarily. See www.brassfetcher.com for extensive gelatin results. A bullet's KE is shed by the resistance of penetration, but also by transfer of momentum to tissue flung out of it's path in creating the temporary and permanent wound cavity.

K

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 08:38 PM
interesting reading here, which is some sort of a military tutorial for medical personnel. It supports the significant role of kinetic energy in terminal ballistics. Go down the page a short ways to get the germane part about wounding.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/8996/s3opstx/slp/woundballistics.htm

K

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 08:43 PM
No 'pressure wave' or whatever you call it.

Are you saying there is no pressure wave that travels through tissue laterally to the path of the bullet?

K

Lone_Gunman
August 30, 2007, 08:59 PM
9mm and .357 Mag. Same diameter, but the Mag has higher energy. Which one is more destructive and has better stopping ability?


Do you have data regarding 9mm FMJ versus 357 magnum FMJ's?

Because that is the only way to fairly compare what you are talking about, and the only way to have wound channels the same diameter. If you are talking about bullets that deform to any degree such as JHP or JSP, I would contend that the 357 magnum is a better stopper because it expands better. Most of the stopping data I have seen regarding 357 magnum is in reference to hollowpoints.

Riktoven
August 30, 2007, 09:25 PM
Thank you Gunman.

If the bullet doesn't deform (FMJ), then no significant amount of energy will be radiated outward. You are just going to poke a hole clean through the target.

Hollowpoints do deform, and as they do will transmit more energy outward from the wound path, but will it be enough to have an effect? The answer depends entirely on your target's, state-of-mind. Physiologically speaking, there just isn't enough energy there for the small fraction radiated outwards to have a RELIABLE effect*.

*I am going off of the FBI and other related studies when making this statement. While I am not the most trusting of authority figures, the FBI physicians who put the studies together have no reason that I can see to falsify their findings. Therefore, I see no reason to question those findings especially given the fact that there has been no evidence cited to show that anyone, ever, has been killed by a pressure wave from a handgun wound. A published case study (not an anecdotal story) of vital organs being destroyed away from the bullet path would suffice, but not a news story about someone 'stopping' or 'surrendering' after being shot.

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 09:26 PM
LG,

I didn't say the wound channels are the same, the bullet diameter is. There is only so much a 9mm/.357 bullet can expand and still hold together. So, they both have about the same expansion diameter potential. I think it's generally accepted that the .357 HP is a pretty reliable expander due to it's high velocity. But, a properly loaded 9 HP is no slouch, either. Still, unless someone corrects me, the .357, the higher energy round, is the better stopper in real life shooting incident reports. Of course, few LEA still use .357 revolvers, as do bad guys.

K

Lone_Gunman
August 30, 2007, 09:30 PM
I didn't say the wound channels are the same, the bullet diameter is.

If the bullet diameter is the same, and the bullets do not deform, the wound channel would be the same. A 357 mag FMJ produces a wound in human tissue the same diameter as a 9mm. I don't know, or really care, what it does in gelatin. I don't think there would be as much difference in stopping power if you compared a 357 mag FMJ to a 9mm FMJ. I think the 357 magnum would only start performing significantly better if you used expanding bullets. It is much easier to get consistent expansion with a 357 magnum JHP than it is with a 9mm JHP.

jon_in_wv
August 30, 2007, 09:33 PM
Look at brassfetchers results in comparison of rifle and pistol rounds. If a rifle round going 2500fps expands to .70 inch and penetrates 15 inches it has the same stopping power as a .45 round travelling 850 fps that does the same. RIGHT?!?!?!?!?

The answer is no. Pistol ammo is meager, in comparison to rifle rounds yes. But do me a favor. Cut a length of copper rod .355 inch in diameter. Now take it and punch it completely through two cars doors. Or try it through a 2x4. I'll bet my M&P can punch those holes a lot easier than you can by hand if you can at all. The pistol round does have enough energy to do quite a bit of work. The meager, weak pistol round arguement is a bit played out. The problem is the resilience of the human body, not the weakness of the round.

Kentak
August 30, 2007, 09:38 PM
LG,

What do you call a .357 Mag round that has less kinetic energy?






A 9mm.


:)

jon_in_wv
August 30, 2007, 09:42 PM
Oh, and some one please name ONE "FBI Physician" who was involved in the writing of the HWFE. It was written by Special Agent Patrick, not a mythical group of FBI physicians. HE cited many sources, some of them were doctors and some contributed to his studies. What are SA Patricks credentials that we treat his work as gospel? How many years ago was this?

Riktoven
August 30, 2007, 09:48 PM
Show me some work to contradict that gospel. Anything.

jon_in_wv
August 30, 2007, 09:56 PM
I assume you carry a .357 with 145 grain sivertips right. The gospel and its writers the FBI said this was the preferred load.

brashboy
August 30, 2007, 10:03 PM
Why would shooting humans be viewed any differently from shooting game animals, when it comes to bullet-caused mortality? Isn't the goal incapacitation and/or a fast kill? Game animals don't shoot back, but sometimes they try to eat, stomp or gut you. Anyone who has ever gut-shot a dangerous animal and had to go find it understands this well, so the analogy is sound.

It's about bullet energy and penetration. Call it energy transfer, shock or whatever, but while a .45 and .22 might have equal penetration, the .45 is LIKELY to be far more incapacitating - a goal when shooting both BGs and game animals. This is because it causes more damage, even if it penetrates no better than the .22. All penetration is not created equal. The goal is to have a powerful round that expends its energy in the BG and causes maximum damage. That is all the shooter can hope for. The .22 may ultimately be fatal, even days later (.22s are real killers, actually), but unless the shot is nearly perfect through the brain or something, the .22 fails the incapacitation and fast-kill tests in almost every situation.

Hitting the BG poorly might fail to cause incapacitation or a fast kill, just like with the water buffalo, no matter how powerful the round. But the possibility does not suggest we should go to less powerful rounds. Look for power and penetration. The FBI did a study on the stopping power of different rounds based on police reports, meaning that the round stopped the BG. The smaller the round, the less effective it was. 9mm did better than .380, .380 did better than .32, etc.

While a big round is no magic talisman, a heavy bullet that plows through the guy is what I am looking for.

jon_in_wv
August 30, 2007, 10:09 PM
Besides, your right. Special Agent Patrick was able to completely discount the writings of guys like Marshal and Sanow by flipping a coin and was able to "prove" guns don't have stopping power by saying, the force coming out the front is the same as it is coming out the back. He also took the time to explain how the fact that the "temporary cavity" doesn't result in permanent tissue damage, it therefore has no effect. Never mind the fact, if it was permanent tissue damage, it would be the permanent cavity, no the temporary cavity. Pure Genius. How he did this a mere 20 or so years ago and coincidentally proved it was the AMMO that resulted in the debacle at the Miami shootout not their mistakes and training is beyond me. Your right. I should have never questioned the "Gospel". :DBooyah

easyg
August 30, 2007, 10:37 PM
Lone_Gunman Quote:
If the bullet diameter is the same, and the bullets do not deform, the wound channel would be the same.
Not necessarily.

Don't forget to factor in bullet weight.;)

Same bullet diameter + the same non-deforming bullets + the same amount of penetration....but with different bullet weights = different results.

Which would you rather be hit in the head with...a hollow pipe made out of light-weight plastic or a hollow pipe made out of heavy lead?

Warbow
August 30, 2007, 11:31 PM
Kentak wrote:

9mm and .357 Mag. Same diameter, but the Mag has higher energy. Which one is more destructive and has better stopping ability?

Well, according to your link in post #73 there won't be much noticable difference.

It says:

In low velocity injuries the temporary cavity formation has little or no residual effect because there has not been enough KE imparted into the tissue.

They define low velocity as below 2,000-2,500 FPS. Are there any .357 Mag loads that can reach 2,000+ FPS from a pistol with a 6" barrel?

It goes on to say that velocities of 2,000-2,500 FPS and up are enough to where the temporary cavity will actually start causing tissue damage beyond the permanent cavity.

That seems to basically be what Lone_Gunman said of his experience in treating GSWs a few pages back in this thread...

Smeg
August 30, 2007, 11:48 PM
Smeg,

I was *not* advocating .22LR for defensive use. I was making a point that penetration can be obtained by a low energy round, like the .22LR, but one that is recognized as a poor stopper. The point being that penetration alone is not a reliable indicator of stopping ability. Obviously, *any* round can stop if the round hits and damages the heart, major blood vessel, or CNS.

I know exactly what you were doing, you were being a sophist, and I didn't let you get away with it. This business about a .22 being a good penetrator is patently false, unless, perhaps, you're assuming it doesn't hit bone (did you even read the rest of my post past the first sentence?).

Penetration and bullet diameter are the only reliable factors in determining the capability of a handgun round. If it doesn't penetrate deeply enough, it won't do its job. If the hole isn't big enough, it won't do its job. Penetration into a non-homogenous critter made up of bones and other substances of inconsistent densities is governed by how much inertia the object has entering said critter. The more inertia a bullet has, the harder it will be to stop.

The goal should be to select one's defensive round taking into consideration what will give the best chance at pulling off that elusive 1 shot stop in any circumstance, and the only way of absolutely 100% guaranteeing a 1 shot stop is a central nervous system shot.

Since no sane person would bank on pulling off a head shot, you have to select your round to penetrate sufficiently to reach the spinal cord and to maximize the chance of just *nicking* a nerve, paralyzing the attacker. That is why I would reach for the .45 when possible.

Back to the hunting example I gave that you either ignored or chose not to address. A 165 gr .308 Winchester round has ~22% more energy than a 500 gr .458 SOCOM round. The .458 SOCOM round has more than 50% more momentum than the .308 Winchester. Which would you rather have if you stumble across a grizzly? Can you think of any reason why you wouldn't want to use a Glaser Safety Slug to take on a grizzly? Can you tell me why a "high momentum" round would never be marketed as non-lethal whereas the "high energy" Glaser Safety Slug is?

There's a reason African game hunters use the Taylor index instead of energy numbers. You see, they would rather not get eaten.

A .223 Rem round is the same diameter as the .22LR, with a *little* more mass, at least three times as much velocity, and about ten times more energy. No one doubts a .223 is a much better stopper than the .22LR.

Try a more extreme comparison, say, a .223 vs. .44 magnum. Which would you rather have to defend your family when you stumble upon a grizzly? Remember, the typical .223 load has *oodles* more energy than your typical .44 magnum load. One of them has nearly double the momentum though...

mavracer
August 31, 2007, 10:54 AM
If the bullet diameter is the same, and the bullets do not deform, the wound channel would be the same. A 357 mag FMJ produces a wound in human tissue the same diameter as a 9mm. I don't know, or really care, what it does in gelatin. I don't think there would be as much difference in stopping power if you compared a 357 mag FMJ to a 9mm FMJ. I think the 357 magnum would only start performing significantly better if you used expanding bullets. It is much easier to get consistent expansion with a 357 magnum JHP than it is with a 9mm JHP.
so to expand on this you think a 32 acp fmj would cause the same size wound channel as a 30/06(actually the 32 should produce a larger .312 vs. .308 ) yes penatration and permanate wound cavity are King but adding more temporary wound channel from adding kinetic energy can't be a bad thing. can it?

I assume you carry a .357 with 145 grain sivertips right. The gospel and its writers the FBI said this was the preferred load.
actually I do carry 145 silvertips in my 2 1/4" tauri 605.its a proven load and I can put all 5 in a 6" bullseye at 25 yards. 125s shoot low and most 158s are too heavily constructed to expand consistantly from a 2 1/4" bbl

Riktoven
August 31, 2007, 11:15 AM
so to expand on this you think a 32 acp fmj would cause the same size wound channel as a 30/06(actually the 32 should produce a larger .312 vs. .308 ) yes penatration and permanate wound cavity are King but adding more temporary wound channel from adding kinetic energy can't be a bad thing. can it?

If neither bullet deformed, fragmented, or yawed, then given equal penetration yes they should be the same. Obviously the rifle round moving 5 times as fast WILL deform, fragment, or yaw creating a more greivous wound. Also, the heavier .30-06 bullet moving 5 times as fast doesn't tend to be stopped in it's tracks by bone.

The comparison makes more sense when talking about equal bullet weights with only the velocity being different. A .22 Short that goes clean through a target without deforming, fragmenting, or yawing will have an identical wound pattern as a .22LR that goes through the same space without deforming, etc.

Can adding KE be a bad thing? Of course. Anything that is guaranteed to slow down your follow-up shots has to come with a guaranteed bonus. Extra energy that at best *might* and in all likelyhood won't add anything to the wound seems like a ridiculous tradeoff. Gimme a 55gr+ projectile with 1000+ FPE and we'll talk. Until then, 3-4x 9mm fired in the same time span as 1-2 .357 magnum seems like it's going to do more damage to me.

This all assuming we are taking about defense against humans. If you are talking about defense against bears, you need quite a bit more penetration. In my mind that means increasing mass of the bullet (more momentum). If you are only concerned about skinny shirtless gang bangers, the Glaser Safety slugs probably are the best bet since they can create pretty nasty wounds 4-6" deep. If you're being attacked by someone weighing 260+lbs though, physiologically that ammunition can't consistently get deep enough to reach this much larger man's vital organs, and therefore if he stops it would be because he *chose* to, not because your actions *forced* that response.

Kentak
August 31, 2007, 12:18 PM
Smeg,

You make good points. Except, I deny being a sophist (consciously, anyway), and I think you're inferring some points I'm not implying.

I think if you will review my posts on this subject, I have repeatedly used the phrase, "...everything else being equal..." I've also said energy alone is not conclusive and that other factors, like caliber and bullet construction are important.

The .22LR will penetrate many homogenous mediums as well as many more powerful handgun rounds. Gelatin tests show that. But, I was making that statement to show the weakness of not considering energy along with penetration. You're absolutely right, a .22LR will be stopped or deflected by heavy bone. My purpose in comparing the the .223 to the LR was make a point (exaggerated, to be sure) that the .223, although only a little heavier than the .22, has a lot more punch. More energy *and* more momentum, of course. Which is more important? Depends, don't you think? I suspect sometimes momentum trumps, and sometimes energy does. A .233 might punch through a heavy bone that a .44 mag might only crack because the .233 has more focused energy. I believe (not sure, tho) that .233 will punch through a greater thickness of steel plate than .44 mag will. Not that we're threatened by steel plate, but to show that KE is meaningful.

As for the bear. Neither. I want a hi-cap, autoloading, 12ga slug gun. Seriously, I would probably say .44, because it has track record and this might be one of the instances where momentum trumps energy. Which will do more damage to a bear's shoulder joint? I don't know the answer to that, but it would make an interesting test. Also, I couldn't find *any* accounts of .223 results against brown bears. Surely, it must have happened sometime.

Here's one for you, against the bear: .45ACP, or .223? The .45 has more momentum than the .223, but 1/3 the energy.

K

Kentak
August 31, 2007, 12:23 PM
Smeg,

How about 12ga birdshot 1 oz. beanbag LE round. High momentum, non-lethal.
:neener: ;)

Lone_Gunman
August 31, 2007, 12:35 PM
so to expand on this you think a 32 acp fmj would cause the same size wound channel as a 30/06

There is no way to meaningfully compare 32 acp to 30-06 because of the extreme difference in the amount of energy involved. My comments are only valid when comparing low energy handgun rounds.

The energy from a 30-06 bullet is high enough to cause death of tissue around the wound channel, even tissue that the bullet does not directly contact. This effect is only seen with high velocity rifle rounds, and handguns don't usually have enough energy to do this.

But if you compared a 32 acp moving at 800 fps to one moving at say 1000 fps, and the bullets did not change in diameter on impact, and you could somehow keep penetration constant (which you couldn't), then I do not think there would be any difference in wounding capabilities.

Smeg
August 31, 2007, 01:53 PM
I have repeatedly used the phrase, "...everything else being equal..." I've also said energy alone is not conclusive and that other factors, like caliber and bullet construction are important.

This may be where a miscommunication lies. I do not intend to minimize the role energy plays in wounding, as it does have its place. My contention is that when it comes to the approximating the wounding potential of a round, all things being equal, momentum is a better indicator than energy since we're shooting humans made of both rigid and elastic materials rather than gelatin. All things not being equal, bullet diameter *and* momentum are better indicators than energy and anything else.

My purpose in comparing the the .223 to the LR was make a point (exaggerated, to be sure) that the .223, although only a little heavier than the .22, has a lot more punch. More energy *and* more momentum, of course. Which is more important? Depends, don't you think?
The reason I don't like this comparison is because it is between two rounds, one of which is clearly the superior in all regards - roughly 4 times the momentum and 10 times the energy. However, I think if one were to guesstimate the performance gain of the .223 over the .22, a 400% increase in performance (as it relates to wounding) would be a more reasonable guesstimate than 1000%. That is only an opinion, however.

A .233 might punch through a heavy bone that a .44 mag might only crack because the .233 has more focused energy. I believe (not sure, tho) that .233 will punch through a greater thickness of steel plate than .44 mag will. Not that we're threatened by steel plate, but to show that KE is meaningful.
Again, energy has its place, and if we're talking about armor piercing rounds, a heavy, high speed tungsten-alloy core shaped like an arrow will do better than any .44 magnum hemisphere. However, if we're looking at 2 armor piercing rounds of the same caliber, the heavier of the two will always penetrate better than the lighter, even though it may have less energy but more momentum. If you could get the lighter load's velocity to the point where the momentum numbers were equal, then it would, by default have much more energy, and the comparison would be invalid.

You can see this for yourself. Pick any load for any gun you own. Say, a 9mm for example. Buy a box of 115 gr and a box of 147 grain from the same manufacturer. Shoot them into a medium of your choosing from the same distance and from the same gun. You will see that the difference in the depth of their penetration can be better approximated by the difference between their momentums rather than the difference between their energies.

As for the bear. Neither. I want a hi-cap, autoloading, 12ga slug gun.
Ideally, sure, if you're expecting to be attacked by a bear you wouldn't want either a .223 or a .44 magnum - you would want something similar to what you describe (I'd take a .458 SOCOM with 500gr rounds, personally...). The point I was making is that the round with more momentum would be the better choice over the round with more energy.

Here's one for you, against the bear: .45ACP, or .223? The .45 has more momentum than the .223, but 1/3 the energy.
.45 any day of the week. The momentum values are basically equal for the two, but the .45 has the advantage of being the larger diameter, heavier round. If it should hit bone, it would be more likely to stay in tact and continue to penetrate better than the .223 simply by virtue of its construction, and it would make a much larger permanent cavity.

And haha :rolleyes: Yeah I suppose you got me with the bean bag.

Cosmoline
August 31, 2007, 02:16 PM
Temporary cavity does not wound.

Maybe true of lower velocity rounds and handgun bullets, but for higher velocity rounds the tc is more than large enough to cause tissue disruption and even death. It cause that bruising inside an animal shot with a rifle's bullet.

Here's one for you, against the bear: .45ACP, or .223? The .45 has more momentum than the .223, but 1/3 the energy.

I'd go with the .223. The .45 ACP's bullet is a poor penetrator because of its low sectional density. Plus, I KNOW brown bear have been taken with a .223, but I've never heard of .45 ACP sidearm taking one. Now .45 Colt is another issue.

the heavier of the two will always penetrate better than the lighter

Only if they're the same diameter.

Smeg
August 31, 2007, 02:28 PM
Only if they're the same diameter
That is what I meant, I thought that was understood - comparing 2 rounds of the same caliber, the heavier will penetrate better than the lighter.

Edited accordingly.

I've never heard of .45 ACP sidearm taking one.
When I was looking into going on a bear hunt with my .44 magnum (and decided against it after much research), I came across a story of a guy taking a brown bear with a 1911. Anecdotal, sure. Most of this thread is, though.

A 240gr .44 magnum also has a lower SD than the .223, but I don't know anybody hiking through bear country bringing along their AR-15 for protection instead of the .44 magnum.

mavracer
August 31, 2007, 04:21 PM
But if you compared a 32 acp moving at 800 fps to one moving at say 1000 fps, and the bullets did not change in diameter on impact, and you could somehow keep penetration constant (which you couldn't), then I do not think there would be any difference in wounding capabilities.
you can keep saying this all you want it won't make it true.there will be some difference.the .45 230 hydro shock and .357 magnum 125 fed classic JHP both long concidered about equal and very sound stoppers ( many actually give the edge to the .357) but the 45 has more momentum 195500 to 181250 and will consistantly expand to a larger diameter and out penatrate the .357 through most mediums.IMHO the reason is kinetic energy transfer.I may be wrong but I don't think so.

Cosmoline
August 31, 2007, 05:12 PM
I don't know anybody hiking through bear country bringing along their AR-15 for protection instead of the .44 magnum.

I know of and have seen many subsistence hunters carrying a .223 in some very rough bear country out west of here. Wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd take it over a .45 ACP--esp if we're comparing rifles to handguns.

As far as the .44, 300 grains or more of hardcast would be a much better weight than 240. The only expanding .44's I'd use for bear would be the 300 grain XTP out of a levergun.

Cosmoline
August 31, 2007, 05:15 PM
IMHO the reason is kinetic energy transfer.I may be wrong but I don't think so.

The momentum of the larger bullet will help in penetration, but how will "energy transfer" make it go further? Surely any energy transferred to the target slows the bullet down faster.

The light weight .357 is highly overrated as a manstopper, anyway. I use 158's or heavier.

mavracer
August 31, 2007, 05:47 PM
The momentum of the larger bullet will help in penetration, but how will "energy transfer" make it go further? Surely any energy transferred to the target slows the bullet down faster
sorry in my original post I asked the poeple who think KE has nothing to do with wounding could explain how
a .357 seams to perform as well as the 45 which has more momentum,penatration and expansion.

Soybomb
August 31, 2007, 06:33 PM
What are SA Patricks credentials that we treat his work as gospel? How many years ago was this?
I don't know a whole lot about him past him being a princeton graduate and and being 2nd in charge at the FBI's firearms training unit. Why are you trying to attack agent patrick though? He wrote a paper and cited many different peer reviewed journal articles that led him to the conclusions he came to. It isn't like he was proposing a new idea himself. Its more like a research paper for college, he did a bunch of leg work and found material from people who are experts in medicine, ballistics, and wounding, and cited them. If you want to discredit his work, at least in the academic sense properly, you need to attack his cited sources. Those are the people with credentials that are considered the experts. Show me why the statements he said and cited are false.

What does age have to do with it? Alright its 20 years old, how has the human body changed in 20 years that now it is wounded differently?

Again, any volunteers to swallow a lit firecracker?

Or maybe stick one somewhere else (your sphincter is elastic, right)?

I'm guessing that we'll get no volunteers.
Why?
Because we all know that it would be painful and would probably damage us in someway.
Can you tell me how ingesting explosive material is the same as a gun shot wound?

You similarly won't get me to cut myself with my pocket knife or shoot myself with a .22, but that really doesn't mean anything either. At the end of the day you're welcome to believe whatever you want. Personally I have a list of doctors, trauma surgeons, and others who are considered experts telling me that handguns don't have enough energy to reliably cause man stopping wounds via temporary cavitation. On the other hand I have a guy on the internet saying since a person shouldn't eat a firecracker and water melons blow up when you shoot them, clearly temporary cavitation from handguns is an effective way to stop attackers. For the time being I'm going with the medical professionals and not the fruit theory. I'd certainly welcome some reading material though showing me that temporary cav from handgun rounds is a reliable stopping and wounding mechanism.

sorry in my original post I asked the poeple who think KE has nothing to do with wounding could explain how
a .357 seams to perform as well as the 45 which has more momentum,penatration and expansion.
I know of no real ranking that reliable, there's the often cited M&S data that says that .357 mag is like a bolt of lightning from god, but that data is junk. I think most people who are considered experts today would tell you that the one that crushes the most tissue is going to be the best bet. That usually means more mass and bigger size.

Lone_Gunman
August 31, 2007, 08:38 PM
357 mag performs as well or better than 45 ACP. It does this because there is enough energy in the 357 magnum to cause violent expansion, which effectively increases the diameter of the wound channel, and causes more tissue damage.

There is not enough energy with 357 magnum to cause devitalization of tissues not directly in contact with the bullet.

Also the design of most of the better performing 357 magnum bullets is more conducive to expansion than 45 ACP bullets. 45 ACP bullets may have the potential to expand to a larger diameter than 357 magnum, but the higher velocity and bullet design of 357 magnum bullets will encourage more consistent expansion. I am basing this on bullets passing through human tissue, not gelatin.

Understand that I am talking about tissue trauma that can be observed and documented, either with the eyes, or a microscope.

Soybomb
August 31, 2007, 09:12 PM
357 mag performs as well or better than 45 ACP. It does this because there is enough energy in the 357 magnum to cause violent expansion, which effectively increases the diameter of the wound channel, and causes more tissue damage.
Can you cite a source for me that goes into detail on how it performs as well or better than, the methodology used, etc? Or is this your work experience? My impression was also that expansion was fairly reliable with today's hollowpoints, bone aside.

Lone_Gunman
August 31, 2007, 09:16 PM
I think no matter who's work you read, most everyone agrees that 357 magnum and 45 ACP work about equally.

mavracer
August 31, 2007, 09:29 PM
I'd certainly welcome some reading material though showing me that temporary cav from handgun rounds is a reliable stopping and wounding mechanism.
here you go http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org
357 mag performs as well or better than 45 ACP. It does this because there is enough energy in the 357 magnum to cause violent expansion, which effectively increases the diameter of the wound channel, and causes more tissue damage.
so if it does not expand to a greater diameter and does not penatrate deeper it will still make a larger wound channel because of greater kinetic energy causes violent expansion.

Lone_Gunman
August 31, 2007, 09:31 PM
mavracer, i dont understand your last post.

boomstik45
August 31, 2007, 10:03 PM
I see what he's trying to say, but it still isn't quite right. In the case of a rifle bullet, it's much more likely to be effective. In handguns...not so much.

It's not that temporary wound cavity doesn't have anything to do with incapacitation. It's that it's not a RELIABLE stopping and wounding mechanism BY ITSELF. It is a PART of the stopping and wounding mechanism as a whole.

Greater kinetic energy and violent expansion are great for temporary wounding cavity and causing pain. But does that result in RELIABLE incapacitation by itself?

Besides, you then put yourself in a bad place with temporary cavity. Why? Because any wound initially caused by a round is all you have to work with. What if the round hits a bone? There goes your incapacitation, in most cases. The key word here is reliable...that's all.

boomstik45
August 31, 2007, 10:07 PM
It amuses me to see someone calling out an experienced and noted professional like Special Agent Urey Patrick.

You ask "who is this, and why should we listen to him, it was 20 years ago...blah, blah, blah."

So, who are you, and what professional experience do you have that you may share with us, that is so much more prevalent and updated in comparison to an FBI special agent? Because, if you're gonna talk the game, you better have some serious game. Otherwise, you're not even a forum contributor, just a keyboard commando. :neener:

mavracer
August 31, 2007, 10:48 PM
LG,
you said 357 mag performs as well or better than 45 ACP. It does this because there is enough energy in the 357 magnum to cause violent expansion, which effectively increases the diameter of the wound channel, and causes more tissue damage.
a 230gr .45 has more momentum than a 125gr .357 and will concistantly out penatrate and expand to a larger diameter.yet the .357 works as well as a .45
because of energy.kinetic energy from added velocity which causes damage.

NOW to be honest I still think you can take a coked up determaned BG compleatly destroy his heart and lungs and he'll still have 15-20 seconds to do bad things.I say this Because in my personal experiance I have seen animals shot through the chest with .270,30/06 and 45/70 among others, that run 200 yards.having a vet for a hunting partner cleaning game turns into a autopsy.

mavracer
August 31, 2007, 10:49 PM
I see what he's trying to say, but it still isn't quite right. In the case of a rifle bullet, it's much more likely to be effective. In handguns...not so much.

It's not that temporary wound cavity doesn't have anything to do with incapacitation. It's that it's not a RELIABLE stopping and wounding mechanism BY ITSELF. It is a PART of the stopping and wounding mechanism as a whole.

Greater kinetic energy and violent expansion are great for temporary wounding cavity and causing pain. But does that result in RELIABLE incapacitation by itself?
very well put

Lone_Gunman
August 31, 2007, 11:17 PM
Temporary cavity may contribute to incapacitation. Thats not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that temporary cavity (from a low velocity hand gun projectile) will not cause a physical, observable injury to tissue. I don't doubt that it might contribute to psychological incapacitation.

Kentak
August 31, 2007, 11:48 PM
You know. Why can't we all just get along. I think there's a lot of truth in what both sides are saying.

When I was a kid, we played a lot of dodgeball in school. Once, I turned around and got smacked with one of those red rubber playground balls right in the solar plexus. I dropped like a lead weight until I could catch my breath. I bet the best surgeon in the world couldn't see one iota of injury by visual or microscopic examination of my gut. Yet, I was down.

Is it so hard to believe that having your guts spread apart by the temporary cavitation caused by the passing of a high energy round is going to feel like you've been hit with a Mack Truck? Even if there is no permanent wounding, might that add to the physiological and psychological distress that makes an attacker go, "I quit, call 911."?

K

Soybomb
September 1, 2007, 01:58 AM
You know. Why can't we all just get along. I think there's a lot of truth in what both sides are saying.
I don't necessarily agree with the latter part ;) but I love the discussion. I think its great that people are thinking about what they put in their gun, trying to read and research and not just loading their gun with whatever package has the most ninjas and lightning bolts on it.

Is it so hard to believe that having your guts spread apart by the temporary cavitation caused by the passing of a high energy round is going to feel like you've been hit with a Mack Truck?
To some extent it is because blunt trauma is very different than a penetrating wound. What if it does hurt and someone doesn't want to stop? It happens and one instance of it happening in particular is really part of what sparked research to take us to where we are today. I might think it feels like getting hit with a mack truck, but it has nowhere near the energy of a mack truck. If I'm having a bad day, and I am if I'm shooting people, and my attacker doesn't want to agree to stop because I shot him and it hurts shouldn't I be prepared with the round that can force his body to stop? Most attackers are going to quit when they see the gun but you still load your gun. Even if most attackers would stop because they had been shot, shouldn't we be prepared for if they don't?

mavracer
September 1, 2007, 02:15 PM
What I am saying is that temporary cavity (from a low velocity hand gun projectile) will not cause a physical, observable injury to tissue.
you are wrong, I have seen it!

fletcher
September 1, 2007, 03:11 PM
whatever package has the most ninjas and lightning bolts on it.
I only load what has the most ninjas and lightning bolts in it. :neener:

Lone_Gunman
September 1, 2007, 03:50 PM
you are wrong, I have seen it!

Are you talking about the boar?

You shot it with a stout 44 magnum... I haven't calculated out the energy of the round you described but it is much much higher than most handgun rounds used in self-defense. It is probably fairly close in energy to a 223. So I think it is unfair to describe that as a low-velocity, low energy handgun round.

I am talking about loads and calibers typically used for self defense.

jon_in_wv
September 2, 2007, 03:54 PM
What I wrote was not an attack on SA Patrick. Forget your bias and try to read it again. The point was that he is in charge of the FIREARMS unit. He, by is own admission in his writing is not the foremost scholar on the subject. He merely tried to look objectively at the body of evidence to come to some type of conclusion. That being that penetration of vital organs is the only RELIABLE method of stopping an opponent. I will agree that adequate penetration is the most important issue to address. NOWHERE did he say there are no other factors in stopping power, only that to rely on those methods was not as reliable as penetration. But Patrick also uses some terribly simplistic logic to come to some of his conclusions. Additionally, others have come to many of their own conclusions claiming its what the FBI says and they are full of crap. Also bullet technology has come a long ways in 20 years, so yes, that does make a difference. I don't have to be a genius to see that when people say "KE don't kill" they don't even know what that means. But they will be the first to praise the FBI gospel and attack anyone who disagrees with it or doesn't agree with THEIR interpretation of it.

Finally, A keyboard commando would be people who attack saying, "who are YOU, what are YOUR credentials." I don't need to hear your credentials to respect what you have to say but attacking me and name calling because I questioned a 20yr old report by an FBI agent is not what I would call a forum contributor either. I guess you need a PHD to discuss a subject unless you agree with it. I asked why I should put so much credibility into it that I should ignore other informed sources like I've been told to. Yet no one can answer that without attacking me. I thought a forum was a place where people of differing opinions could meet and speak. I guess not.

mavracer
September 2, 2007, 05:32 PM
You shot it with a stout 44 magnum... I haven't calculated out the energy of the round you described but it is much much higher than most handgun rounds used in self-defense. It is probably fairly close in energy to a 223. So I think it is unfair to describe that as a low-velocity, low energy handgun round.
you are in denial,and I'm done trying to enlighten someone who refuses to belive they think they know everything.obviously you have not managed to read any of Dr.Courtney's work maybe you should. http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org

Odd Job
September 2, 2007, 06:30 PM
obviously you have not managed to read any of Dr.Courtney's work maybe you should.

The 'research' by Dr Courtney is not relevant to this thread. He and his co-author are suggesting that a 'ballistic pressure wave' can incapacitate a human by remote CNS effects (beyond the range of effect of a temporary cavity). I won't discuss what I think of that suggestion and how they have attempted to support it, because that is off-topic here. I suggest you head over to Tactical Forums/Terminal effects to read up on some of the debate on this.

As regards the question of whether a temporary cavity from a handgun round can damage the tissue in which the cavitation takes place, I have seen it macroscopically and radiologically. HOWEVER there are strings attached.

The first and best case involved a carjacking victim in 2002, Johannesburg. The victim was shot several times and was alive upon arrival in the casualty department. He made it to theatre but when they opened him up they found a lot of damage to his liver, inferior vena cava and one kidney. He died on table. I was there, and I got pictures of the liver. There was definite cavitational damage to the liver with stellate tearing of the liver
'capsule.' They recovered one JHP from the body, all the other shots were perforating. I did not measure the projectile but I photographed it:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/JHPSide.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/JHPBase.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/JHPNose.jpg

The weight of it in my hand and the general dimensions of it were consistent with a service calibre round somewhere around 9mm in diameter.

But before I pat myself on the back and hand the cigars around, you have to realise a few things here:

1) Liver is not elastic. It cannot stretch. It is therefore more prone to the effects of cavitation than muscle or lung tissue.
2) I don't know the velocity of the projectile as it passed through the liver.

The radiological case was a gunshot face where the victim sustained no intracerebral injury but routine angiography detected an anomaly in a facial artery. This anomaly was reported as not being caused by extrinsic compression (haemorrhaging alongside a vessel such that blood flow is affected) or direct injury (no leak was detected). Although this artery was not far from the terminal trajectory of the round, it was not directly in the path of the projectile. The radiologist reported it as a possible tunica intima injury (damage or peeling of the innermost lining of an artery) but there may have been some vessel spasm making the appearances less subtle than noted.

These cases are not common with handgun rounds (at least as far as I have been able to document with my cases) but I submit that they are out there.

jon_in_wv
September 2, 2007, 07:09 PM
What the FBI proponents have done is to say that penetration is the ONLY factor in stopping power. What I and others are trying to say is that whatever you want to call the effect that a high velocity pistol round has on the body. Common sense says it must be beneficial to stopping power assuming the round does penetrate to the desired depth. Years ago the elusive round that penetrated AND expanded were few and far between. Now we have a few modern rounds that are very capable of expanding and penetrating. If the fact it also has a little more speed, momentum, and KE gives it a slight edge than its worth it. SA Patrick said himself that if all our learning only gave us a 1% edge then it was well worth it for that 1%. Some prople have closed their minds to all but the simplest of conclusion from his writing which really does him a disservice for his efforts. I don't attack him for his work, only those too closed minded to appreciate his work for what it is and continue to build on it for the future.

Soybomb
September 2, 2007, 08:04 PM
I guess you need a PHD to discuss a subject unless you agree with it. I asked why I should put so much credibility into it that I should ignore other informed sources like I've been told to. Yet no one can answer that without attacking me. I thought a forum was a place where people of differing opinions could meet and speak. I guess not.
I answered you without attacking you. I am somewhat confused though. You feel as though we shouldn't have to be certifiable experts in ballistics to talk about it, but you also dismiss agent patrick for being unqualified to talk about ballistics while ignoring the 50 or so citations of experts in his paper. I would welcome a dialogue that has some supporting quality evidence like his. Usually its just someone saying "well I suppose...."

But Patrick also uses some terribly simplistic logic to come to some of his conclusions.
Please elaborate. To my knowledge it remains a respected document even among the experts. Doctor Gary Roberts says "Anyone interested in this topic should read and periodically re-read, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” by Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU, as this remains the single best discussion of the wound ballistic requirements of handguns used for self-defense." Why is it of such lower quality to you?

Also bullet technology has come a long ways in 20 years, so yes, that does make a difference.
I would agree, it has been influenced tremendously by the works that patrick cited and those like it. Ammunition makers have tried to meet the guidelines they laid out.

What I and others are trying to say is that whatever you want to call the effect that a high velocity pistol round has on the body. Common sense says it must be beneficial to stopping power
What evidence are you bringing to the table that shows me that service caliber handgun rounds can reach a velocity high enough to cause incapacitation outside of their effect on inelastic tissue? Saying common sense isn't proof and historically fails.

I don't attack him for his work, only those too closed minded to appreciate his work for what it is and continue to build on it for the future.
Alright what are we building on it with? If you're interested in respecting the work I think you need to challenge or augment it with work thats equally rich with documentation and supporting research. You're aware that the general dismissal of M&S's work isn't the result of flipping a coin, its that it isn't academic quality work with the proper documentation and methodology. Its like if I turned in a grade schoolers "research paper" for a masters level class. Once again along the lines of respecting work, a great many people have published reports documenting the numerous flaws of M&S work including MacPherson, Fackler, and van Maanen. Give these gentlemen some credit for their work instead of suggesting there is no valid reason to dismiss the M&S work. If you'd like to read some of it, and I assure you there are no coins involved try http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

Lone_Gunman
September 2, 2007, 08:08 PM
you are in denial,and I'm done trying to enlighten someone who refuses to belive they think they know everything.

I don't know everything, but I think you are making a bad comparison when trying to apply your experience with a hot 44 magnum load to the handgun calibers normally used for self defense.

mavracer
September 2, 2007, 08:44 PM
I don't know everything, but I think you are making a bad comparison when trying to apply your experience with a hot 44 magnum load to the handgun calibers normally used for self defense.
I don't know everything either ,a couple things I am pretty sure of
A:200 ft.lbs is bearly enough to cause a temporary cavity let alone cause trauma from hydrolics.hence .32 acp and .380 need to perforate somthing important.
B:1000 ft.lbs.even at 1000-1200 fps will do signifigant damage outside of the bullets path,I've seen that.
In my opinion it would make more sense that radial damage,done without direct contact with bullet,happens more and more as you go up in power from
200 to 1000 ft.lbs. not just magicly appears at 1000 ft.lbs.
I think IMHO .357 and 10mm can make enough energy to have a effect,how much I got no clue.

Lone_Gunman
September 2, 2007, 10:03 PM
In my opinion it would make more sense that radial damage,done without direct contact with bullet,happens more and more as you go up in power from
200 to 1000 ft.lbs. not just magicly appears at 1000 ft.lbs.

My hypothesis on that would be that cells and tissue are able to aborb a certain amount of energy, and remain viable. After a certain threshold is reached, the cells and tissue die. I don't think the change is gradual... either the cells survive the energy, or they die. Its binary.
I freely admit this is just my opinion, based on taking care of gunshot wound victims. But either there is a large amount of dead tissue around a wound channel (as with a high powered rifle) or there is none (as with most handgun rounds).

mavracer
September 2, 2007, 10:19 PM
none
wrong
BTW are you told what caliber your victoms are shot with do you know what ammo was used.if you have have you compiled data on the different ammo.or are you going off the shear # of handgun wounds you have seen.because statistically speaking I doubt you yourself(as you admited to)have seen a .357 mag wound from a doubletap or buffalo bore full house 125 golddot or this monster
DoubleTap 10mm 165gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1400fps - 14.25" / 1.02" those last 2 # are penatration/expansion in gelatin/denim per FBI protacol.
I would suspect that the majority of the wounds you have treated, have been with the crap(if its even that good) I practice with.and statistics would also lead me to think the majority of the wounds you treat are 9mm FMJ or less damaging.
IE. you haven't seen many wounds in the 600-750 ft.lb. range if any, most have been <400.
I will agree theres not much perifial damage below 400 but I guarentee that that double tap 10mm load will take the wind out of most BGs sails it did the whitetail I shot last dec.

Lone_Gunman
September 3, 2007, 08:57 AM
I have said (over and over) that what I am talking about applies to normal service rounds. I am not talking about maxed out loads by a company like Buffalo Bore.

mavracer
September 3, 2007, 02:01 PM
I have said (over and over) that what I am talking about applies to normal service rounds. I am not talking about maxed out loads by a company like Buffalo Bore.
you have said over and over you think either it happens (high power rifle) or there is no damage outside the bullets path(low powered handguns)you admit you don't think you have treated many .357 wounds.I doubt you are told what ammo was used.if your using all the gang related shootings with .22s and .380s you don't have a good data base.accepted service rounds include .357 and 10mm they're very good at what they do because they have more energy than 38s and 9mm.they cause damage outside of the path of the bullet.
In your experiance have you seen a wound identifyed as being from a 125grn .357,I have.I know what bullet load combination do the most damage because I know what I put in the gun,I know what friends and family put in theirs.and as I said before,cleaning game with veternarians turn into autopsys.
it may be safe to assume you don't see the people shot with the better performing rounds, cause they go to the morgue.

dodging230grainers
September 3, 2007, 03:11 PM
I don't believe energy dump (in ft/lbs) has any relation whatsoever to stopping power in handguns, because most service rounds have very low kinetic energy. (usually between 150-600 ft/lbs.)

When it comes to handguns I firmly believe the only thing that matters is penetration and hole size, and anything else is a plus but cannot be counted on or measured on a significant scale. The .44 Magnum and other high powered revolver cartridges are the exception to the rule, and may produce some sort of signifcant effect using kinetic energy.

As a general rule, I don't believe anything that strikes a target under ~1500 ft/lb of energy can use said energy to significantly contribute to wounding factors. Some put the number lower, perhaps around 1000, but I'd put it around 1500, pretty close to a standard 7.62x39mm cartridge.

(I would define kinetic energy as a non-solid, non-molecular force that damages tissue)

Michael Courtney
September 4, 2007, 01:16 AM
The 'research' by Dr Courtney is not relevant to this thread. He and his co-author are suggesting that a 'ballistic pressure wave' can incapacitate a human by remote CNS effects (beyond the range of effect of a temporary cavity).


Not exactly. Our pressure wave hypothesis states:

Other factors being equal, bullets producing larger pressure waves incapacitate more rapidly than bullets producing smaller pressure waves.

There seems to be considerable evidence that remote CNS effects are real. However, we do not believe that there is sufficient data to exclude other possibilities (increased temporary cavitation, increased prompt damage, "neurogenic shock", "wind knocked out", etc.) for the tendency of incapacitation rates to increase with ballistic pressure wave. The pressure wave hypothesis is really about the bottom line that greater pressure wave increase the incapacitation potential. The fact that one particular mechanism has more documented data in the peer-reviewed literature does not necessarily exclude other possible mechanisms.

HWFE was written a long time ago, and it ignores a number of prior publications in the peer-reviewed literature that do show correlations between energy transfer and tissue damage. There has also been significant later work that also supports the relationship between energy transfer and tissue damage.

The interaction between bullet and tissue and the relevant effects are best parameterized in terms of the retarding force between the bullet and tissue rather than the impact velocity. For non-fragmenting bullets, the average retarding force is accurately estimated by the impact energy divided by the total penetration depth in ballistic gelatin. Tissue damage beyond the tissue directly crushed by the expanded bullet often appears at average retarding forces above 500 lbs (500 ft-lbs of energy transferred in 1 foot of penetration). Since the retarding force is equal to the local rate of the projectile's energy loss in tissue, it is accurate to describe related wounding mechanisms in terms of "energy dump." This retarding force is the dominant parameter in temporary cavitation, prompt damage, and ballistic pressure wave mechanisms.

Relatively few handgun loads produce these levels of retarding force, so this effect is rarely seen by trauma surgeons. However, we have documented it in deer, where we observed a wound channel as wide as 1.5" in the liver and 1.0" in the lungs from a bullet with a recovered diameter of 0.58". The Triton Quik-Shok which splits into three smaller fragments also creates a large region of pulverized tissue in the region between the fragments for the first 5-6" of penetration. These bullets both have impact velocities well below 2000 fps.

See: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf

Michael Courtney

Michael Courtney
September 4, 2007, 01:48 AM
My hypothesis on that would be that cells and tissue are able to aborb a certain amount of energy, and remain viable. After a certain threshold is reached, the cells and tissue die. I don't think the change is gradual... either the cells survive the energy, or they die. Its binary.
I freely admit this is just my opinion, based on taking care of gunshot wound victims. But either there is a large amount of dead tissue around a wound channel (as with a high powered rifle) or there is none (as with most handgun rounds).


On a cell-by-cell basis, you're right, each cell will eventually live or die. However, from a tissue viewpoint, each cubic mm contains many cells, and the relevant parameter when deciding whether that tissue needs to be debrided is probably the fraction of cells that will ultimately survive (as well as the body's ability to cope with the necrotic cells). Antibiotics probably allows the body to cope with a higher percentage of necrotic cells, thus today's surgeons can debride less tissue than in the pre-antibiotic days.

The practical wound observations that lead a surgeon to debride tissue (or not) are something of a mystery to me. I've read much of the debate in the literature, and the advice to treat the wound rather than the weapon seems very sound. I think there is room for further studies on follow-up of results of minimal debridement. I've seen a lot of wounds in deer, and I've seen a lot of minor hemmorhaging at significant distances from the wound channel. This tissue probably would not need to be debrided, but it is evidence of remote effects.

But the question of incapacitation centers around neural effects and rate of blood loss rather than eventual cell necrosis. Debridement is of peripheral but not direct relevance to the incapacitation question. In animal models, both remote neural effects and significant vascular damage beyond the expanded projectile diameter have been documented for some projectiles near the upper end of energies available in service caliber handguns.

Michael Courtney

Lone_Gunman
September 4, 2007, 06:25 AM
Antibiotics don't really minimize the amount of tissue that needs to be debrided. If the tissue is dead, it needs to be debrided, if it is present in any significant amount. If the would becomes infected, it needs antibiotics. Usually prophylactic antibiotics are given for a while after a gunshot wound, but this isn't done to prevent tissue necrosis, but to prevent tissue infection.

Also, generally I will allow a wound to demarcate before undertaking any debridement. If you give the tissue some time, it will be easy to tell whats dead and whats alive. That way you don't end up debriding tissue that might have been injured but not necrotic.

Riktoven
September 4, 2007, 08:07 AM
So the long and the short of the argument is this, extra energy CAN help stop an assailant sooner (albeit how much sooner is difficult to measure).

It's up to individual shooters to determine if they want to go with higher energy, higher recoil rounds in the hopes of increasing the probability of a quicker 'stop' (likely through psychological means) or standard service ammunition that allows faster followup shots to increase the probablity of that 'guaranteed' CNS stop.

mavracer
September 4, 2007, 09:47 AM
Antibiotics don't really minimize the amount of tissue that needs to be debrided. If the tissue is dead, it needs to be debrided, if it is present in any significant amount. If the would becomes infected, it needs antibiotics. Usually prophylactic antibiotics are given for a while after a gunshot wound, but this isn't done to prevent tissue necrosis, but to prevent tissue infection.


You started out saying 2000 fps is where "energy dump" has an effect.I depict an example of great damage from a round at 1250 fps.then your oh well maybe its 1000 ft.lbs. I say I've seen it in the 700-750 ft.lb range.you say well I'm talking normal service rounds.I said as I have before I don't think "energy dump" has much effect below 400 ft.lbs. and now you want to talk about a bullets ability to cause necrosis and infection.
I really don't thing anyone wants to wait on infection or ganggreen to set in.and I don't see the relevance of necrotic tissue as all of this takes several days to have an effect.

fletcher
September 4, 2007, 11:01 AM
I'm searching around for a few journal articles that pertain to this, and will post them when able. This should help fuel the discussion.


Here's an online book about wound ballistics:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jZf1GaXQUvQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=bullet+energy&ots=bHfLX3u2_y&sig=jOXB4A-AZ6si5KWhT8CWtSXPsw0#PPA215,M1
It covers handgun wounding effects, rifle wounding effects, and a load of other things. It's somewhat limited for copyright reasons I suppose, but the title and everything is there if you want to find the entire book for more information.

And another:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VbrDbbHAflsC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR15&dq=%22wound+ballistics%22+energy&ots=xjpA92k6Mo&sig=S8gk_bYqaBeEmyL9_6JC1XHov1w#PRA1-PA54,M1
Start at page 54.

And last, an article:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf

It seems that energy transfer (amount, rate of transfer) does play some role in wounding for handgun rounds, but temporary cavity has little to no effect. Bottom line is that it looks like nobody is 100% certain of all of the effects. The "pressure wave" seems to be the biggest factor for stopping time, and it's dependent on many things, including energy and penetration depth. The pressure wave was discussed on THR in January 2006:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=174568

Lone_Gunman
September 4, 2007, 11:55 AM
----

Lone_Gunman
September 4, 2007, 12:00 PM
I agree with you that antibiotics and infection are a moot point in terms of stopping an adversary.

I am trying to figure out exactly what we are disagreeing on. You think energy injuries can occur at about 700 ft lbs, and I think its more like 1000 ft lbs. Isnt that really what we are disagreeing about? We both agree really fast projectiles do this, and really slow ones don't. The only difference is the cut off at which this occurs, and we are both basing our opinions on personal experience.

I think the only handgun cartridges we would really disagree on whether energy causes direct wounding would be 357 magnum and 10mm. Is that right?

mavracer
September 4, 2007, 12:33 PM
The only difference is the cut off at which this occurs, and we are both basing our opinions on personal experience.
mostly I dont think its a cut off as much as I think it starts becoming a bit of a factor around 500 ft.lbs. ie. 9mm 115+p+ loads have some although they may not penatrate enough where as 147 9mm almost always penatrate but don't have the shock.I belive at the 650-750 range you start having enough energy to do both pretty well.

Kentak
September 4, 2007, 12:42 PM
This has been and continues to be an extremely useful and informative thread. It's great that it has remained on a "high road" plane. Some of my previously held concepts have been modified, or perhaps made more open to modification pending more information.

Regarding tissue death and cell death. It seems to me, that while that's interesting from a medical standpoint, it's not particularly germane to the issue of *immediate* effects on an attacker whom we want to *stop* ASAP. What happens to the attacker after stopping is a secondary consideration.

What I'd like to know is this. What factors deriving from the choice of *practical* defensive handgun round is going to make an attacker have to--or, want to--stop the attack?

The momentum proponents seem to be saying give me something that plows deep and makes a wide hole. The energy proponents seem to be saying, let's go deep and wide if we can, but also dump a lot of energy and create a big temp cavity for "shock value." Or, whatever. And, I'm certainly not trying to characterize everyone's positions so simply.

If I'm an attacker, I'll perceive a .45 FMJ that penetrates 8 inches into my body (let's assume no heart, aorta, or spinal cord hit) one way. What differences might I perceive from the wound of a high energy 9 mm that follows the same path and depth into the body? IF, repeat, IF there is more temp cavitation with the 9 mm, might the perception be one of more impact and systemic shock? Perhaps more pain? More likely to want to quit?

K

mavracer
September 4, 2007, 02:14 PM
What I'd like to know is this. What factors deriving from the choice of *practical* defensive handgun round is going to make an attacker have to--or, want to--stop the attack?
shucks I think the shear muzzle blast of a full house .357 *might* be a deciding factor,not that I'm gonna use black powder blanks,but if you"ve ever been around a 4" or less .357 mag at an indoor range you know it'll get your attention.
IF, repeat, IF there is more temp cavitation with the 9 mm, might the perception be one of more impact and systemic shock? Perhaps more pain? More likely to want to quit?
maybe to the first and if there is the other two are defenitly yes.

Lone_Gunman
September 4, 2007, 03:27 PM
I generally agree with what mavracer just said. Although energy of a handgun round may not directly cause observable tissue injury (in my opinion), that does not mean it can't help take the fight out of someone.

I am going to stand firm though on the fact that I don't think observable trauma occurs from energy alone of the usual service rounds. That would not include hot 44 magnum rounds, and I don't know if would include hot 357 rounds. I don't think 9mm rounds will cause this effect, even if they are +P. I do think 9mm +P hollowpoints are a good round, and in fact often load my Glock with Winchester Ranger-T's. I do this because I think this load expands well, penetrates deeply, and retains bullet weight well. I don't do it because I think it has enough energy to cause tissue death from energy alone.

The excess energy may contribute to incapacitation for other reasons though.

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2007, 04:37 PM
the momentum doesn't directly cause tissue trauma. Momentum increases penetration that causes trauma. I realize a bullet with no momentum will cause no trauma, but it causes no trauma because there is no penetration.
Would you agree it's the hole that kills?

And all other things being equal, a big, deep hole will kill better than a narrow, shallow one?

And that a through-and-through wound is as deep as it gets?

It seems to me that if you put a hole through the subject (in the right place, of course) -- be it a man or a moose, and it's a large diameter hole, you've done as much as humanly possible to "stop" the subject?

So I venture to say it isn't kinetic energy or momentum diretly that stops -- it's a wide (either originally or expanded) projectile going all the way through.

In the right place, of course.

dodging230grainers
September 4, 2007, 05:15 PM
So I venture to say it isn't kinetic energy or momentum diretly that stops -- it's a wide (either originally or expanded) projectile going all the way through.


In terms of handguns, this is precisely what conclusion i've reached.

Obviously rifles and shotguns are a different story.

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2007, 05:20 PM
You wouldn't go far wrong in applying those same criteria to shotguns and rifles -- in rifles, the much higher velocities give longer ranges coupled with the ability to take bigger game reliablly, but the same dynamics are at work -- the hole kills. Make a big hole all the way through an elk or a buffalo, and you will put it down -- if you hit in the right place.

With shotguns, pellet density becomes a factor, but it's still the holes that kill. If enough pellets penetrate deeply enough, you will bring your bird down.

mavracer
September 4, 2007, 05:24 PM
Would you agree it's the hole that kills?
no from page 2 of this thread
I Know I've seen a bullet,that I chrono'd the ammo,was going less than 1300fps hit a 225 lb boar in the back muscle. that never entered the chest cavity,do enough damage to the lungs the animal died within' seconds.
And all other things being equal, a big, deep hole will kill better than a narrow, shallow one?
we all know that. we are talking about temporary cavity and shock value.ie. two bullets that expand to the same diameter and exit the one going faster, thus having more energy, will cause more damage.
And that a through-and-through wound is as deep as it gets?
assuming all BG are the same size this may or may not be true a round that will compleatly penatrate a 6' 150 lb. BG might not a 5'6" 400 lb. BG.
It seems to me that if you put a hole through the subject (in the right place, of course) -- be it a man or a moose, and it's a large diameter hole, you've done as much as humanly possible to "stop" the subject?
an even bigger hole?
So I venture to say it isn't kinetic energy or momentum diretly that stops -- it's a wide (either originally or expanded) projectile going all the way through.
from page 1 of this thread.
Ever see a gunshot wound caused by a bullet with zero momentum?

Perhaps you are playing with semantics. Gunshot wounds are caused by bullets. But, bullets that have more momentum are more likely to cause more serious wounding, all other things being equal
now that your caught up anything to add?

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2007, 05:33 PM
we all know that. we are talking about temporary cavity and shock value.ie. two bullets that expand to the same diameter and exit the one going faster, thus having more energy, will cause more damage.
I don't think that's proven.

assuming all BG are the same size this may or may not be true a round that will compleatly penatrate a 6' 150 lb. BG might not a 5'6" 400 lb. BG
If the bullet doesn't go completely through the 400 lb BG, then it isn't a through-and-through wound, is it?

mavracer
September 4, 2007, 05:48 PM
I don't think that's proven.
ok so a 32 acp. fmj will make the same wound a 30/06 fmj.don't think so.
have you ever seen a wound up close?
If the bullet doesn't go completely through the 400 lb BG, then it isn't a through-and-through wound, is it?
Sorry, never seen ammo manufactures list penatration depth as through and through, must of missed that one.

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2007, 05:58 PM
ok so a 32 acp. fmj will make the same wound a 30/06 fmj.don't think so.
If they both make the same diameter hole to the same depth, yes.

Now, normally the longer .30-06 FMJ will yaw inside the body, so the hole in that case will be larger for at least part of it's passage through the body.
have you ever seen a wound up close?
I have killed many a deer, along with elk and other game.

And it was my duty and misfortune to have to inflict such wounds on men during the Viet Nam war.

So, yes. I have seen many a bullet wound close up.

Sorry, never seen ammo manufactures list penatration depth as through and through must of missed that one
How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?

mavracer
September 4, 2007, 06:22 PM
If they both make the same diameter hole to the same depth, yes.male bovine fecal matter
So, yes. I have seen many a bullet wound close up.
how then can you think your above statement is true?
How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?
because they know more about balistics and bullet design and performance than you or I do.kinda makes me belive they might have a clue how their ammo performs.

Kentak
September 4, 2007, 06:27 PM
Vern,

Let's say a 30 cal steel ball traveling at 1500 fps has just enough mustard to traverse through a certain human target. You're not saying that the same steel ball traveling at 3000 fps and taking the same path through the body wouldn't be more destructive or have more stopping ability, are you?

K

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2007, 07:05 PM
Let's say a 30 cal steel ball traveling at 1500 fps has just enough mustard to traverse through a certain human target. You're not saying that the same steel ball traveling at 3000 fps and taking the same path through the body wouldn't be more destructive or have more stopping ability, are you?
That's exactly what I'm saying.

If you were to shoot a thousand deer, men, what-have-you with those two loads, you wouldn't see a difference in actual results.

I am minded of Scandanavian data on moose (alg) reported in Handloader (or was it Rifle) magazine which compared "escape distances" for various calibers. As I recall, the 6.5X55 did a bit better than the .300 Win Mag.

Now it might be that your steel ball at lower velocity might not fully penetrate if it hit a large bone (such as the pelvis) and the ball with the higher velocity would. But that's about it -- it's the hole that kills.

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2007, 07:10 PM
If they both make the same diameter hole to the same depth, yes.

male bovine fecal matter
Let's try to avoid this kind of language, shall we?

Quote:
So, yes. I have seen many a bullet wound close up.

how then can you think your above statement is true?
Because it matches my actual observation of wounds -- which includes more than just bullet wounds.
Quote:
How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?

because they know more about balistics and bullet design and performance than you or I do.kinda makes me belive they might have a clue how their ammo performs.
How does that answer the question, "How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?"

mavracer
September 4, 2007, 07:34 PM
How does that answer the question, "How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?"
because they list penatration in inches not "through and through"
That's exactly what I'm saying.
you just lost your credibility

dodging230grainers
September 4, 2007, 09:01 PM
Vern,

From what I've gathered from your posts, and the recent steel ball comparison, you believe that temporary cavities and kinetic energy play no role whatsoever in wounding. Please correct me if I'm wrong, no offense meant whatsoever.

That said, I think it is a little naive and moreover outright wrong to believe that at very high velocities and kinetic energy levels nothing else happens besides the hole the bullet cuts (including fragmentation and yawing).

Kentak
September 4, 2007, 10:45 PM
Vern,

What I'm going to pose next has no direct bearing on the discussion of practical defensive handgun rounds, but has bearing on the physics of interacting bodies.

Again, assume we're talking about steel balls that won't deform. Just assume that, okay? You said there would be no difference if we doubled the velocity from 1500 to 3000. What if we increased the velocity 5 times (7500 fps) or even ten times (15,000 fps). Certainly you recognize the projectile would create massive destruction, most likely shredding the "target" into dozens of flying fragments. Right?

K

Odd Job
September 5, 2007, 03:30 AM
Vern, the temporary cavity MUST affect the amount of damage caused when such cavitation occurs at a magnitude or rate that the host medium cannot comply with.

It simply must, sir.

If the subject's tissues cannot be displaced or stretched to accommodate that cavity, then they must rupture. If I can dig up some radiographs I will PM them to you: they are a nice comparison between handgun, rifle and shotgun wounds to the adult male wrist. The displacement of the bones in the wrist that was shot with the Galil clone is more marked and resulted in more damage than the equivalent shot with a service handgun.

Lone_Gunman
September 5, 2007, 10:26 AM
I think its not particularly relevant to discuss the difference between low velocity projectiles (such has handgun) to high velocity projectiles (such are rifle). It is well accepted by pretty much everyone that a high powered rifle round moving at 3000 fps are going to cause much more damage than an equivalent weight handgun projectile moving at 800 fps.

The real question is whether or not a projectile moving at 900 fps does any more damage than one moving at 800 fps, if neither bullet deforms, and if penetration is the same. I do not believe it would, because there is not enough energy involved to cause direct trauma from energy alone.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 10:56 AM
Quote:
How does that answer the question, "How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?"
because they list penatration in inches not "through and through"
And how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?

Quote:
That's exactly what I'm saying.

you just lost your credibility

I don't think so.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 11:01 AM
Vern, the temporary cavity MUST affect the amount of damage caused when such cavitation occurs at a magnitude or rate that the host medium cannot comply with.

It simply must, sir.

If the subject's tissues cannot be displaced or stretched to accommodate that cavity, then they must rupture. If I can dig up some radiographs I will PM them to you: they are a nice comparison between handgun, rifle and shotgun wounds to the adult male wrist. The displacement of the bones in the wrist that was shot with the Galil clone is more marked and resulted in more damage than the equivalent shot with a service handgun.
A more powerful round can break bones that might stop a less powerful round. A bullet which expands, breaks up, or otherwise reacts on impact will have a different terminal effect than one that stays intact.

But by and large, "energy dump" is a myth.

It's the hole that kills. The bigger the hole, and the deeper it is, the more effective it will be, given equal placement.

boomstik45
September 5, 2007, 11:29 AM
JON in WV,

Well, I had a very similar retort as Soybomb did, but he beat me to it. And quite a bit more than adequately, too.

First, I'm not name-calling, I'm challenging. I called you out, and you didn't like it. I didn't think it was so harsh, but apparently you did. That's hardly what I'd call an attack, but I apologize anyway. You dismissed Patrick's report, which as Soybomb has already said, is full of footnotes and quotes by qualified experts on the subject he was discussing. I tend to put some stock in his reports because of the opinions and facts presented by others that he actually used in his report. Yes, today's experts have a great deal of respect for his reports. You don't, yet you have nothing but conjecture and disdain as reasons for doing so.

Second, neither I nor anyone else has called Patrick's reports "gospel." That's a term you branded it with a dose of sarcasm on the side. Asking you what you know and what your credentials are is nothing more than an opportunity for you to strut your stuff..... If Patrick (and whomever else you don't care for) is so simple-minded and out of date, then by all means let us in on the secrets of modern times.

Third, most people even remotely interested in the subject of ballistics on the handgun or long rifle level know that technology has changed things in the last 20 years. That point has been made SO many times.

Fourth, I can't help feeling like your defensiveness and "counter-attack" only validate the statements I first made about your "attack" on Patrick. You see, that knife cuts both ways, doesn't it? I've heard your rebuttal to any who don't agree with you. I'm still waiting for your technical and anecdotal rebuttal to the data and opinion laid before us by all of these "know-nothing" "experts." Like I said, if it's mostly worthless, then by all means....share the true "gospel." :scrutiny:

By the way, I've read Marshall and Sanow, Patrick, Duncan Mcpherson, Ayoob, Patrick, Fackler, Roberts, etc. And several more. While I call nothing "gospel", I don't discount anybody who has taken the pains and gone to that much trouble to try and come up with something usable. You might try it sometime.

boomstik45
September 5, 2007, 11:30 AM
Soybomb,

Very well said. I believe you've phrased EVERYTHING better than I could have.

mavracer
September 5, 2007, 12:16 PM
And how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?
so now you dont think penatration contributes to stopping power.
But by and large, "energy dump" is a myth.
no energy = no hole, more energy =more hole .
until you understand this concept, you will not understand how rate of transfer affects wound tracts.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 12:31 PM
Quote:
And how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?

so now you dont think penatration contributes to stopping power.

How do you get that? Did I not say, "It's the hole that kills. The wider and deeper the hole, given proper placement, the better it kills?"

Now please answer the question: how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?

Quote:
But by and large, "energy dump" is a myth.
no energy = no hole, more energy =more hole .
Which is not the same thing as "energy dump."

A .45 at 1,000 fps is a formidable round, and will kill just as well as a .243 with more energy, all other things being equal. "Energy dump" is a myth.
until you understand this concept, you will not understand how rate of transfer affects wound tracts.
And until you understand it's the hole that kills . . .:rolleyes:

mavracer
September 5, 2007, 12:37 PM
Now please answer the question: how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?
OK it doesn't BUT I"M SMART ENOUGH TO NOT BUY AMMO FROM A MANUFACTURE WHO CLAIMS IT"LL PUT A BIG HOLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.
And until you understand it's the hole that kills
once again from page 2 and 6
I Know I've seen a bullet,that I chrono'd the ammo,was going less than 1300fps hit a 225 lb boar in the back muscle. that never entered the chest cavity,do enough damage to the lungs the animal died within' seconds.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 12:51 PM
Quote:
Now please answer the question: how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?
OK it doesn't BUT I"M SMART ENOUGH TO NOT BUY AMMO FROM A MANUFACTURE WHO CLAIMS IT"LL PUT A BIG HOLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.
But you're not smart enough -- until I repeated the question over and over -- to understand that listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" does not contribute to the stopping power of a round.:p

easyg
September 5, 2007, 01:02 PM
The real question is whether or not a projectile moving at 900 fps does any more damage than one moving at 800 fps, if neither bullet deforms, and if penetration is the same.
Of course it would do more damage.
But the real question then becomes:
How much more damage?

But by and large, "energy dump" is a myth.
No, energy dump is certainly not a myth.
Getting punched by a 5 year old does not hurt you as much as getting punched by an adult boxer.
Why?
Because the boxer generates more force and more kinetic energy, and then deposites that energy (ie: energy dump) in to your body.
More energy equals more damage.

If you drop a brick onto the top of a car as about 5 feet, it will not damage the car very much.
But if you drop that same brick from about 500 feet, it will cause the car great damage.
Why?
Because the brick dropped from the higher point will deliver more energy to the car when it hits.


It has been know for a very long time that hollow-points from a handgun are more effective as "man stoppers" than ball ammo from a handgun.
This is for two reasons:

1) The bullet typically deforms and expands to create a slightly larger hole.

and

2 The bullet is much less likely to over-penetrate and so will stay in the body...thereby dumping all of its energy in to that body.


Rounds that deliver more energy to the target are more effective, all other things being equal.
A .357 round will typically be more effective on a human than a .38 round even if they have equal penetration and equal wound size.
Why?
The .357 has more energy to dump into the target.

mavracer
September 5, 2007, 01:06 PM
But you're not smart enough -- until I repeated the question over and over -- to understand that listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" does not contribute to the stopping power of a round.
however by listing penatration in inches it allows an intelagent person to compair the penatration ov various rounds."through and through" is not even good grammer and leaves no basis for compairing various rounds.so if they list vairous rounds penatration in inches it allows a person to make a thoughtful desision on the relative stopping power of an individual round.

Lone_Gunman
September 5, 2007, 01:13 PM
Of course it would do more damage.
But the real question then becomes:
How much more damage?


I don't think thats true. As long as you do not exceed the ability of the cells to absorb the small amount of extra energy that a 900fps round has over a 800 fps round, then no additional wounding will occur.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 01:13 PM
No, energy dump is certainly not a myth.
Getting punched by a 5 year old does not hurt you as much as getting punched by an adult boxer.
First of all, the punch is mostly a matter of momentum, not kinetic energy.

Secondly, neither the 5-year old nor the pro will make a hole in you.

The mechanics of a punch with a fist and a bullet impact are much different from each other.

None of the examples you gave covered "energy dump." No one denies that a faster moving bullet can penetrate deeper and/or expand wider.

But the "energy dump" theory basically says that a bullet that does not exit is more lethal than one that does -- because the former will have "dumped" all it's energy and the latter retains some of it as it goes sailing downrange.

The most lethal bullet will be the one that makes the widest, deepest hole -- and through-and-through penetration as as deep as you can make the hole, regardless of how fast the bullet is going (and how much residual kinetic energy it has) when it exits.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 01:24 PM
however by listing penatration in inches it allows an intelagent person to compair the penatration ov various rounds."through and through" is not even good grammer
I repost this so people can see how an "intelagent" person "compairs" penetration "ov" various rounds using good "grammer.":rolleyes:

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 01:33 PM
Here's my best take on this whole thing:

Let's say we have two handgun rounds. Let's also make the following assumptions:

One is FMJ
One is JHP
FMJ will penetrate completely through the target
JHP will stay in the target, but penetrate enough to hit organs
The bullets have the same mass
The bullets travel at the same velocity


So, the two rounds will have the same energy, but the FMJ will not transfer all of its energy to the target. Since energy is required to do work, which in our case means tear tissue, the more energy used, the better. If tissue is acted on with a tensile force that exceeds its yield point, it will be damaged. Tissue is very elastic, so the energy necessary may be the same as that to actually tear it. It is important to know that for materials, including tissue, energy is consumed by deformation, and can be approximated by the area under its respective stress-strain curve.

Now, the clear problem with the comparison is projectile size after impact. Because the projectile would continue through the target, the excess kinetic energy/momentum must be transferred in full before stopping in the target. the simplest way to do this is increase the cross-section size in the direction of travel, giving more surface area for the energy to transfer. The increased area of transfer allows the projectile to damage more tissue along the path, resulting in a more effective round, assuming sufficient penetration. This also reduces the stress (by increase of area, since stress is force divided by area) on the tissue ahead of the round, halting the round sooner. This increase in area may also sacrifice the last bit of energy, since the tissue at the very end of the wound channel can elastically absorb more energy without breaking if there is more area.

Because of the relative size, let's ignore momentum as a big contributor to damage, and look at kinetic energy. Momentum is an important underlying concept, as the bullet will stay in motion until acted on by external forces - resistance of the tissue to deformation. The bullet will have two forms of significant kinetic energy - one from velocity, one from rotation. The former will be larger than the latter. As stated earlier, this energy, in the JHP, must be completely transferred if it is to stop. Thus, more work has been done inside of the target. The only situation in which a more direct comparison could be made is if the JHP hit something while in the body (bone, maybe?) and stopped. If it was suddenly stopped in the target, the remaining energy will be transferred, possibly resulting in another fracture.

The problem with this discussion is that there is no real way to compare two rounds of identical energy, mass, and velocity hitting identical targets, but transferring drastically different amounts of energy. The best we can do is understand that penetration and hole size are the main factors in the wound, and that it consumes energy to make that hole. No momentum/inertia, no hole. No energy, no hole.

FerFAL
September 5, 2007, 01:35 PM
Kinetic energy, also called energy transfer, does not, by itself, kill bad guys. It does not knock them down. It is not, by itself, a man stopper.

How about getting hit by a car? KO by a punch to the head?
What about millions of people beaten to death, smashed with sticks, rocks?
Kinetic energy doesnít kill people? Do you even know what kinetic energy IS?
Trying not to be rude here, but you donít know what you are talking about. LEARN stuff, donít repeat what you read without understanding it.

FerFAL

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 01:41 PM
Let's say we have two handgun rounds. Let's also make the following assumptions:
One is FMJ
One is JHP
FMJ will penetrate completely through the target
JHP will stay in the target, but penetrate enough to hit organs
The bullets have the same mass
The bullets travel at the same velocity

So, the two rounds will have the same energy, but the FMJ will not transfer all of its energy to the target.

If both rounds reach the vitals, the wider hole may kill quicker than the deeper, but narrower hole.

But then again, it may not. And if it doesn't reach the vitals, it may not kill at all.

How about getting hit by a car? KO by a punch to the head?
What about millions of people beaten to death, smashed with sticks, rocks?
Kinetic energy doesn’t kill people? Do you even know what kinetic energy IS?
These examples relate to momentum, not to kinetic energy.

FerFAL
September 5, 2007, 01:48 PM
Quote:
How about getting hit by a car? KO by a punch to the head?
What about millions of people beaten to death, smashed with sticks, rocks?
Kinetic energy doesn’t kill people? Do you even know what kinetic energy IS?
These examples relate to momentum, not to kinetic energy.
The kinetic energy of an object is the extra energy which it possesses due to its motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

FerFAL

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 01:52 PM
If both rounds reach the vitals, the wider hole may kill quicker than the deeper, but narrower hole.
Yes, it may, it may not.

There are many more factors, including that of individual reponse. I am only addressing the concepts of energy transfer/dump/damage in that post. It seems to be common knowledge that different people may react differently to seemingly identical wounds.

These examples relate to momentum, not to kinetic energy.
They're very relevant to kinetic energy. Because of their larger masses, the KE has been increased, although less "efficiently". Energy is required to cause damage. That's why impact tests (breaking a material with a pendulum) measure the amount of energy required to break it. Momentum moves things, energy deforms/damages things.

It takes energy to create momentum.

FerFAL
September 5, 2007, 01:58 PM
Seems that some people have a problem telling the difference between STOPPING someone and KILLING someone.
Penetration alone may or may not kill people, depends on where you hit.
Transferring more energy will surely stop someone, the more energy you transfer the better, either by using a slow but wide projectile that pushes away more mass, or by using a projectile that expands, achieving somewhat similar results, or using narrow projectiles traveling at much faster speeds ( rifle ammo) the amount of mass they push away as they travel isn’t that much but the greater speed overcompensates. That’s why you may have a FMJ .30 round that works well at putting people down.
Edited to add:
Shoot a bottle of water with a 9mm 115 FMJ round and see what happens ( nothing)
Shoot another bottle with a 9mm round loaded with a light piece of brass rod, traveling at 2000 fps, and that bottle with explode when hit.
Both will penetrate plenty, but the one traveling at 2000 fps will have much greater hydraulic shock, affecting organs in a similar way as it does with a bottle of water. Penetration alone is not enough.


FerFAL

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 02:04 PM
Yes, it may, it may not.

There are many more factors, including that of individual reponse. I am only addressing the concepts of energy transfer/dump/damage in that post. It seems to be common knowledge that different people may react differently to seemingly identical wounds.

Precisely correct -- which is why the "energy dump" theory is so tenuous.

When a moving object imparts motion to a stationary object, that is an example of momentum. A fist, club, or automobile causes the impacted thing to move -- and a bullet doesn't. Indeed if a typical bullet could literally "knock a person down," all of it's energy would be expended as momentum and the damage to the person would be minimal.

Now there are legitimate reasons to fear over-penetration in ammunition intended for self-defense or law enforcement, including the possibility that innocent bystanders may be killed or injured. But from the standpoint of stopping or killing, there is no advantage to a bullet not penetrating through-and-through.

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 02:09 PM
Energy and momentum are not convertible in the manner you're suggesting. Kinetic energy will only convert to kinetic energy, and momentum only to momentum. While the transfer of kinetic energy to an otherwise immobile object will result in the creation of some momentum, it's not all interchangeable. It's the laws of both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

there is no advantage to a bullet not penetrating through-and-through.
For personal defense rounds, we have no choice as to whether or not the bullet will go through, and still keep all other factors the same. We can only choose the type of round. Having looked at the wound channels of FMJ versus JHP, I'll take the much larger permanent cavity created by a good JHP.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 02:12 PM
Energy and momentum are not convertible in the manner you're suggesting.
Bingo!

That's why examples using momentum are not applicable to discussions of kinetic energy.

And that's why I said:
Indeed if a typical bullet could literally "knock a person down," all of it's energy would be expended as momentum and the damage to the person would be minimal.

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 02:14 PM
That's why examples using momentum are not applicable to discussions of kinetic energy.
They're tied together, not exclusively separate. The examples of stick/car/etc. don't hold.

Indeed if a typical bullet could literally "knock a person down," all of it's energy would be expended as momentum and the damage to the person would be minimal.
Even though bullets cannot knock people down, they can sure cause a good bit of trauma, such as behind a bulletproof vest. Adding more speed until it could knock someone down (assuming the vest will still stop it), could very well kill someone AND knock them down. Sudden impact will not come without massive energy transfer.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 02:20 PM
They're tied together, not exclusively separate. The examples of stick/car/etc. don't hold.
That's true.

Quote:
Indeed if a typical bullet could literally "knock a person down," all of it's energy would be expended as momentum and the damage to the person would be minimal.

Even though bullets cannot knock people down, they can sure cause a good bit of trauma, such as behind a bulletproof vest. Adding more speed until it could knock someone down (assuming the vest will still stop it), could very well kill someone AND knock them down. Sudden impact will not come without massive energy transfer.
It's difficult to imagine a bullet that could knock someone down and not penetrate a vest. But should that happen, the result would be from momentum, not kinetic energy.

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 02:35 PM
But should that happen, the result would be from momentum, not kinetic energy.
Yes, the bulk movement alone would be a result of momentum. But, things such as the car, stick, fist, do not injure tissue because of momentum. They injure and damage from energy transfer.

It's very important to know that momentum accounts for bulk movement with no deformation. On the scale we're looking at, which specifically involves damage to tissue (HEAVY deformation), energy is the only factor worth considering.

Kentak
September 5, 2007, 02:36 PM
Let's use the example of bow hunting. Arrows might weigh about 500 grains and travel at 250 fps. Low momentum and low energy. However, pretty good penetration, often going right through the animal. Yet, stopping power is minimal. Unless there is a fortuitous heart or CNS hit, the animal will run away to drop later from internal or external bleeding.

Good penetration does not always equal good stopping ability.

K

FerFAL
September 5, 2007, 03:06 PM
Yup, that's a good example Kentak

FerFAL

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 03:29 PM
Let's use the example of bow hunting. Arrows might weigh about 500 grains and travel at 250 fps. Low momentum and low energy. However, pretty good penetration, often going right through the animal. Yet, stopping power is minimal. Unless there is a fortuitous heart or CNS hit, the animal will run away to drop later from internal or external bleeding.

Good penetration does not always equal good stopping ability.
And arrows are not bullets.

However, the most common "stopping factor" is bleed-out. Absent a CNS hit, a deer will often run until it bleeds out. Under the same circumstances, a determined attacker will continue his attack until his blood pressure drops to the point he is unable to continue.

Soybomb
September 5, 2007, 03:38 PM
Shoot a bottle of water with a 9mm 115 FMJ round and see what happens ( nothing)
Shoot another bottle with a 9mm round loaded with a light piece of brass rod, traveling at 2000 fps, and that bottle with explode when hit.
Both will penetrate plenty, but the one traveling at 2000 fps will have much greater hydraulic shock, affecting organs in a similar way as it does with a bottle of water. Penetration alone is not enough.
Today's experts int he field say that the concept of "hydraulic shock" being a reliable stopping mechanism is bunk with handgun round. I recommend you read the fbi handgun wounding document linked several times in this thread. If you still disagree I'd like to know what you base your disagreement on. On one hand I have several doctors telling me that the actual physical hole I punch with a handgun is all I can rely on, on the other I have a couple guys on the internet telling me they're wrong but not citing supporting evidence.

Odd Job
September 5, 2007, 04:01 PM
@ Vern Humphrey

The following radiographs are from my old gunshot library (cases from the late 90s when I was in Johannesburg). I saw all three patients in the flesh and X-rayed the first two myself. One of my colleagues X-rayed the last one (bandaged and on a makeshift splint).

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/WristShots.jpg

These are three gunshot wounds, all involving the distal forearm. These were three unrelated cases where adult males were shot and brought to hospital.

Case A was a single handgun wound (of unknown calibre) that perforated the distal forearm and caused a comminuted fracture of the radius. Note the minimal displacement of the bone fragments. No metallic projectile fragments were seen in the wound. The geometry of the fracture suggests (but does not confirm) that this was a service calibre round. The radial artery was undamaged.

Case B was a single 12 gauge shotgun blast to the forearm. The cartridge was an SSG (not sure what that is in American money) but I can weigh one of those pellets if you absolutely have to know. This was a perforating wound also, but some pellets were penetrating only. This man was shot by police. Note the multiple fractures and deformed pellets in the wound. Note that despite the multiple fractures, there is not that much displacement of the bone fragments. I don't have records of any vascular injuries in this case, but I know that the arm was repaired and the patient recovered.

Case C was a single perforating wound caused by a 5.56mm projectile fired from a Galil clone (a South African R5 rifle). This was also a suspect shot by police. Note that the bones of the radius and ulna are fractured and markedly displaced in a radial dispersion pattern. There is also deposition of multiple fine lead specks in the wound, but no jacketing. This effect can be seen when lead is squeezed out of the base of a rifle round or when a rifle round fragments when traversing tissues. We call this effect the 'lead snowstorm.'
The key thing here is that the bones were not displaced by the passage of the bullet directly (which is what happened in Case A and B). They were displaced by the temporary cavity. The small lead specks do not have enough mass to fracture the bones in that manner and indeed their distribution cannot be directly associated with any of the fractures (unlike Case B).

You may be interested to know that the radial and ulnar arteries were extensively damaged and not enough of the soft tissues were viable in this case. The man had to have an amputation.

Now, sir, I challenge you to explain to me how the marked displacement of bones and extensive soft tissue damage in Case C took place without the effects of cavitation due to the high velocity of the round.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 04:18 PM
Yes -- different wounds do look different. But that's not the "energy dump" theory. For one thing, the "energy dump" theory postulates that a bullet which does not exit the body does more damage than one which does exit -- all other things being equal.

No one denies that a bullet which fragments or expands will produce a different effect from one which does not. No one denies that a bullet that hits bone and drives fragments of bone and bullet material off the original trajectory will damage more tissue.

But that's not the "energy dump" theory.

Kentak
September 5, 2007, 04:22 PM
Vern,

You said A .45 at 1,000 fps is a formidable round, and will kill just as well as a .243 with more energy, all other things being equal. "Energy dump" is a myth.

I'm surprised no one else has responded to this.

I'm not a hunter. Perhaps those that are could weigh in on this.

While I agree a .45 at 1000 fps is a formidable round, I simply do not believe that it will "...kill just as well... as a .243 traveling at almost 3000 fps and having more than 4 times the kinetic energy. While we can, and are, debating the *effectiveness* of "energy dump," I don't think you can dismiss it as a myth--and certainly not in the case of the two rounds you are comparing in this example.

Are you saying a .45 will drop a 300 lb mule deer buck as effectively as a .243?

Would anyone else reading this thread choose the .45 over the .243 if you had one shot at a determined attacker? Or, I should say, would any one NOT jump and choose the .243?

K

JesseL
September 5, 2007, 04:23 PM
Now, sir, I challenge you to explain to me how the marked displacement of bones and extensive soft tissue damage in Case C took place without the effects of cavitation due to the high velocity of the round.

Take a piece of dry spaghetti and hold it by the ends. Bend it until it breaks. Examine how many pieces your noodle has broken into and which directions they went. Explain how much cavitation was applied to the dry pasta.

When the 5.56mm bullet struck the bone it imparted enough momentum to that portion of the bone that it exceeded the structural limits of the bone as a whole. You've just got a bone that's being pushed in several directions at once and it's not strong enough to resist those forces.

Odd Job
September 5, 2007, 04:36 PM
@ Vern

Kentak asked you:

Let's say a 30 cal steel ball traveling at 1500 fps has just enough mustard to traverse through a certain human target. You're not saying that the same steel ball traveling at 3000 fps and taking the same path through the body wouldn't be more destructive or have more stopping ability, are you?


And you replied in the affirmative. My observations with the cases above prove that this is not the case. The high velocity round causes more damage by virtue of cavitation. The cases I provided are all perforating gunshot wounds. This is not about energy dump, it is about cavitation.

@ JesseL

Take a piece of dry spaghetti and hold it by the ends. Bend it until it breaks. Examine how many pieces your noodle has broken into and which directions they went. Explain how much cavitation was applied to the dry pasta.

The spaghetti analogy is not applicable because the forces that were applied to the bones were not opposing, they were radial. Furthermore the bone is not homogeneous and is not comparable to spaghetti. You are also ignoring the documented soft tissue damage in Case C.

When the 5.56mm bullet struck the bone it imparted enough momentum to that portion of the bone that it exceeded the structural limits of the bone as a whole. You've just got a bone that's being pushed in several directions at once and it's not strong enough to resist those forces.

No, sir. If the bones were being pushed in several directions at once, then no discernible radial displacement would be seen radiologically. Furthermore, if it was simply a question of bone being displaced by direct contact with the projectile, then the soft tissues would still be viable and the ulnar and radial arteries might have escaped damage. Certainly he would not have lost his hand.

Kentak
September 5, 2007, 04:40 PM
But that's not the "energy dump" theory.

Whoa. who said a high energy round *has* to remain in the body for the benefits of high energy to be available?

Round A passes through the body.

Round B passes through the body.

All other things being equal, if round B had more kinetic energy than round A going in, it sure as heck won't cause *less* damage, and sure as heck could cause a lot more depending on how much more energy it had.

If I'm wrong, I need someone to explain why.

K

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 04:44 PM
While I agree a .45 at 1000 fps is a formidable round, I simply do not believe that it will "...kill just as well... as a .243 traveling at almost 3000 fps and having more than 4 times the kinetic energy. While we can, and are, debating the *effectiveness* of "energy dump," I don't think you can dismiss it as a myth--and certainly not in the case of the two rounds you are comparing in this example.

There is "dead" and then there is . . . "dead." :p

There is no such thing as "deader." A 255 grain flat nose at 1000 fps will make your mule deer dead, as dead as any other round.


Are you saying a .45 will drop a 300 lb mule deer buck as effectively as a .243?

Probably better -- the .243 is considered by many to be marginal for mule deer. The primary advantage the .243 has is in it's extended range.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 04:46 PM
And you replied in the affirmative. My observations with the cases above prove that this is not the case. The high velocity round causes more damage by virtue of cavitation. The cases I provided are all perforating gunshot wounds. This is not about energy dump, it is about cavitation.
So we have an alternate theory here, the theory of cavitation?

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 04:51 PM
Whoa. who said a high energy round *has* to remain in the body for the benefits of high energy to be available?

The proponents of "energy dump" theory said that. They postulate that a bullet which does not exit "dumps all its energy" in the body and is therfore more effective.
Round A passes through the body.

Round B passes through the body.

All other things being equal, if round B had more kinetic energy than round A going in, it sure as heck won't cause *less* damage, and sure as heck could cause a lot more depending on how much more energy it had.

If I'm wrong, I need someone to explain why.

Actually, as you have phrased it, the burden of proof is on you. You are the one making the affirmative claim.

I am saying the hole kills. The deeper and wider the hole, the more effective the round will be, all other things being equal. And the deepest possible hole is a through-and-through hole.

This explains why cartridges like the .45 Colt, .45-70 and so on are such effective killers all out of proportion to their kinetic energy levels. It also explains why expanding bullets are more effective than FMJs in smaller calibers -- they get bigger on impact and make bigger holes.

easyg
September 5, 2007, 04:51 PM
Yes, the bulk movement alone would be a result of momentum. But, things such as the car, stick, fist, do not injure tissue because of momentum. They injure and damage from energy transfer.
Exactly!

The momentum of the punch does not do the damage, what does the damage is the amount of energy the punch "dumps" into the target.

Consider this:
You punch your opponent as hard as you can and you hit him right in the middle of his torso.
It hurts him because you dumped all of the energy into your opponent's body.

But if you duplicate the first swing (same force and same momentum) but only connect with a glancing blow to the torso, and you punch continues beyond your target, it does not harm your opponent near as much because you did not "dump" all of the energy into his body.

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 04:55 PM
When the 5.56mm bullet struck the bone it imparted enough momentum to that portion of the bone that it exceeded the structural limits of the bone as a whole.
It transferred energy, not momentum, to fracture the bone. Momentum transfer alone does not cause damage.


All other things being equal, if round B had more kinetic energy than round A going in, it sure as heck won't cause *less* damage, and sure as heck could cause a lot more depending on how much more energy it had.
It certainly *could* cause more, seeing as there is more energy available.

FerFAL
September 5, 2007, 04:58 PM
Soybomb wrote:
On one hand I have several doctors telling me that the actual physical hole I punch with a handgun is all I can rely on
Well Soybomb, gotta ask, how many people did those doctors shoot?
If you still disagree I'd like to know what you base your disagreement on.
My opinions are based on the conclusions I arrive after considering what I learn from real life shootings.
I talk often with guys that kill people and got shot at. Unfortunately this happens all day long here in the suburbs of Buenos Aires. I try to listen to what guys that have been in gunfights have to say, both civilians and police.
That’s how I know that 124 FMJ 9mm is not much of a stopper but will put people down if you do your part ( shoot accurately, repeat if needed) and 45 ACP 230 gr FMJ works MUCH better.
Believe whatever you want.

FerFAL

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 05:01 PM
The momentum of the punch does not do the damage, what does the damage is the amount of energy the punch "dumps" into the target.
You can easily show that a good punch has as much kinetic energy as a .45 bullet. So how come it doesn't kill like a .45 bullet?

Because it's expressed as momentum, not KE.

easyg
September 5, 2007, 05:03 PM
Quote:
Are you saying a .45 will drop a 300 lb mule deer buck as effectively as a .243?

Probably better -- the .243 is considered by many to be marginal for mule deer. The primary advantage the .243 has is in it's extended range.
Not a chance.
If the .243 is considered "marginal" for mule deer, then the .45 is considered sub-marginal at best.
Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of handgun hunting rounds have high velocities and very high amounts of energy.;)

I am saying the hole kills. The deeper and wider the hole, the more effective the round will be, all other things being equal.
And the deepest possible hole is a through-and-through hole.
A hole alone does not kill, neither does energy alone, or penetration alone.
It is a combination of all three.
The ideal defensive round would have adequate penetration to hit vital organs, have a large enough slug to cause a respectable size hole, and have as much energy to dump as possible from a handheld weapon....and still be controllable when shooting.

But penetration totally through the human body does always give better results when it comes to firearms.
It's no great secret that hollow-point are typically more effective at stopping folks than ball ammo...and hollow-points typically don't over-penetrate the body as much as ball ammo.

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 05:05 PM
You can easily show that a good punch has as much kinetic energy as a .45 bullet. So how come it doesn't kill like a .45 bullet?

Because it's expressed as momentum, not KE.
Absolutely incorrect if you're looking at physical damage. Energy does work, such as damaging tissue, not momentum. Momentum models movement, not deformation. This is true for ALL cases.

Also, a punch doesn't tear through you for a number of reasons - comparing the two is apples and oranges. A more accurate comparison would be taking a .45 through a bulletproof vest for the blunt force.

easyg
September 5, 2007, 05:16 PM
You can easily show that a good punch has as much kinetic energy as a .45 bullet. So how come it doesn't kill like a .45 bullet?

Because it's expressed as momentum, not KE.
First of all, I'm not convinced that a good punch generates as much energy as a .45 bullet.
But even if it did....
The punch will deliver that energy to a much larger area than the .45 bullet would, so the energy dumped is applied to a large surface area that can more easily absorb that energy, while the .45 bullet focuses that energy.
Focused energy is nearly always more effective than dispersed energy.
And the punch will lose energy much more rapidly than the .45 bullet....
What's the energy of a punch at fifty yards vs the energy of a .45 bullet at fifty yards?


The connecting punch and the glancing punch both have the same momentum, but the connecting punch does more damage because it dumps more energy in to the target.
If it were just momentum, and not energy dumped, then the glancing blow would cause just as much damage as the connecting blow.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 05:17 PM
I'm reminded of Jack Lott's epiphany with a cape buffalo that led him to develop the .458 Lott.

Jack had a softnose in the chamber of his .458 Win Mag, and a solid as the first round in the magazine. He hit the buffalo too far back -- the expanded bullet slowed and came to a stop in the buffalo's paunch but never reached the vitals. The next shot hit the buffalo's shoulder, but the poorly-constructed "solid" riveted over and came to a stop -- again not reaching the vitals.

Now, both those bullets "dumped" all their energy in the buffalo. So in theory, Jack should not have wound up in the hospital.

But he did.

Odd Job
September 5, 2007, 05:18 PM
So we have an alternate theory here, the theory of cavitation?

No, sir, it isn't a theory...it is a real life phenomenon.

Let us cast our enquiring nets wider:

Nowhere are the effects of cavitation from high velocity projectiles better seen than in the head. A gunshot wound to the head with a rifle often results in the evisceration of the brain (the brain 'erupts' out of the cranium). There are ample examples of this in the literature.
Yet the results are not nearly as impressive when the projectile is traveling at handgun velocities (Note that we must exclude contact wounds of all kinds in this debate because the gases of discharge are known to greatly increase the damage done when entering the wound.)

Another thing for both you gentlemen to consider (you and JesseL), is the difference in the effects of small arms fire on dry and wet heads. By this I mean heads that still have all their soft tissues (the brain is in situ) and dry skulls such as those seen in school biology labs in the 70s and 80s.
When the heads are shot wet, the effects of cavitation are manifested by fracturing of the skull that cannot be attributed to the direct passage of a projectile alone. This indicates that the wounds are complex, and the displacement of soft tissues affects both the bone and the type of damage that is sustained. However when dry skulls are shot, the complex fracture patterns are not seen and the damage is often manifested in neat 'drill holes' in the bone. In other words there was no material to host the cavitation. If there was no contribution to the wound other than direct contact with the projectile, then gunshot heads would look alike whether they were wet or dry.

The fact that penetrating and perforating gunshot wounds of the head and brain result in raised intracranial pressure acutely, is not disputed. What is evident is the remarkable and violent displacement of the brain from high velocity projectiles, when compared to low velocity projectiles. It is not my place to offer numbers in support of a declaration of what 'high velocity' and 'low velocity' is, in terms of small arms projectiles.
However, it is well within the scope of what I know and have seen, to be able to advise that there is a definite increase in the wounding potential of projectiles traveling at rifle velocities compared to projectiles traveling at handgun velocities (in general).

This is nothing new at all, this has been known for a long time.

easyg
September 5, 2007, 05:22 PM
Now, both those bullets "dumped" all their energy in the buffalo. So in theory, Jack should not have wound up in the hospital.
A very illogical conclusion.

Just because a bullet dumps all of it's energy into a target, that does NOT mean that it will be enough energy to stop the target.

In other words....
If you shoot a 300 lbs line-backer with a spitball, even though the spitball has dumped all of it's energy in to the line-backer, the line-backer will most likely NOT be killed.
The spitball simply lacks the energy to stop a 300 lbs line-backer.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2007, 05:26 PM
And the punch will lose energy much more rapidly than the .45 bullet....
What the energy of a punch at fifty yards vs the energy of a .45 bullet at fifty yards?
Only in California could we debate this.:D

Consider the velocity and mass of the moving fist and arm. Let's say it is about half the speed of a good fastball and about 5 lbs of effective mass.

5 X 75 fps^2/64.4 = 436 ft lbs. Just about in the .45 range for KE.

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 05:26 PM
Below is a typical stress-strain curve. Tissue is more elastic, so the curve wil have a different shape (probably a J-curve looking elastic line), but the principles are the same. Here's how energy transfer works to destroy things.

A material sitting alone with no residual stresses will be at the origin of the graph. It can be deformed elastically (non-permanently) by stretching it up to the first dashed line. It takes energy, not momentum, but energy, to bring it up to that point on the curve. The energy is given by the area underneath the curve.

Stress is Force per Unit Area (F/A) - units are psi/Pa. Strain is (Change in Length) / (Original Length) - unitless.

Once it passes that line, permanent deformation takes place. At this point, it takes much more energy to continue permanent, or plastic, deformation.

After passing the third line, something called "necking" begins. It is where stress/strains are highly localized, and leads up to the X at the end of the line - failure. The total area under this curve is the energy necessary to fracture a material. This will only happen if energy is expended, not momentum. Momentum does not cause damage; things with a lot of momentum may cause lots of damage upon impact, but the correlation is only because they share similar terms in the equations.

http://blueridgearmory.com/images/fracture.gif

easyg
September 5, 2007, 05:29 PM
But again...

If it were just momentum, and not energy dumped, then the glancing blow would cause just as much damage as the connecting blow.

dodging230grainers
September 5, 2007, 05:45 PM
Vern, why is the 5.56mm NATO round one of the most popular rifle cartridges in entire world, and most Western militaries chamber their main rifles in it?

I don't think its because it's known to be a deep penetrator, nor carry much momentum. :banghead:

You've turned the effects of kinetic energy into an often overly exaggerated myth (which is true) to something that you claim outright does not exist, at any level.

Soybomb
September 5, 2007, 06:19 PM
Well Soybomb, gotta ask, how many people did those doctors shoot?
How many oncologists have had cancer? What person has shot enough people to make any sort of statement about that anyway? I've been in a few car wrecks in my life but that doesn't qualify me to speak in depth about generalities regarding what happens in car wrecks. These are people who have years of eduation and experience in the function of the body and treating people with gun shot wounds and examining people that didn't survive their gun shot wounds.. We need large amounts of data analyzed by people who know what they're looking at. So far the police in the US don't seem to be complaining.

My opinions are based on the conclusions I arrive after considering what I learn from real life shootings.
I talk often with guys that kill people and got shot at. Unfortunately this happens all day long here in the suburbs of Buenos Aires. I try to listen to what guys that have been in gunfights have to say, both civilians and police.
That’s how I know that 124 FMJ 9mm is not much of a stopper but will put people down if you do your part ( shoot accurately, repeat if needed) and 45 ACP 230 gr FMJ works MUCH better.
Believe whatever you want.
So why does that leave you to believe energy dump is a reliable component of stopping power. Using the numbers for winchester ranger factory loads of both rounds I get 400 ft/lbs on the .45@885fps and 364 ft/lbs on the 9mm@1150fps, a difference of 36 ft/lbs, or 10% more kinetic energy than the 9mm round. All the experts say its the size of the hole that makes the difference, so why when the diameter of the hole increases nearly 30% and the volume of the wound increases (lets say a 14" wound tract which is 5.4 cubic inches for the 9mm round and 8.9 cubic inches for the .45) far more do you feel the 10% difference in kinetic energy of the round is responsible for the better stopping?

Vern, why is the 5.56mm NATO round one of the most popular rifle cartridges in entire world, and most Western militaries chamber their main rifles in it?

I don't think its because it's known to be a deep penetrator, nor carry much momentum.

You've turned the effects of kinetic energy into an often overly exaggerated myth (which is true) to something that you claim outright does not exist, at any level.I think its important to keep in mind that in this thread we're talking about handguns. The damage rifle caliber rounds can do through cavitation and fragmentation is pretty widely accepted. The temporary cavitation from handgun rounds doesn't even begin to compare.There is no service caliber handgun wound that causes wounds like 5.56

Finally, why are you guys even talking about punches? You're talking about such a different type of injury to the body I can't even begin to see the correlation.

Michael Courtney
September 5, 2007, 06:40 PM
The proponents of "energy dump" theory said that. They postulate that a bullet which does not exit "dumps all its energy" in the body and is therfore more effective.

While not a complete strawman, this version of the "energy dump" theory is more a demonstration that an oversimplification of an idea for consumption by a general audience is often easily picked apart by folks with an above average appreciation for the technical details. This is a "gun magazine" dumbing down of an idea in a manner that I have not seen from any scientific sources (such as scientific journals or scientists themselves). A more scientific rendering would probably be more like:

Energy Transfer Hypothesis:

Other factors (penetration depth, shot placement, expanded diameter, etc.) being equal, the projectile that has a larger local rate of energy loss (dE/dx, for those who know calculus) will create more tissue disruption in the target.

Since the local rate of energy loss, dE/dx, is the retarding force, this phrasing of the idea has a lot of support:

1) Prompt damage (tissue damaged by a high local stress field prior to temporary cavitation) depends strongly on the retarding force, and (other factors being equal) increases monotonically (and approximately linearly) with the retarding force.

2) The cross sectional area of the temporary cavity depends strongly on the retarding force and increases monotonically with the retarding force.

3) The ballistic pressure wave, which has been shown to cause remote neural damage, increases with the retarding force.

At handgun energy levels (below 1000 ft-lbs), none of these mechanisms causes rapid incapacitation 100% of the time. However, each mechanism slightly increases the probability of rapid incapacitation, and in the energy range of 500-1000 ft-lbs, these effects cannot be considered negligible. These effects might not speed incapacitation in every case, but they do decrease the time to incapacitation on average.

The average retarding force is E/d for non-fragmenting bullets, the kinetic energy of the projectile divided by the penetration depth in suitable prepared gelatin. Your version of the gun magazine energy dump "theory" advocates reducing penetration to increase the retarding force. Serious scientists are much less likely to advocate reducing penetration below well-established minimum penetration requirements for a given application and risk assessment.

Michael Courtney

Kentak
September 5, 2007, 06:49 PM
Probably better -- the .243 is considered by many to be marginal for mule deer.

And these same people consider the .45 better? :confused:

Who loads a 255 grain .45 to 1000 fps?

K

Kentak
September 5, 2007, 07:42 PM
Fascinating discussion. But, I need a porn break. All this talk of penetration and cavities is getting to me. Back later.

K

mavracer
September 5, 2007, 07:47 PM
There is "dead" and then there is . . . "dead."
maybe but there is "dead right now" and "mortaly wounded killed you then died enroute to the hospital"

mavracer
September 5, 2007, 08:09 PM
I am saying the hole kills. The deeper and wider the hole, the more effective the round will be, all other things being equal. And the deepest possible hole is a through-and-through hole.
I've quoted my boar shot twice before and you want to knock my spelling.There was no hole in the chest cavity yet there was enough energy transfered to the lungs to cause enough viseral damage the animal "died" from the lung wound.therefore energy transfer can Kill.
if all things are equal the hole can't be deeper and wider.
all things being equal a bullet that exits can not and will not make as wide of hole as a bullet that stops under the skin on the back side.

easyg
September 5, 2007, 08:31 PM
Finally, why are you guys even talking about punches? You're talking about such a different type of injury to the body I can't even begin to see the correlation.
Because, just like the billiards example, it's another easily understood example (at least for most folks...yourself excluded apparently) of energy transfer (aka the energy dump that this thread is about).

If you "can't even begin to see the correlation" then you probably don't understand what's being discussed here.

mavracer
September 5, 2007, 08:44 PM
First of all, I'm not convinced that a good punch generates as much energy
IIRC heavyweights are in the 750-800 ft.lb. range

Soybomb
September 5, 2007, 10:03 PM
Because, just like the billiards example, it's another easily understood example (at least for most folks...yourself excluded apparently) of energy transfer (aka the energy dump that this thread is about).

If you "can't even begin to see the correlation" then you probably don't understand what's being discussed here.
There's no reason to go to name calling or insults, I've tried very hard to post good links and well thought out responses to this thread and would appreciate that courtesy in return. Thinly veiled "you're stupid" comments don't tell me why how my body reacts to getting punched is going to be anything like it reacts to getting shot.

Getting punched by a 5 year old does not hurt you as much as getting punched by an adult boxer.
Why?
Because the boxer generates more force and more kinetic energy, and then deposites that energy (ie: energy dump) in to your body.
More energy equals more damage.
To me thats trying to equate the effects of the two. Alright. Stubbing my toe hurts more than cutting my face shaving. I don't see how the analogies are applicable to this. Getting shot is not at all like getting punched, they're very different types of wounds. What happens when I get punched is irrelevant to what happens when I get shot. I want to hear the mechanics of whats ahppening and how its making my attacker stop. There's a laundry list of experts with a great deal of peer reviewed published work that say the round that carries more kinetic energy isn't necessarilly going to the better wounding round and that we need to look at the actual wound created in the tissue since handgun rounds are not reliable stoppers based on temporary cavitation. You're telling me they're wrong. All the shooting of the fruit or talk of getting punched in the world doesn't address the issue at all.

Just how far do you take your views and what have you based them on? RBCD makes a 60gr 9mm round that clocks in at 2010fps and 539 ft/lbs. Is this a better stopper than the 400 ft/lb .45 load or the 350ft/lb 9mm load? Why or why not? Its sure going to do a nasty number on fruit and water jugs.

mavracer
September 5, 2007, 10:50 PM
Getting shot is not at all like getting punched.
yes they are different wound mecanics but energy transfer is to an extent energy transfer.I will try to make the corralation this way.a 100 lb. average joe probably doesn't punch with enough energy to knock the wind out of my fat ass but he could easily stab a 5/16" drill bit through my heart.this would equate to a 32 acp. yes it will poke a hole in your heart but tis not going to create a temporary cavity that knocks the wind out.
now take the pro heavyweight boxer not only is there enough energy to jab a 1/2" rod through my chest, he can punch hard enough to not only knock the wind out he may break ribs.now were talking the power of the upper end handguns say 10MM and it will poke a big hole through the heart and may just knock the wind out (damage lungs) with temporary cavity.
RBCD makes a 60gr 9mm round that clocks in at 2010fps and 539 ft/lbs.
probably work great if all the BG were 6' 150 lb. wearing t-shirts and wouldn't hide behind stuff.sufficient penatration is still king.

FerFAL
September 5, 2007, 11:01 PM
Soybomb wrote:
These are people who have years of eduation and experience in the function of the body and treating people with gun shot wounds and examining people that didn't survive their gun shot wounds.. We need large amounts of data analyzed by people who know what they're looking at. So far the police in the US don't seem to be complaining.
Whatever, you stick with your doctors Iíll stick with the guys that shoot people for real :)
Last time I checked being a doctor does not qualify you as a ballistics expertÖ or even more importantly, a gunfighter.
I know doctors that canít even tell the difference between calibers. A good friend of my family does heart transplants, the guy is a darn genius. Whatís that got to do with on the street efficiency of one caliber or another?
We can discuss until the end of ages, what doctors and what guys shooting gelatin have to say. Real, cold facts? Those you donít argue, you simply pick them and accept them, like it or not, and then you can study why it worked ( or not) but you donít get to change the fact of what happened, just try to find a logical explanation for it.
All the experts say its the size of the hole that makes the difference, so why when the diameter of the hole increases nearly 30% and the volume of the wound increases (lets say a 14" wound tract which is 5.4 cubic inches for the 9mm round and 8.9 cubic inches for the .45) far more do you feel the 10% difference in kinetic energy of the round is responsible for the better stopping?

mmm... no, I think that you have a terribly wrong impression of what happens when people get shot. To you, its all about the diameter of the hole and the depth. You seem to ignore the importance of how that hole was made in the first place.
Surgically cutting a narrow hole that imitates the permanent cavity of a 45 Hardball round does NOT equal to actually getting shot with such caliber. The permanent cavity is just part of the equation, thereís also crushing of bones and hydraulic shock to consider, along with the temporary cavity and what organs got affected by it. An important nervous center getting caught within the temporary cavity area of influence will likely shock the person enough to put him down, out of the fight or unconscious. Him bleeding to death afterwards is merely anecdotal.
Say, a JHP +P 9mm that expands and transfers all of its energy, creating a hydraulic shock that happened to affect some main artery. The blood pressure in that ďhoseĒ goes up a LOT for a fraction of a second and God only knows what it may affect. If itís a main artery that connects to the brain, that person will likely go down unconscious, or he will at least be stunned for sure.
Thatís why I donít trust the wound profile drawings by Falkner, according to those drawings 45 ACP, even 7,62x51 are almost useless, with a relatively small permanent cavity, the temporary cavity being completely ignored, and thatísí simply wrong because FACTS prove otherwise, both calibers are good stoppers. And as I said before, you just donít argue with hard facts.
A temporary cavity is not less important because itís ďtemporaryĒ. Thatís an ignorant approach.
Just like with any other material, there an E factor of elasticity. Once you stretch tissue to a certain extent, it gets past a point of no return where it gets DAAMGED. A shock damaged organ, tissue and nervous terminals affects people, its like having a small bomb explode in you, that wave creates, pain shock and damage.
Yu just canít ignore the importance of the hydraulic shock, the way it affects the personís nervous system, not necessarily being a CNS shot.
I know of a guy that put down an armed attacker with a single 45 hardball slug to the shoulder. The guy went down, and stayed down, not being able to shoot back. He later lost the arm. Seems that the projectile smashed through the socket where the arm bone meets the shoulder. The terrible pain wave shocked him enough to leave him barely conscious on the floor, instantly. So much for only CNS shots and blood loss being the only instant fight stoppers.
The human body is just too complex for such a simplistic analysis.
Itís not only about penetration. An ice pick through the brain may put the lights out, but so will a JHP +P 9mm impacting the stomach of someone that just drank 1 liter of Coke.
A soccer player was left unconscious on the floor once because of a point black shot to the stomach. The policeman that shot him use LTL ammo that barely penetrated the skin, but just as if he had been hit by a huge fist, the shock by the LTL 12 ga round was so great that many internal organs where damaged and he barely managed to survive after several days of hospitalization. I saw that one live on TV, the infuriated soccer player ( healthy, mad, mid 20ís) went down like a sack of potatoes.
And then comes a reporter that was executed during the ďdirty warĒ Shot in the face 6 feet away with a Mouser 7,65 Argentine( similar ballistics to a 7,62 x51 NATO). The round blew out his upper teeth, and exited through the upper neck. The reporter went down but he didnít loose consciousness. He played dead ( the other victims of the firing squad were indeed dead) and he ESCAPED ON FOOT once the soldiers left. The guy exiled to USA and after some facial reconstruction you could barely see he had been shot with a darn Mauser right under the nose.

FerFAL

FerFAL
September 5, 2007, 11:08 PM
Soybomb wrote:
To me thats trying to equate the effects of the two. Alright. Stubbing my toe hurts more than cutting my face shaving. I don't see how the analogies are applicable to this. Getting shot is not at all like getting punched, they're very different types of wounds. What happens when I get punched is irrelevant to what happens when I get shot.

Actually the case I mentioned about the soccer player being shot with LTL is exactly like getting punched very, very hard in the stomach. The incident was caught on camera and is well documented.
The plastic buck barely penetrated the first layers of skin, but the energy wave transferred was so important it affected his organs and nervous system, enough to put him down as if it were a death ray. The man BARELY survived, I remember the case well, and there was almost no penetration to speak of. How do you explain that?

FerFAL

mavracer
September 5, 2007, 11:34 PM
IMHO A more basic theory that energy transfer will not be much of a factor below ~250 ft.lb. you need most of your energy to penatrate so you don't want violent expansion.It becomes a possible factor someplace between 400-500 ft.lb. you need a balance too violent expansion it may not penatrate enough. its more of a probable factor above ~700 ft.lb. now you can have a bullet expand violently and still get deep enough.

boomstik45
September 6, 2007, 02:02 AM
Wow, this is a rather spirited discussion. I have to admit, though, that the analogies are a bit distracting....:)

Soybomb
September 6, 2007, 02:25 AM
Last time I checked being a doctor does not qualify you as a ballistics expert… or even more importantly, a gunfighter.
I know doctors that can’t even tell the difference between calibers. A good friend of my family does heart transplants, the guy is a darn genius. What’s that got to do with on the street efficiency of one caliber or another?
Obviously we're talking about doctors that can and do. No all doctors aren't ballistics experts. Some do specialize in this area of study though just as your cardiologist surgeon friend has his own speciality. I don't believe you can get much more qualified to tell me how a body reacts to being shot than being a surgeon in a trauma center or a battle field surgeon. Why is a gun fighter qualified to tell me what round is a good stopper? We need to look at a sample of a large number of victims and look at the variables that were involved in the shooting. How many guys do you think a person would have to shoot before he could speak with authority on what works and what doesn't?

We can discuss until the end of ages, what doctors and what guys shooting gelatin have to say.
This seems like an attack on their character more than their work to me. I'm saying I'm reading papers from guys with medical training to the extent of being trauma surgeons and being experts in gun shot wounds and you're saying their opinions are irrelevant because they sometimes use a tissue simulant as a way to benchmark ammunition performance? If their work is wrong, lets tear it apart and all carry better for it. Gelatin has nothing to do with their qualifications or their work on stopping attackers.

Once you stretch tissue to a certain extent, it gets past a point of no return where it gets DAAMGED. A shock damaged organ, tissue and nervous terminals affects people, its like having a small bomb explode in you, that wave creates, pain shock and damage.
Yu just can’t ignore the importance of the hydraulic shock, the way it affects the person’s nervous system, not necessarily being a CNS shot.
Right and these trauma surgeons and the like are telling me the energy a handgun round imparts isn't enough to cause destruction by stretching to most tissue. Why are they wrong?

The permanent cavity is just part of the equation, there’s also crushing of bones and hydraulic shock to consider, along with the temporary cavity and what organs got affected by it. An important nervous center getting caught within the temporary cavity area of influence will likely shock the person enough to put him down, out of the fight or unconscious.
Alright thats what I'm wanting to see more about. We've been through a huge list of ballistics experts and the peer reviewed work that says "hydraulic shock" and the idea of termporary cavitation from handguns being a factor in stopping attackers is bunk and outside of inelastic organs like the liver and brain isn't going be severe enough to destroy tissue. Where are the papers that refute this and show me the dissenting opinion you're presenting is actually true?

I know of a guy that put down an armed attacker with a single 45 hardball slug to the shoulder. The guy went down, and stayed down, not being able to shoot back. He later lost the arm. Seems that the projectile smashed through the socket where the arm bone meets the shoulder. The terrible pain wave shocked him enough to leave him barely conscious on the floor, instantly. So much for only CNS shots and blood loss being the only instant fight stoppers.
How do you know a "terrible pain wave shocked" him into almost losing consciousness? Is the shock from pain? Is it from energy dump? Does energy dump cause the pain? What about the people who get shot with a .32 and quit fighting? Is there any evidence this happens on a larger scale so I know the idea of getting shot wasn't all it took and he would have dropped like a sack of potatos from a .32 as well?

he shock by the LTL 12 ga round
We're still talking about service caliber handguns here. The rules all change when we go to long arms because of the tremendous difference in energy between them and handguns. All the documentation I've posted has been around handguns and explicitly mentioned it as have I several times.

yes they are different wound mecanics but energy transfer is to an extent energy transfer.I will try to make the corralation this way.a 100 lb. average joe probably doesn't punch with enough energy to knock the wind out of my fat ass but he could easily stab a 5/16" drill bit through my heart.this would equate to a 32 acp. yes it will poke a hole in your heart but tis not going to create a temporary cavity that knocks the wind out.
now take the pro heavyweight boxer not only is there enough energy to jab a 1/2" rod through my chest, he can punch hard enough to not only knock the wind out he may break ribs.now were talking the power of the upper end handguns say 10MM and it will poke a big hole through the heart and may just knock the wind out (damage lungs) with temporary cavity
Why do we have to keep trying to come up with analogies here? I want to someone to tell me why they believe it works that way.

http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch02/02Discussion.html[/url] ]
Many soft tissues (muscle, skin. bowel wall, lung) are flexible and elastic, having the physical characteristics of a good energy absorber. The assumption that tissue must be damaged by the temporary displacement of cavitation makes no sense physically or biologically.
So I've got the doctors telling me that temporary cavitation isn't going to hurt my lungs, you're telling me it is. Why are you to be believed, a real biological/physiological explanation is needed.

probably work great if all the BG were 6' 150 lb. wearing t-shirts and wouldn't hide behind stuff.sufficient penatration is still king.
Its probably about 4-6" of penetration, why do you believe that would be sufficient? There was a study in the 1991 Wound Ballistics Review Jounal by Eugene Wolberg where he checked out the real world performance of 28 147 gr winchester load in those shot by the san diego pd from bad guys bodies. It seems we expect its like just like poking in and touching the heart from the front of the chest but in reality its nothing of the sort. Penetration depth is seldom measured it seems but in this study the average length of the wound was 13.2" Two rounds had penetrated to 13.5-14.5" and were stopped just under the skin. Wolberg speculated that they could have penetrated more deeply but that the skin has a "holding in" effect. For as many times as I've read people say "12 inches is excessive penetration" i think its quite telling that out of 28 wounds the average is so high. The most shallow wound was 10", and the deepest was 17" Neither of those two were about to exit the body.

At the end of the day I've got no horse in this race. I don't know any of you or any of the authors of the papers being cited. I just want to have something in my handgun that has the best chance of stopping an attacker. I want there to be scientifically sound evidence supporting the opinions of those I take advice from. I want it to be treated as seriously and with the same type of proper sound methodology as drug research or a physics paper for college.

boomstik45
September 6, 2007, 02:46 AM
Well said, Soybomb. It's my opinion that what's best in your handgun for stopping an attacker is what's still in there after the first round is gone....the second, third, fourth, ....you get my drift. :D:D

Kentak
September 6, 2007, 08:47 AM
While the amount (debated) of actual tissue and organ damage that is caused by a round's permanent and temporary cavity is a big part of this equation regarding stopping effectiveness, what about other factors?

How does a good gut punch take an aggressive drunk down? Obviously, not by tissue destruction.

Pure speculation, I know, but might a "higher" energy handgun round, through the internal shock of temporary cavitation, contribute to the debilitation of the attacker without necessarily adding to tissue damage?

Intuitively, that just seems like a real possibility to me and shouldn't be discounted.

K

Kentak
September 6, 2007, 08:55 AM
Also, we sometimes argue from the position that we're going to be shooting a PCP zombie or BG with hyper-adrenalized rage who won't be stopped by anything short of massive CNS or circulatory shut-down. In fact, a lot of shootings are of BG's who are cold, calculating predators. If they get shot, and it hurts badly enough, they go, "Crap! That hurts. I quit! Don't do that again."

Or, I could be whistling Dixie.

K

FerFAL
September 6, 2007, 09:03 AM
Soybomb wrote:
Why is a gun fighter qualified to tell me what round is a good stopper?

Because a gun fighter actually shoots people, he’s there when others get shot, sees the product “field tested”, shall we say. Your doctors speculate on what happened afterwards.
That’s precisely why the LAST word on weather a round works or not comes from the police officers, soldiers and civilians that actually get to use it. I explained this before, why is it so hard for you to understand? It’s a simple enough concept, testing a product.

We need to look at a sample of a large number of victims and look at the variables that were involved in the shooting. How many guys do you think a person would have to shoot before he could speak with authority on what works and what doesn't?

You’d be surprised. In a place like this it’s hard to tell how many people get shot. Gabe Suarez talked to some police officers here that have been in over 50 gunfights. It’s not uncommon to hear about a cop dumping a body in the river just to avoid paper work, or throwing the corpse in someone’s else jurisdiction to avoid the troubles too, kind of a local prank/joke here in the Southern suburbs of Buenos Aires, places like Dock Sud where bad guys open carry around the street as it were the far west, even though illegal. Civilians getting involved in shootings is also pretty common.
I don’t base myself on one or two cases or shooters, I take into account many before I form an opinion.
The example I gave you about the efficiency of 45 ACP FMJ is a good example. When you collect over a dozen opinions by cops who remember the round’s efficiency with a smile, I know that it is pretty effective stuff, specially when I found none that told me that it didn’t work. as expected.

This seems like an attack on their character more than their work to me.

You feel that I’m attacking them because I said they shoot gelatin? Why is that a sore spot for you? That’s what some “experts” base their opinions on, and those are the “experts” I have no use for. I’m sorry if you don’t like that. There are other experts that take into account what I talked about before: facts. Sanow comes up with very interesting results for 1 shot stops. It’s really good information, as long as you understand that it’s a %, and one based on just one shot stops.


I'm saying I'm reading papers from guys with medical training to the extent of being trauma surgeons and being experts in gun shot wounds and you're saying their opinions are irrelevant because they sometimes use a tissue simulant as a way to benchmark ammunition performance?

Pretty much, yes. Specially those who use that “tissue simulant” to such an extent that they end up believing it’s the final word on ammunition efficiency. Don’t worry, I’ll really listen to them once the planet gets invaded by gelatin blocks. While I worry about people with flesh, fat, BONES, veins and arteries and organs full of liquids, organs with different kind of elasticity and a nervous system that goes through all that, I’ll keep listening to the gunfighters rather than gelatin shooters. The bone structure alone is more than enough of a factor to prove that you cant base your decision on gelatin. I take them into account, but gelatin experiments ( get over it, it’s gelatin, not “tissue simulant”:rolleyes:) are only part of the equation, and it’s never more important than on field results.

Right and these trauma surgeons and the like are telling me the energy a handgun round imparts isn't enough to cause destruction by stretching to most tissue. Why are they wrong?

:scrutiny: Because of facts that prove otherwise.
You think a 357 magnum, 124 grain JHP traveling at 1400 fps wont cause destruction when it penetrates a body, other than the permanent cavity?
A firearms instructor I trained with some time ago (he’s also a cop, police instructor, also works in governmental VIP protection) told me about this shooting he was involved in, where a suspect was shot in the side of the head with a 357 magnum , the projectile generated enough pressure that the eyeballs came out of their sockets, one eye came completely detached.
Someone here on the internet in another forum said something similar, about an eye getting popped out because of a head shot. I don’t trust much what I read here but it’s pretty similar to what Baigorria ( the instructor) talked about.
I don’t think I’ll change your opinion, any more than I can convince someone that thinks that only a CNS ( brain or spine shot) or blood loss stops a man, is wrong.

We've been through a huge list of ballistics experts and the peer reviewed work that says "hydraulic shock" and the idea of termporary cavitation from handguns being a factor in stopping attackers is bunk and outside of inelastic organs like the liver and brain isn't going be severe enough to destroy tissue. Where are the papers that refute this and show me the dissenting opinion you're presenting is actually true?

You are obsessed with destroying tissue. :) The nerves that connect the eyeballs to the head are neither brain nor liver and they got damaged enough. Don’t be so obsessed with destroying tissue, there’s so much more to stopping power than that.

How do you know a "terrible pain wave shocked" him into almost losing consciousness?

Because I saw how be dropped like a corpse and stayed there without moving. I told you it was caught on camera.

Is the shock from pain? Is it from energy dump?

Probably both, either way it was NOT penetration or tissue destruction, was it?

Does energy dump cause the pain?

Yes, it does.

What about the people who get shot with a .32 and quit fighting?

Who knows? A head shot, a scared person overreacting, some large nerve getting hit, a shot in the groin, liver, heart. Some people get shot with a 22 LR once and go down, others get shot with a 44 magnum and run for a block or two.

Is there any evidence this happens on a larger scale so I know the idea of getting shot wasn't all it took and he would have dropped like a sack of potatos from a .32 as well?

Yes, LTL ammo gets used a lot here in riots. The box of ammo itself says that it CAN be lethal within 10M with a direct hit, so you should always look for walls or floor to bounce the plastic pellets and avoid direct hits. Close range LTL shots are very impressive, even throwing people off balance sometimes. Again, it is not lead or handgun ammo, but it proves that energy transferred does work in both killing and even more important , stopping a person.

We're still talking about service caliber handguns here. The rules all change when we go to long arms because of the tremendous difference in energy between them and handguns. All the documentation I've posted has been around handguns and explicitly mentioned it as have I several times.

You don’t like my example because it proves that a person can be stopped, even killed without significant penetration. The energy is greater but it’s transmitted without penetrating, a JHP or big bore handgun round transmits less energy but it does so directly into the organs, along with a deep permanent wound cavity and even greater temporary cavity.

FerFAL

easyg
September 6, 2007, 09:17 AM
There's no reason to go to name calling or insults, I've tried very hard to post good links and well thought out responses to this thread and would appreciate that courtesy in return. Thinly veiled "you're stupid" comments don't tell me why how my body reacts to getting punched is going to be anything like it reacts to getting shot.
No one has called anyone "stupid".
But the quote below really explains things abit....
To me thats trying to equate the effects of the two. Alright. Stubbing my toe hurts more than cutting my face shaving. I don't see how the analogies are applicable to this. Getting shot is not at all like getting punched, they're very different types of wounds. What happens when I get punched is irrelevant to what happens when I get shot.
You seem to be hung up on the TYPE OF WOUND caused by various mechanisms of injury.
But what we are discussing is ENERGY TRANSFER (aka the energy dump).
And when someone says "Energy dump is a myth" then they are simply wrong.

Bullets in motion, billiard balls in motion, and fists in motion all must obey the same laws of physics.
When a billiard ball in motion strikes a stationary billiard ball, the ball in motion deposits its energy into the stationary ball.
When a person punches another person, he deposits the energy of his punch in to that other person.
And when a bullet in motion stikes its target, it deposits its energy into that target.
It's not a myth.

The real question is how much additional damage does that energy cause?
Some folks say the damage is insignificant, while other claim the opposite.
So to determine who's right we have to look at both controlled testing (gello test, balistics test, etc...) and real life examples (people and animals who have been shot).
Now, if one looks at the balistics of all of the various handgun calibers, one will quickly see that the most effective calibers in real life situations are the ones that deliver the most energy to the target.
That's why the ammo makers are always striving to create rounds with more energy.
That's why we have +P rounds these days, and custom hot loads....everyone is trying to wring just a few more foot pounds of energy out of the given caliber.
No one is trying to design bullets with less energy.

fletcher
September 6, 2007, 09:21 AM
When a billiard ball in motion strikes a stationary billiard ball, the ball in motion deposits its energy into the stationary ball.
That is actually modelled by momentum, since it is motion after collision - that's all.

When a person punches another person, he deposits the energy of his punch in to that other person.
And when a bullet in motion stikes its target, it deposits its energy into that target.
Correct, but I prefer the word "transfer" instead of "deposit" for the energy exchange.

easyg
September 6, 2007, 09:28 AM
That is actually modelled by momentum, since it is motion after collision - that's all.
No. While momentum does affect the amount of energy generated, it is not what causes the other ball to move.
Otherwise a glancing strike would cause the same reaction as a solid hit, since the momentum is the same for both.

fletcher
September 6, 2007, 09:29 AM
Yes, energy is transferred, but that system is modelled with momentum. Energy accelerates the other ball.

Otherwise a glancing strike would cause the same reaction as a solid hit, since the momentum is the same for both.
Glancing strikes do not transfer the same amount of momentum. Must consider angles of elastic collisions.

easyg
September 6, 2007, 09:39 AM
Must consider angles of elastic collisions.
Now you're talking above my head.:o

mavracer
September 6, 2007, 09:47 AM
Its probably about 4-6" of penetration, why do you believe that would be sufficient?
because if the BG is 6' 150 lbs. 6" is an exit wound.and I'm not saying mag-safe or glaser are good for SD for that same reason.I was in agreement that under most circumstances its not sufficient.

fletcher
September 6, 2007, 09:53 AM
Now you're talking above my head.
It's simple enough ;) - let's look at the billiard ball example. Say you're hitting the cue ball toward a ball on the table, and it makes a direct hit. Assuming that they're the same mass, the cue ball will stop in place, and the the other ball will continue with the velocity the cue ball had before collision.

Now, let's say that the cue ball doesn't hit the other ball straight on, but at an angle. The cue ball doesn't stop anymore, it keeps moving, right? It only bounces off (angle of incidence = angle of reflection; same deal for the ball that just got hit). That shows that only a portion of the momentum/energy was transferred. You can get into calculating this by taking sines and cosines of the force to calculate the X and Y components (pool table is for all intents, two dimensional).

easyg
September 6, 2007, 10:25 AM
It's simple enough...
This should probably be a separate thread, but...

Okay, I'm with you so far, but where does the "elastic" part come in to play?

boomstik45
September 6, 2007, 10:26 AM
Oh geez...

boomstik45
September 6, 2007, 10:42 AM
I figure all of the above stated "factors" cannot be discounted. Why? Because people react differently to getting shot. People don't react like animals, generally. Animals just want to either attack or get away. Humans nearly always have a psychological reaction of some sort, unless there's an interruption of the CNS or some hit from a bullet that causes the body to no longer be able to do what it was doing before the person got shot.

Since there's no exact science on psychological and emotional reactions, the physical part is what's focused on. So the question becomes which factor is the most physically damaging. The problem, as has been stated by many, is that often times, handgun cartridges don't have enough "oomph" to RELIABLY, CONSISTENTLY prove physical incapacitation, ESPECIALLY in one shot. Keep in mind that this one shot may or may not be center of mass. It could be anywhere on the body. Again, I think that no one particular physical wounding mechanism is the absolute most damaging. I think it's the combination thereof. A bullet enters the body so quickly, it's a very fast wound, which means pain can probably be either faster, and therefore less effective (in some cases)...or slower to arrive to the brain, sort of like "hey wait a minute, I just got shot...that hurt". Or perhaps a person doesn't feel too badly until they see blood. See? You can't get rid of the psychological effect no matter how hard you try. In the end, can any of the physical wounding mechanisms be ignored? No.

I think that each mechanism compliments the other. And you really can't have one without another. Despite all the technical talk (which has been both great and not-so-great), in the case of handgun cartridges (well, in most service cartridges anyway) physical wounding mechanisms are forever wedded to psychological and emotional mechanisms as well. But hey, I'm no expert. Just guessing here.

One thing I do know: whatever gets shot once by me probably gets shot at least twice. I don't care much for "one shot" situations, preferring the double tap for starters. I cut a somewhat physically imposing figure at my size. If you're attacking me, then something tells me you really need to be shot.

fletcher
September 6, 2007, 10:49 AM
Okay, I'm with you so far, but where does the "elastic" part come in to play?
Kind of like what I was talking about with the stress-strain diagram. "Elastic" indicates both that the two bodies do not stick upon collision, but deflect, and that no energy is absorbed by plastic (permanent) deformation. Energy consumed to elastically deform the body is released again.

So, elastic = bounce, inelastic/plastic = crunch.

mavracer
September 6, 2007, 12:38 PM
That’s precisely why the LAST word on weather a round works or not comes from the police officers, soldiers and civilians that actually get to use it. I explained this before, why is it so hard for you to understand? It’s a simple enough concept, testing a product.
now don't take this the wrong way because for the most part I agree.but if the cop shoots ten BG and 8 drop in their tracks and two continue fighting for 30 seconds. would it not be wise to ask the DR. what happened to these two and maybe take that info to the ammo maker make changes and try for 10 out of 10.
and another thought I had if a .45 fmj 230 grn at 850 fps. works good would it not be safe to say a .53 cal fmj 285 grn at 1000 fps. would work better.
I think I can come to this conclusion without any jello or people getting shot,
shoot for that matter I don't think a .53 acp exists and I know it would work to stop BGs.

Vern Humphrey
September 6, 2007, 12:53 PM
I had a discussion once with Dr. Marvin Fackler, who autopsied thousands of men during the Viet Nam war. He said most of those killed were killed by full auto fire.

Now I have personally seen men hit multiple times by semi-auto fire -- often from different weapons. So I asked him what tests he performed to see if all the bullets that hit one man came from the same weapon.

He gave me a dirty look that got dirtier when I went on to ask, "What test did you perform to determine the selector position of the weapon?"

Dr. Fackler's data doesn't prove that most men killed were hit by full-auto fire. It does tell us that you're more likely to die if hit multiple times. Dr. Fackler had made a "Black Bomber Error."

Data from doctors is often very good -- but must be interpreted with common sense.

easyg
September 6, 2007, 01:07 PM
Data from doctors is often very good -- but must be interpreted with common sense.
Exactly.

A doctor can tell you that the subject was shot in the heart, but he cannot tell you how long the subject continued to fight on before falling down dead.
Only the man on the scene can tell you that.

The doctor might be able to determine the actual and technical cause of death, but he can't tell you how effective the round was at producing an immediate stop.
Again, only the man on the scene can tell you that.

Vern Humphrey
September 6, 2007, 01:56 PM
Correct.

I'm a pragmatist and an empiricist -- go with what works, and don't spend a lot of time constructing theories out of air.

Vern Humphrey
September 6, 2007, 02:02 PM
By the way, leaving through an old copy of Handloader magazine (April 2004, number 228) I came across an interesting letter on this subject ("Energy Dump").

The writer points out when a car is crash-tested, it reacts much like a softnose or hollowpoint bullet -- it gets shorter and changes its shape on impact. But the safety experts don't say the car "dumped its energy" into the barrier. They say the design of the car "allowed it to absorb energy."

Hmmmmm -- so when the bullet is deformed (as it is designed to be) it "absorbs" energy. Hmmmmm.

fletcher
September 6, 2007, 02:03 PM
Hmmmmm -- so when the bullet is deformed (as it is designed to be) it "absorbs" energy.
Yes, the deformation process absorbs energy for the bullet, just like for tissue.

Riktoven
September 6, 2007, 02:25 PM
Only the guy on the scene can tell you how long it took his opponent to stop that's true.

The problem that most of us have is that we don't know these people personally, and don't believe random people on the internet who 'debate' with rudeness instead of evidence.

I mean officers involved in over 50 gunfights? BullShnikey, Buenos Aires or not. Anyone involved in 50 gunfights is either a)Unlucky Soldier, b) VERY unlucky cop, c) deranged gunman, d) LYING.

I heard my grandpa give me unlimited crap for buying a 9mm instead of a Colt .45 (which I'd love, but can't afford). He regailed me of its ability to tear limbs off and drop a man in his tracks, and other WWII anecdotes. I don't believe this from my own grandpa, why would anyone believe the anecdotes from a faceless name on their screen?

There are people in this world that don't feel pain without chemical assistance, and then chemical assistance seems to be more and more available these days. Relying on pain to incapacitate is like relying on pepper spray to incapacitate, not smart. There is also no way whatsoever to know what the mindset of one's adversary is. How will he react to being shot? How will he react to "having the wind knocked out of him from the inside out" (assuming that's even possible)? Pain or not, wind knocked out or not, if he has a gun in his hand he can probably still pull the trigger. I know if someone shot me, I'd be trying like hell to shoot back if it was at all possible.

Yes, more energy equals more POTENTIAL damage. Yes, cavitation can have a nasty effect. Hell, even this hydrostatic stuff that is somehow different from cavitation may even come into play at times. I still think though, that unless you are limited to six shots and slow(er) releads that lots of deep holes fast is the only way to guarantee anything.

All that extra energy that MIGHT incapacitate your attacker sooner will DEFINATELY slow down your followup shots. Considering that an additional 1/4 second between shots is enough time for you be killed twice by a skilled shooter, the remote possibility of "blowing someone's eyeballs out" on the first shot seems like a bit much to hope for.

If it's multiple assailants against someone with a 6 shooter who really can't afford to hammer a single target, then I could see dealing with extra recoil over the extra time it takes to reload. But even then, your magnum rounds aren't guaranteed to do anything a 9mm wouldn't. They might, but against multiple attackers chances are you will be shot twice by the time your gun comes back on target.

I'm not saying that these other woundng mechanisms aren't real, but they don't seem to happen often enough to give up the ability to put 6 shots COM in a second to put the law of averages on your side for the guranteed instant stop. Also, if the pressure wave causes various levels of pain without a definitive starting point, won't my "weak" 9mm still hurt? Which do think hurts more, a .357 magnum wound or 2 9mm wounds?

I know several people who have been shot, but only one with a handgun. That Sheriff's Deputy was hit in the chest (pre-vest days) with a .44 magnum, and lived to tell the tale. Granted, the bullet traveled more than 100ft. and through both sides of a mobile home before it hit him, but he didn't mention anything about debilitating pain, only that he wanted to kill the woman that shot him. I'm not saying pain can't help 'stop' the fight sooner, it just seems like the tradeoffs aren't worth it if you can shoot straight and fast.

Vern Humphrey
September 6, 2007, 02:33 PM
Yes, the deformation process absorbs energy for the bullet, just like for tissue.
And given that we all agree that most defensive handgun cartridges (even the vaunted .357 -- which I have used twice for "real") are marginal in the energy department, it follows that if KE is the killer/stopper, any energy used to deform the bullet would render them more marginal.

And hence, under the "energy dump" theory, less effective.

Yet, somehow everybody likes expanding handgun bullets and considers them (in defensive situations) more effective that bullets that don't expand.

fletcher
September 6, 2007, 03:13 PM
Yet, somehow everybody likes expanding handgun bullets and considers them (in defensive situations) more effective that bullets that don't expand.
All I have to go on is gelatin tests, and cavities from JHP handgun rounds are significantly larger than FMJ. I'd prefer massive internal bleeding over two relatively small holes.

Assuming the FMJ goes straight through, if it has any more energy upon exit than it takes to deform the lead, JHP would take the energy lead. JHP also offers the bigger hole internally.

mavracer
September 6, 2007, 03:31 PM
any energy used to deform the bullet would render them more marginal.
which is why bullet construction is important so less energy is used to expand the bullet leaving more energy to transfer to the target.

FerFAL
September 6, 2007, 03:35 PM
Riktoven wrote:
Only the guy on the scene can tell you how long it took his opponent to stop that's true.

The problem that most of us have is that we don't know these people personally, and don't believe random people on the internet who 'debate' with rudeness instead of evidence.

I mean officers involved in over 50 gunfights? BullShnikey, Buenos Aires or not. Anyone involved in 50 gunfights is either a)Unlucky Soldier, b) VERY unlucky cop, c) deranged gunman, d) LYING.

I heard my grandpa give me unlimited crap for buying a 9mm instead of a Colt .45 (which I'd love, but can't afford). He regailed me of its ability to tear limbs off and drop a man in his tracks, and other WWII anecdotes. I don't believe this from my own grandpa, why would anyone believe the anecdotes from a faceless name on their screen?


You can go to Gabe Suarez’s forum and ask him yourself if you don’t believe me ( I suppose you wouldn’t believe him either), I just happen to know the guy he’s talked about. Besides, being in 50 shootings is not a big deal when you consider the high crime we have here and that officers serve for over 30 years. Not a big deal at all, at least not around here OR in any 3rd world country with high crime. Rio de Janeiro? Cops in the favelas there get into gunfights all the time.
For the average cop here in some of the roughest places, shooting are something common, sometimes worse sometimes just a couple of round being fired. On occasions a lot of lead is fired over 70 rounds, and you don’t even hear about it in the news.
Here’s an interview, made in 2002, where Amadeo D'Angelo, then head of the “Bonaerense” police, the police of the suburbs of Bs. As., not the capital district, clearly confirms that the Bonaerense force engaged in 2.500 shootings with criminals the year before (2.500 shooting in 2001, just in Bs. As.). Keep in mind that those are the ones they accept participating in, file reports , etc.
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2002/04/02/s-03815.htm
Do the math, yourself: about 2.500 shooting a year x 30 years of service. How many of those shooting do you think you’ll be able to avoid considering that they all occur in Bs. As. ?
Grow up, travel more, and LEARN more before you call BS and calling me a liar…
Oh, I forgot, you don’t believe your “grandpa”….:rolleyes:

FerFAL

Vern Humphrey
September 6, 2007, 03:39 PM
All I have to go on is gelatin tests, and cavities from JHP handgun rounds are significantly larger than FMJ. I'd prefer massive internal bleeding over two relatively small holes.
Which is my point -- it's the hole that kills. The wider and deeper the hole, the better it does it's job.

If you enjoyed reading about "Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!