On handguns and calibre wars...


PDA






Geckgo
June 1, 2011, 01:58 PM
Hello all. I would like to start a discussion of current thoughts on different handgun calibers, types of guns etc, that hopefully we can discuss this without threads like "I only use calibers that begin with .4" or "9mm is the smallest bullet I would use" and other such nonsense.

To my knowledge, the hydrostatic shock thing has been beaten to death, and on the whole, we can take it as an irrelevant point regarding guns. Yes there has supposedly been tests on either side of the argument, but for the sake of this discussion, if we can, let's disregard it.

Basically, when I started researching my first handgun, I ended up choosing an XD45, mostly because I wanted to use the same bullets when I someday get enough money to get some snazzy 1911s, but I had biases. I didn't want something smaller than 9mm and even thought the 9mm to be a "small" calibre. I was convinced that a nice .7" hole from a .45 HP put me in a comfort zone, and they still penetrate "deep enough" according to the little FBI minimum requirements.

What I see more now, is that 10-14 inches of penetration is more and more the only real factor to look at most of the time. Put the bullets in the vitals or CNS and the job is done. I've got some little factoids here, let me know how yall feel.

A heavier bullet will penetrate deeper, all other things being equal.
A faster bullet will penetrate deeper, all other things being equal.
A smaller bullet (radius) will penetrate deeper, all other things being equal.

People, IMHO, are far too concerned with Hollowpoints nowadays. To me, a hollowpoint is useful for taking a bullet that will overpenetrate, and reducing it's penetration to get a maximum energy dump for the intended target.

i.e. .22LR from a 10/22 rifle will penetrate 10-14 inches with a velocitor, regular supersonic hollowpoints 8-12 inches, but a solid moving at the same velocity will penetrate even deeper. A squirrel is nowhere near this thick, unless you shoot him along the face-to-tail axis, so smaller, more explosive expansion will still get you adequate penetration and dump a lot more energy into the squirrel, thus things like stingers are nice on small game headshots or getting rid of pests.

When it comes to defensive handguns, the same general rules apply, and HP manufacturers, i believe, correct me if I'm wrong, like to stay around the 12inch range for their HPs, while making them as powerful as they can otherwise, which means taking a sufficent round, and curbing it's penetration to make a bigger hole and dump more energy. In that respect, the big 3, 9mm, .40SW and .45ACP are all really doing the same thing, if we look at hitting the vitals/etc.

.380 HPs have had issues with penetration of hollowpoints, but some newer HPs, and definitely FMJs will do the same, punch a hole to and thru the vitals.

When you get down to .25, .32, and .22Mag, and .22LR, nearly everyone will say "get a bigger bullet" but maybe the idea is to get a more "suitable bullet". A sufficient powder charge in any of these with proper placement and non-expanding bullets should be able to effectively penetrate from a pistol with solid non-hollowpoint rounds.

There does seem to be one more item, before I close this, is that light bullets (20-50gr) might tend to change course more easily than heavier bullets with more momentum, so the tendency to deflect may be one issue to consider.

Reliablility is important in a defensive pistol, we all know that, but for this lets look at the bullets themselves. I basically want to know how, looking at these comments, if there is something else that I have missed that would make small, non-hp rounds bad for SD if they can adequately penetrate.

Just food for thought, let's keep it friendly :)

If you enjoyed reading about "On handguns and calibre wars..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
skoro
June 1, 2011, 02:05 PM
My thoughts...

1. expansion is a nice feature, but not necessary

2. rifle loads for big, dangerous game tend to be nonexpanding

3. overpenetration is a concern, but a minor one

4. I carry ammo that tends to favor penetration over expansion

Friendly, Don't Fire!
June 1, 2011, 02:49 PM
My philosophy is to take accurate shots, then I don't need to worry so much about whether my bullets are expanding or not. Of course, to take an accurate shot, one must shoot on a fairly regular basis. To know just how your gun is shooting at certain distances is good information, however to really know your gun and load, one should shoot frequently.

I have to admit, I do not shoot as often as I should. There is just too much other stuff I need to do around my house when the weather is good than to be sitting at a range shooting. Perhaps if I plan on short range sessions, that would work with my schedule. After all, any shooting is better than no shooting.

I vary in what I carry, sometimes I carry Silvertip HP's in my LCP (.380) and sometimes I carry FMJ. For my .45, all I have at the moment is FMJ, so that has to work. For .38 Special, I tend to carry either Gold Dots for short barrels which are perfect for my S&W 642 as they say those are good for 1 7/8" barrels, and that is precisely what the gun has on it!

I really don't get too worked up over what bullets I am using as I believe if something ever goes down, whatever I have in the gun at the time will be what was best for that situation, whether it be FMJ or HP's. Where one bullet lacks, the other makes up, where that lacks, the other makes up! It all works out in the end.

Geckgo
June 1, 2011, 02:56 PM
Friendly, I definitely agree with you on the practice aspect. I have a lot of .45 fmj that I get from wally world for practice ammo. I usually keep her loaded with gold dots around the house, and I have a couple hundred rounds of those laying around. I'll empty two mags of them at the range while I'm practicing with the FMJs.

My 380 on the other hand, strictly WWB flat point FMJs. That is the only thing I buy for it and the only food it will ever see, unless I find a more cost effective FMJ with a flat point. Thought about casting some lead flat points for it, but I don't have my reloading setup yet :(

Effigy
June 1, 2011, 04:36 PM
Penetration is important, but if that's all you have there's less margin for error when you're trying to stop an attacker. One thing that needs to be considered when comparing hunting vs. defensive ammo is the requirements for killing a target as opposed to stopping a target. Hunting loads favor penetration to make the animal bleed out fast, but it's likely that it will continue to run for some distance. Against dangerous game, penetration is favored because those animals often have thick skin that an expanding round wouldn't do well against.

Against a human attacker, your goal isn't to kill them necessarily, but rather to incapacitate them. Punching a bunch of clean holes through them may very well kill them, but probably not immediately unless you severely damage the CNS. While you may be a crack shot at the range, I wouldn't plan on having that kind of accuracy in a defensive shoot. Larger/expanding bullets should be more effective at incapacitating the target quickly in the absence of perfect shot placement.

Geckgo
June 1, 2011, 05:18 PM
Effigy, you seem to have done your home work on this, but I'm wondering, is it faster incapacitation due to bleeding out from nonvitals?? In other words are those times that i've seen everywhere (9s to pass out, 15s, etc) from a shot to the heart/lungs or are those gutshot figures. Just how perfect is "perfect" placement, in your opinion?

Effigy
June 1, 2011, 07:40 PM
Admittedly I don't have experience shooting people. I'm just going on what I've read and what seems logical. It seems the best way to incapacitate a target is to attack the brain or upper spine. These are small targets through and difficult to hit firing under stress. Even if you shoot the heart, all you've really done is limit the body's oxygen supply. It may take several seconds before the body runs out of oxygen and shuts down, and in the interim that target still presents a threat.

Probably the next best option is attacking the CNS through shock, which is where the "hydrostatic shock" debate comes in. I know it's a contentious point, but it merits consideration. In general, I think penetration is inversely related to the "shock" caused by bullet impact (insert icepick vs. hammer analogy here). Shot placement isn't as critical in this case because you don't need to destroy any specific organ, just overload the CNS and/or vascular system. I expect hitting anywhere on the torso would be sufficient, assuming the bullet transfer enough energy.

THplanes
June 1, 2011, 10:51 PM
Effigy, you seem to have done your home work on this, but I'm wondering, is it faster incapacitation due to bleeding out from nonvitals?? In other words are those times that i've seen everywhere (9s to pass out, 15s, etc) from a shot to the heart/lungs or are those gutshot figures. Just how perfect is "perfect" placement, in your opinion?

The 15s time is related to the time a brain can function on the blood and oxygen in the brain with no more blood flow. Basically if you sever the aorta it will still take 15s or so for the brain to shut down from oxygen starvation. Bleed out times from a single gunshot to the lungs or abdomen will be measured in terms of minutes, not seconds. Even with a heart shot there may still be blood flowing to the brain and the bleed out time will be longer than 15s.

The bleeding from vitals deep in the body can't be stopped by external pressure. It requires time or a surgeon to stop the bleeding. Shallow surface wound bleeding can be stopped by pressure.

So in essence, if you don't hit me in the CNS, I can dump my mag, reload and dump the second mag as well.

On another note, since you have ruled out any of the various hydrostatic shock models, why are you talking about energy dump. It's a non factor in service caliber handguns. Energy dump (basically it causes the temporary stretch cavity) does not produce localized wounding in service caliber handguns. At least that's the Fackler position.

Onmilo
June 1, 2011, 10:52 PM
Shot placement is everything and a poorly constructed hollowpoint bullet is nothing more than an overpriced full metal jacket.

THplanes
June 1, 2011, 10:57 PM
Probably the next best option is attacking the CNS through shock, which is where the "hydrostatic shock" debate comes in. I know it's a contentious point, but it merits consideration. In general, I think penetration is inversely related to the "shock" caused by bullet impact (insert icepick vs. hammer analogy here). Shot placement isn't as critical in this case because you don't need to destroy any specific organ, just overload the CNS and/or vascular system. I expect hitting anywhere on the torso would be sufficient, assuming the bullet transfer enough energy.

I'll give you a little warning on this path of discussion. It generally deteriorates into name calling and devolves into insulting each others intelligence.

duns
June 1, 2011, 11:27 PM
I'm not sure what the OP was asking here. If it's the effectiveness of different calibers, I rely on the work of Marshall and Sanow (yes, I know Fackler has tried to discredit it). This showed to my mind that any major caliber *in hollow point* will do a good job and also that differences in cartridge design can mask any differences between calibers - e.g. if I remember rightly, the Corbon +P 9mm beat pretty much everything else?

Effigy
June 1, 2011, 11:42 PM
I'll give you a little warning on this path of discussion. It generally deteriorates into name calling and devolves into insulting each others intelligence.

That seems to be the case with caliber discussions in general, so I think it's unavoidable. You can't really have a worthwhile discussion without talking about the "H word" though.

Shot placement is everything and a poorly constructed hollowpoint bullet is nothing more than an overpriced full metal jacket.
What's the point of discussing poorly constructed hollowpoints? That's like saying "a poorly constructed pistol is nothing more than an overpriced brick." It's not exactly a profound statement. It makes more sense to discuss well contructed hollowpoints, which are readily available and affordable to anyone that can afford a gun in the first place.

Shot placement is certainly important. However, you can't rely on being able to place shots precisely in a defensive shoot. You'll be lucky (or highly trained) if you even get a proper sight picture under those circumstances, much less good trigger control, grip, stance, and so forth. If shot placement is everything, it's a grim outlook indeed for the man attempting to defend himself with a pistol.

wow6599
June 2, 2011, 12:45 AM
I basically want to know how, looking at these comments, if there is something else that I have missed that would make small, non-hp rounds bad for SD if they can adequately penetrate.

This was the OP's question, and the answer is a simple one........over-penetration.

357 Terms
June 2, 2011, 12:50 AM
Effigy; those are excelent points, I cant agree more.

Effigy
June 2, 2011, 01:34 AM
In response to the line wow6599 quoted, I agree that overpenetration could be a problem. In addition to reducing the energy transferred to the target, it also means the bullet could hit an unintended target behind the intended one. Small caliber FMJs are still much better than nothing, but you'd need to rely on shot placement more than with a larger caliber or JHP loading. Even if you're a good shot, you want every advantage you can get for self defense.

If your gun is unreliable with JHPs, then it makes sense to use FMJs. I'd try to address the unreliability before switching to FMJ though, for instance by polishing the feed ramp or trying a different magazine. For cartridges smaller than 9mm Luger, you might consider using FMJs regardless of JHP reliability just for the sake of ensuring adequate penetration. Personally I wouldn't go smaller than 9mm unless I had a really compelling reason though.

Prosser
June 2, 2011, 03:17 AM
I think the original poster bought the ammo makers desire to be richer then Glock. Lead bullets, or cast, are cheap, easy to make, and are hard to justify high prices with. Now hollowpoints, them there have them fancy technology, which means we can charge 2 doolars a round for em, or more, and suckers buy em. Even better, everybody gets used to absurdly high prices, so we can then sell cast boolits rounds for 3 dollars each.

I don't buy the 14" penetration stuff. That's for cops, leos, that have to justify their huge ammo bill to the people, for hollow point ammunition that is not really anymore effective then expanding lead bullets are, since, other then a fancy copper jacket, that's all they are. However, they can sell that the ammunition won't penetrate, and hit an innocent behind the intended target, when in fact, this rarely if ever happens, and, they are neglecting to mention that the offside skin is worth 6" of penetration in gelatin. In other words, the human body does a pretty good job as a bullet catcher.


Penetration? The FBI started out with 18", which, if you think about it, makes a bit of sense. Most people you are going to shoot are going to be trying to shoot you, so their arms become bullet catchers, and soft tissue that must be penetrated to get to vitals. Then, once through the arms, part or all, it must still have enough velocity to penetrate the chest cavity.

Velocity THROUGH the target is vital. Why? It effects the size of the temporary and permanent wound channel size. A bullet going 950-1200 fps
through the target is going to create usually around a 1-2" permanent
wound channel. This increases your 'bullseye' and makes it more likely you are going to do incapacitating damage.

This is where heavy bullets, with flat noses, really shine. They can also be soft, if they are heavy enough, so they expand, create a larger channel, but, make a larger wound channel, because the extra weight pushes them through the medium faster.

Now, all that said, there is more then one way to skin a rat. Solid, light bullets, when designed right, tumble, creating a wound channel much larger then their caliber. The new 5.7 pistols, using light bullets, at 2000 fps show there maybe more then one way to achieve an end. .223 rifle bullets are effective for this very reason.

And, last but not least:

There are factors that don't make any sense. Big, heavy bullets, starting with .45 Caliber and going up, at slow speeds, like 950 fps to around 1350 fps, seem to kill and hit WAY out of proportion to their ballistics. I believe at least part of this is the bullet goes through the target at much higher velocity, turning bone, or relative solids into projectiles, creating secondary projectiles, much like a shotgun wound. They also create a much larger wound channel, since the channel is similar from start to finish, vs. the diminishing channel that you get from a lighter bullet, designed to slow down and not exit. If you look at ballistic gelatin, the first 6-8" are rather large, damage wise, compared to the last 6-8" where the bullet is seriously slowing down, and does little damage.

In conclusion, you can see that the theory of the bullet slowing down and stopping in the target, to give maximum energy dump, is really just a big dump in logic. Maximum damage is done by the bullet maintaining velocity through the target, creating a maximum diameter wound channel, and, creating secondary projectiles out of bone and stuff.

Here is what a 440 grain .500JRH bullet does, on exit, after going side to side on a buffalo:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/440grainHardcastat950fps500JRH300wincartridgeforcomparision.jpg
That's a 300n Win Mag cartridge for size comparison. By the way, that exit is nearly 4 times the size of the 300 Win Mag on the same animal.

Geckgo
June 2, 2011, 09:23 AM
To everyone:

Excellent posts and thanks for keeping it civil!

Prosser, while experimenting with some terminal ballistics models I have noticed that momentum seems to affect penetration depth more than energy. The models I've come up with are not perfect, but definitely suggest that the v^2 in energy makes fast bullets look good, and while it may have more of an effect on wound channel size, it doesn't involve that much more penetration. I think this may be why the slower/heavier bullets seem "off" on their penetrations to you. Maybe?

From what you've shown, the big and heavy vs slow and fast argument may not be an argument at all, but rather two different attempts to solve the same problem, and both of them effective solutions, which is something I hadn't considered before. I like learning stuff :)

for those unclear about my question, it's basically trying to figure out the exact advantage of punching a .22 cal hole vers a .72 cal hole from a .45 hollowpoint. In reality, the difference is huge but not enough so IMO to bring accuracy into question. Maybe apart from energy dump and the dreaded hydro-******* *****, we can also look at permanent wound cavities, which would be somewhat related to both but a more realistic thing to look at.

Any other wound cavity researchers around?

THplanes
June 2, 2011, 10:35 AM
To everyone:
Any other wound cavity researchers around?

This the ultimate book on the subject.

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

[It's a book by Duncan MacPherson. He's the guy who calculate the orbital trajectories for the Mercury space launches.

Note that this is a Fackler only look at wounding mechanism. I have not read it, but I've seen a lot of info from it posted on another site that seems to get into a shouting match over Fackler vs BPW (a different more refined form of the H word) every month or so.
.
So I have a few problems with some areas of it. That said, it's probably the best book for studying the the wound cavity formation. It also gives a model that will allow you to approximate a bullets penetration in ballistic gell using data from water penetration tests. Once you have derived the ballistic gell data, you can them compute the theoretical volume of the permanent crush cavity,ie how big the hole is. It also has a model of incapacitation from wound trauma. This is where I disagree with what I've seen others post about the book. I'm not going to go into that because I have not read the book yet. I will acquire a copy and give it a read when time permits.

JustinJ
June 2, 2011, 10:51 AM
It all comes down to probabiliities. A large diameter projectile traveling through tissue has a higher probability of severing arteries and damaging other vital components. The farther it goes also increases the chances of these things happening. Hollowpoints make the projectile bigger and sharp jagged edges are more likely to severe things we would all rather not be severed in ourselves. Same holds true for head shots. The larger and deeper the projectile the more neurons destroyed. Hydrostatic shock is, IMO, not likely to be a significant factor with most handgun velocities.

THplanes
June 2, 2011, 11:03 AM
comments in red
To everyone:

Excellent posts and thanks for keeping it civil!

Prosser, while experimenting with some terminal ballistics models I have noticed that momentum seems to affect penetration depth more than energy. The models I've come up with are not perfect, but definitely suggest that the v^2 in energy makes fast bullets look good, and while it may have more of an effect on wound channel size, it doesn't involve that much more penetration. I think this may be why the slower/heavier bullets seem "off" on their penetrations to you. Maybe?

From the Fackler position using service caliber handguns the extra energy of the faster bullets does not make the would channel larger. Essentially velocity does not mater until you reach much higher velocities. The only things that matter are:
1) bullet diameter
2) bullet penetration
3) bullet fragmentation (a bad thing in this model.


From what you've shown, the big and heavy vs slow and fast argument may not be an argument at all, but rather two different attempts to solve the same problem, and both of them effective solutions, which is something I hadn't considered before. I like learning stuff :)

If you strictly believe in the Fackler position the heavy/slow proposition wins out on localized trauma. The lite and fast can get pretty close to the heavy and slow for localized trauma. Light and fast (with adequate penetration) is more in the BPW camp. This is with comparable bullets, ie, Heavy HST vs lite HST in the same caliber.I like heavy and fast, 10mm all the way.

for those unclear about my question, it's basically trying to figure out the exact advantage of punching a .22 cal hole vers a .72 cal hole from a .45 hollowpoint. In reality, the difference is huge but not enough so IMO to bring accuracy into question. Maybe apart from energy dump and the dreaded hydro-******* *****, we can also look at permanent wound cavities, which would be somewhat related to both but a more realistic thing to look at.

With a round nose none deforming bullet the permanent crush cavity (PPC), will only be around 60% of the bullets diameter. With an expanding HP that presents a fairly flat nose profile (HST, RangerT, etc.) after expansion the PPC will be around 80% of the expanded bullets diameter. So that .22 cal bullet leaves you with a PCC diameter around .132. The .72 expanded bullet will leave a .576 diameter PCC. Let me see, .132 vs .576. I know where I stand

Any other wound cavity researchers around?

Prosser
June 3, 2011, 05:07 PM
it's basically trying to figure out the exact advantage of punching a .22 cal hole vers a .72 cal hole from a .45 hollowpoint. In reality, the difference is huge but not enough so IMO to bring accuracy into question. Maybe apart from energy dump and the dreaded hydro-******* *****, we can also look at permanent wound cavities, which would be somewhat related to both but a more realistic thing to look at.

I'm well outside the "service caliber" box. Most loads for service calibers are either military hardball, or HP's. J. Browning thought the best was around 200 grains, in 45ACP, and, 950 fps, flat point that would feed in a 1911. Plenty of penetration, and an excellent size wound channel, both wide, and long.

The problem with .22's is getting enough velocity to maintain penetration through the target. Even the .223 isn't really a great penetrator with ball, because it tumbles and deforms. It does make one heck of an initial cavity, however.

The 5.7MM is certainly something I don't want to get hit with.
http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2558.htm

Also, at a certain point, somewhere around 2500 fps, bullet materials, unless you get exotic, deform, and reduce penetration. So, the faster it goes, the less it penetrates.

Your question is in fact, flawed. I'd go to this page, and play with the wound channel calculator to get a better idea of how velocity effects wound channel diameter, then look at brassfetcher.com for actual gelatin results.

http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/wound.htm

Actually this webpage will answer your questions:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1950.htm

The super slow motion shows the shock caused by the different calibers, and, the effects on the gelatin. Pretty amazing. I now have a new favorite page.

The beartooth calculator sort of quantifies the brassfetcher super slow motion effect.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that the service calibers generally lack case capacity to move heavy enough bullets, fast enough to use HP's. The .475JRH
and the .50GI might be exceptions.

Also, buffalobore has a 250-260 grain flatpoint 45ACP load that equals a 45 Colt load, for me, the Holy Grail of effective ballsitics. But, what does 150 years of being effective have to do with modern day ballistics?

Prosser
June 3, 2011, 05:13 PM
If you look at the difference between the .44 magnum 240 grain blowing through the gelatin, and, the .45 ACP 185 grain, and how it slows down, you can see the bullet slow down, and the wound channel is smaller at the far end.
45ACP Remington 185gr +P Golden Saber (3.8” barrel)

I think the real answer is heavy and relative to service calibers, fast. A 240-260, or more, grain bullet, moving at least 950 fps with an expanding design, or, a lighter bullet, with a flat point, going faster, should give you near equal wound channels, if not recoil.

Loosedhorse
June 4, 2011, 08:57 AM
the hydrostatic shock thing has been beaten to death, and on the whole, we can take it as an irrelevant point regarding guns.Not irrelelvant. At rifle velocities, hydrostatic shock has been shown to tear major blood vessels. It is unclear a what velocity (energy) threshold this stops happening, but it is probably not active for most handgun rounds.

However, hydrostatic shock can also deliver a "punch in the solar plexus" effect, which is an inconsistent stopper.A faster bullet will penetrate deeper, all other things being equal.Not necessarily. A good HP driven at faster speed will expand more and /or fragment; either can cause it to penetrate less than if driven more slowly.A smaller bullet (radius) will penetrate deeper, all other things being equal.Well, except that practically, you can't keep everything equal. If you design a 9mm with the same ogive as a .45 and lengthen it so it weighs 230gr--how are you going to get it into the case and have room for powder?

Practically, smaller diameter bullets have less mass in order to fit into smaller cases. But one only as to look at the differences between .380 ACP and .357 Maximum to know that diameter probably doesn't say much about penetration.if there is something else that I have missed that would make small, non-hp rounds bad for SD if they can adequately penetrate.Sure. The extreme case of a small penetrative bullet is a long hatpin. You stab someone in the heart with that, how long before they're out of action?

The extreme case of a big, non-penetrative bullet is a bean-bag projectile hitting your attacker in the chest.

Both extreme cases have their own disadvantages. People, IMHO, are far too concerned with Hollowpoints nowadays.People like the police and FBI. Can you name a LE agency that doesn't use HPs?

There's probably a reason that we have settled, after decades of looking at this carefully, on (for handguns) HPs penetrating no more that 14-18 inches (and often less) in calibers between .355 and .454. The FN 5.7 was supposed to change all that, but it hasn't.

I agree that HPs are useful for decreasing over-penetration threat. And so does the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/09/nyregion/new-york-police-will-start-using-deadlier-bullets.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm):According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full-metal-jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects.

In that same period, officers in the Transit Bureau, who already used the hollow points, struck six bystanders. Four of them were hit directly, one was hit by a bullet that ricocheted and another was hit by a bullet that passed through an object.

In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by police gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed though other people. Of the four officers struck by hollow-point bullets, three were hit directly and one was hit by a bullet that passed through another person.


Massad Ayoob also had an article (http://www.tactical-life.com/online/combat-handguns/danger-of-hardball-defense-ammo-alert/?right=related) on (I believe) the same NYC statisitics.

Carne Frio
June 4, 2011, 01:42 PM
I carry Hornady 10mm, 200gr XTP.
The best online source for terminal
ballistics information that I have found:

http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

Prosser
June 4, 2011, 04:53 PM
Such drivel. Hardball should never...etc...
Hardball weight and penetration can be matched to the desired penetration level. Concerned about over penetration? Use a light ball round, at high velocity, that generates a large, deep wound channel, and doesn't over penetrate.
Better yet, flatten the tip on the ball ammo to increase resistance, and increase penetration.

Hollow the base of the bullet, and it will tumble, further decreasing penetration.
Match your ammunition to your situation, and possible backstop. If I'm carrying in a city where shooting around crowds is likely I would pick ammunition that would work for that situation. If I'm in Montana the situation is different. So is Alaska. There is no absolute for any defense situation. Over simplyfing is a sin.;)

JohnBiltz
June 4, 2011, 07:59 PM
Going back to the OP, one thing you seem to have missed is that big bullets break things that small ones don't. If you hit bone big bullets do bad things to bone. A .45 to the femur stops the bad guy. He may or may not be out of the fight but he isn't walking anywhere. Its less likely to glance off a rib and will most likely break a breast bone. Big bullets are a lot more likely to break structural members in the body. Aside from the technique of shooting at a pelvis its mostly unintentional but it happens. I think this is the big advantage of momentum.

To me saying shot placement is a bit of a cop out off the subject. I'm no more accurate shooting ball than a JHP out of the same gun. It has no place in the conversation talking about JHP vs ball. I'm maybe a little more accurate with my G30 .45 than my G26 9mm at least for my first shot. I'm more controlled with my G26 and follow on shots are going to be quicker but no better placed.

I carry 9mm. I don't think its the best round. I think .40 is actually a little better but I shoot .40 badly. I think .45 is a little better than .40 but not by much, less than .40 over 9mm. I just don't want to give up a third of my magazine in capacity and I am a little quicker on follow up shots with 9mm.

bluetopper
June 5, 2011, 12:56 AM
It seems everyone is worried about trying to kill somebody.

99% of my shooting and reloading is for accuracy and pleasure at the outdoor range with my shooting buddies to try and see who can shoot the smallest groups at 25yds.

1% of my focus is for self defense. I'm certainly not worried about having the latest greatest super duper hyped up rhino stopping ammo. Any ammo/caliber will do the trick if hit in a vital area.

I have a wide array of handguns, and to me they are firearms for my leisure and entertainment and not weapons.

Effigy
June 5, 2011, 05:06 AM
Even if 99% of your focus is target shooting, you doesn't mean you need to ignore defensive loads. It's not like you need to shoot those rounds all the time; just pick something good and load it in your SD mags.

Geckgo
June 5, 2011, 05:55 AM
heavier better for less chance of ricochet. I never looked at it like that, John, TY.

My argument wasn't really about JHP vs FMJ, except in those cases (usually 380 and smaller) where the JHP's penetration may come into question. The ability to penetrate "enough" seems to come up a lot in these discussions. Primary argument here is big bad .45 JHP vs weeny little .22lr (velociters tend not to expand when fired from a pistol, at least not as much as from a rifle) that can penetrate 12" of gel but has minimal force behind it.

So far, points brought up here have been helpful and insightful.

Permanent Cavity Size

Crush through Bone rather than ricochet

Higher probablility of hitting a vital <--I can't really get behind this one, accuracy depends on a lot of things.

Just some examples. I like that we are not hinging arguments on the usual shockwave theories, but making rock solid arguments on more measurable things.

BRE346
June 5, 2011, 12:37 PM
I shoot the biggest gun with the baddest ammo I can handle.

Prosser
June 5, 2011, 05:55 PM
I'd really go back and look at the brassfetcher slow motion video of bullets hitting gelatin for a reference.

My fun notes so far:

Many of the handgun shots are into 10 inches of gelatin. On the bottom, they have blocks 1", air space 1", so you can see how big the gelatin block is.
These blocks are short, and don't display the bullet slowing down as much as would be evident in a 14" block.

Some of their stuff is shot with longer blocks, the shotgun,45-70 and the rifle stuff. Excellent video as to the benefits of bullet weight. Also, shows clearly that light fast, even in rifles, can penetrate 10-12", even with high velocity, like 2500 fps, or faster.

Some of the fun stuff:
the 95 grain FMJ .380 tumbles, and you can see the relatively large cavity caused by the bullet tumbling at the end.

00 shotgun is near perfect for what we always say leo want. 8 .38's that penetrate a bit over 14".

Penetrator 30-06 is scary. Huge energy dump.

45-70 at 300 grains, 1900 fps is an excellent example of a big bullet, and the long, wide wound channel it cuts.

.50GI shows their is no real substitute for caliber. Good stuff.

Onmilo
June 6, 2011, 03:52 PM
'shot placement is an oversimplified cop out,,,'
ha ha ha,,,,
One hit with a .22 solid beats four misses with a .44 Magnum 240 hollowpoint.
"Cop out"
ha ha ha,,,

JustinJ
June 6, 2011, 05:58 PM
"One hit with a .22 solid beats four misses with a .44 Magnum 240 hollowpoint."
Okay, but what does that prove?

Shot placement is easy to talk about when nobody is returning fire.

Onmilo
June 6, 2011, 08:58 PM
You been under fire there Justin?
I've been there and seen enough killing with full metal jacket to know they work better than one might expect,,,
Now I've never worked on the side of the fence where hollowpoints are allowed but have enough friends in law enforcement that do to know H.P. bullets will get the job done too.
Me, I'll stick with what I know works and feeds reliably in my own guns.
You choose what you want to carry, it's a free country last time I checked and before you go spouting off about collateral damage and overpenetration, read what I just wrote.
It's a free country, I'm a big boy and take responsibility for my actions and if one of my bullets happens to overpenetrate and kill and innocent I'll deal with that when that time comes.

If the O.P. decides to use FMJ, more power to him.

Prosser
June 6, 2011, 09:01 PM
Higher probablility of hitting a vital <--I can't really get behind this one, accuracy depends on a lot of things.

Big calibers, with big bullets tend to be much more accurate then little calibers.

What caliber is the most accurate from FA? According to one sales person, they get more one hole production guns in .475 then any other caliber. Others can go into the why, but, large bullets tend to be very accurate, in properly built guns.

Also, accuracy is knowing where your bullets are hitting, when shooting at your target. You might hit your target with a 22lr, and, he might not react much.
Pretty good bet that if you get hit with a .45 Colt or bigger caliber, you'll one know it, two react, and three it's easy to correct the next shot, since you are probably going to be able to tell where you missed.

I also find I tend to concentrate more shooting something that is pretty serious, vs. a lighter caliber, and, it helps to know that one or two hits
are likely to actually stop the threat.

The combinations I use tend to have at least a 2" perm wound cavity, or more, and, they tend to create a pretty good sized temp cavity, without much recoil, that, of course being relative.;)

Finally, knowing you only have 5-6 shots before you reload makes you want to make SURE each shot is effective.

JohnBiltz
June 6, 2011, 10:05 PM
'shot placement is an oversimplified cop out,,,'
ha ha ha,,,,
I see, so you shoot ball better than JHP? Talk about funny stuff.

Shot placement is a good thing, its most of everything but it only applies when it is a difference. Saying better a hit with a .22 then a miss with a .44 is all well and good but a miss a with a .22 is no better and a hit with a .44 is much better than a hit with a .22. There is no reason, not one, that the first shot out of a .22 is going to be more accurate than a first shot out of .44. There is also a lot of reasons why shots out of a some guy's .45 is going to be more accurate than shots out of someone's .380. Those little .380s compromise on a lot more than just caliber, small hard to grip and control, minimal sights and short sight radius.

JustinJ
June 7, 2011, 02:27 PM
Onmillo, did you actually read either of my posts before responding? I've never been shot at, mighty grateful for that, but people who make comments that imply ballistics are irrelevent bc of shot placement are deluded if they think being able to make tight groups in paper means they can do the same in a fire fight.

And like my other post said, lethality and "stopping power" differences between bullets come down to probabilities. Wider projectiles, deeper penetration and shapes conducive to cutting are all variables that will increase the likelihood of doing greater damage. Nothing in that statement says that FMJ can not kill effectively but other bullet types have higher probabilities of doing so.

"You choose what you want to carry, it's a free country last time I checked and before you go spouting off about collateral damage and overpenetration, read what I just wrote.
It's a free country, I'm a big boy and take responsibility for my actions and if one of my bullets happens to overpenetrate and kill and innocent I'll deal with that when that time comes."
Speaking of reading what people write and spouting off, maybe you should figure out who is saying what before you respond to them. Since my handle is the only one mentioned in your post it appears to be me so i'll respond. My posts don't even mention collateral damage or overpenetration. Of course you're free to carry what you want but this is a message board which means people will offer opinions that might not agree with yours. But since you dragged me into this i will say that the lack of concern you seem to convey for collateral damage sure is worrisome for someone like myself who is concerned with responsible gun ownership. And since this is the 21st century I can't for the life of me see why one would need to carry a gun that forces them to choose between hollow points and reliability.

Prosser
June 7, 2011, 04:29 PM
Keep it civil.
As I said earlier, ball ammo can be tailored to penetrate to different depths, depending on bullet design, and weight. A good example is the .380 video, that shows 95 grain 380 ammo, tumbling between the 6-10" of penetration, creating a large wound channel, at least relative to the caliber.

Before we forget, people live in different areas. Ball in Wyoming might be a REALLY good idea, yet in Times Square a horrible one.

On another note:
I see all the time that accuracy is diminished in a firefight, and that range work isn't a way to increase accuracy? Then what is?

Pressure exacerbates flaws, and brings out training. If you are shooting a gun with poor accuracy to begin with, pressure is going to make your groups even larger. If you are shooting a VERY accurate gun, then your groups are still going to be tighter then shooting an inaccurate one.

Collateral damage/over-penetration is, I believe, an issue for LEO and criminals. I have yet to see ANY evidence of collateral damage in a SD shooting, that doesn't involve LEO. If you are going to bring this issue up, then support it with facts that it is even an issue for SD carry, for regular citizens. If you have such evidence, then it will be area and instance specific, hardly a position to draw a general rule from. Try using logic, rather then respouting positions made popular by certain gun writers that are paid to convince the public of the value of expensive ammunition.

Sadly, gun forums seem to have people that want to first over-simplify a complex issue, then state that thier opinion is in fact the only way of viewing that issue. Stay open, read the other persons position, and do a better job of supporting your own.

JustinJ
June 7, 2011, 05:44 PM
Prosser, for concealed carry i dont believe over penetration (and i mean through walls, not bad guys) is a huge concern for LE or CC but if an easy step can be done to mitigate that risk (HP), why not? I say its not a big concern bc of the type of situations most often encountered that require deadly force. Of course, the lacking "evidence" you speak of could also be due to the fact that the vast majority of police and concealed carriers use HP. I don't think criminals are concerned one way or the other though(jk, i know what you meant). For home defense it is a very different story though.

"I see all the time that accuracy is diminished in a firefight, and that range work isn't a way to increase accuracy? Then what is?"
I really don't feel like rereading every post so forgive me if i'm mistaken but I don't recall anybody saying range work doesnt increase accuracy in a firefight. Life threatening situations put huge stresses on a person that will almost certainly reduce accuracy but good training will probably help lessen the reduction similar to the way you said about gun accuracy. However, there is no way to truly simulate most real life threats that warrant a civilian to use a gun. There is no way to know how you will react to being shot at until it happens. Some of the most gung ho soldiers have completely crumbled the first time bullets came their way. So saying that ballistics do not matter because one will just shoot them in the head or heart is not realistic.

"Try using logic, rather then respouting positions made popular by certain gun writers that are paid to convince the public of the value of expensive ammunition."

Sorry but accusing or implying that people are being illogical is a good way to get a thread away from civility.

Geckgo
June 7, 2011, 06:27 PM
Prosser, thanks for trying to steer us back on topic. I'm not going to jump on anyone in the thread for deviating, but from here forward, can we look at the topic and refrain from the usual bickering? pretty please? :)

Like I said, there are some very good points here about why bigger holes tend to be better than little holes, which is kind of what I was looking for. We are not discussing killing anyone persay but in general, as ballistic devices, why larger rounds and even HP vs ball for the same rounds tend to be more effective in what they do.

I want to comment quickly on the trade-off curve that I see developing, which is interesting. The FBI 12" min is not a dead set rule, especially for SD where the target is facing you. I think overpenetration might be outside of the scope of this discussion though. I think as far as personal opinion, you are looking at where you draw the line,, let me make a graph of where the line is and why, and yall correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a matter of Wound channel diameter vs penetration, if we ignor the accuracy or concealability of any given platform. If you don't know what I mean then just pretend that you have a shop and can produce any barrel/mag combination for a glock 19 (or any gun you like) that you want, and compare all of the rounds from that platform. This is what I see...

.17 - Shallow penetration, little energy to dump, nasty surface wounds, but it's still a gun and if someone tries to break in and rob you it's going to scare them away. If it does come down to a firefight you can at least hurt them pretty bad before you finish hand to hand, and there is a chance that you will put them down if you hit the right spot.

.22LR, .22Mag, .25acp, and like rounds. Don't get mad at me for adding 22mag in this lot, it isn't appreaciably strong enough to differentiate itself. With these rounds you are looking for slow/deep penetration. Whatever expansion you can get and still penetrate is nice, but hitting the target seems to be the key.

.32acp - either above this line or below, whatever you think.

.38sp, 380auto, and like rounds - The cutoff between penetration and expansion. Getting a nice wound channel with these rounds is doable and you can sort of choose leaning more towards expansion or more towards energy dump.

Service calibers - You are going to get your penetration anyways, might as well get the HP bonus and make the cavity nice and large, but frangible bullets are probably not the best idea for defense unless you are (only for an example) concerned with other things like overpenetration. Flash and recoil begin to become a concern for some.

Big bore - Shoot whatever you want. The power is enough that even frangible ammos start looking effective. Recoil can impair the ability of most people to shoot well. If you are comfortable with these calibers and can shoot them quickly and effectively, they will do what you need them to.

My .02 cents on that topic. Every gun has a place.

Prosser
June 8, 2011, 02:12 AM
JustinJ:

Why not use HP's? A lot of people have found with certain barriers, they penetrate just like ball ammunition, the nose not opening up, or plugging, and you end up with ball ammo that costs usually 2-3 times what a flat point load would, or ball ammo. PRACTICE is THE most important part of this discussion.
Being confident in the gun you use, used to it, and, being able to use it in the dark, since that's likely where all this is going to happen. Having 3 times the ammo to practice with is vital for a CCW carrier. LEO get their ammo free, or rather paid for by the taxpayers.:fire:

So, in short: HP ammo is overpriced hype to get you to shoot less, and put another wing on the Hornady mansion.

My point about gunwriters is they get PAID by the advertizing that is paid to the magazines that are advertizing the wonders they are raving about in HP ammunition. CAN WE SAY CONFLICT OF INTERESTS? Go's to their credibility, and anyone repeating their arguments.

Geckgo:

Thank you. Here is my view:
The FBI had it right with 18" of penetration in gello. Ask the Platt FBI agents.
Oh, you can't...:cuss: 12-14" got them killed.

9MM and under, all ammo should be some variation of ball or Flat point, trying for velocity over 950 fps, at least.

The Holy Grail starts at 250-260 grains, and 950 fps. Soft lead is good. This is the old cowboy load that worked so well in revolvers. It's the one JMB tried to design, or similar to, for the .45ACP. With .45 caliber bullets, 200 grains at 950 fps was his solution for SD for officers. The government decided they wanted heavier bullets, since they considered needing a round that would
stop a horse, something the original 45 Colt was rather good at. However, the 45ACP case, with old powders, really didn't give enough velocity.

Here is a round designed for the 45 Colt for people SD:
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=268
225 grains, full wad cutter, and 1050 fps.

Depending on the area, the 255 grain Hard cast FN from Buffalobore gives
you .45 Colt in your 45 ACP:
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=214

Or better, 45 Super:
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=215

255 grains, 1100 fps.

All of these rounds, in the right gun, are a pleasure to shoot.

Now the warm and fuzzies:
The big guns. Know your back ground, know your likely shooting situations, pick ammo and caliber, and don't worry, be happy.:D

By the way: You'll notice that the HP hype has a trickle down effect. It allows people to charge HP prices for hard cast lead bullets, effectively literally, turning lead into lots of gold...The irony is that people that don't reload are willing to pay the price, since the lead bullets, hard cast or otherwise, work BETTER then the hyped HP's, if properly configured for the caliber and usage.

THplanes
June 8, 2011, 06:07 AM
JustinJ:

Thank you. Here is my view:
The FBI had it right with 18" of penetration in gello. Ask the Platt FBI agents.
Oh, you can't...:cuss: 12-14" got them killed.
.

You really should try to get the facts. This one isn't any more accurate than most of the silliness in the rest of your post. The Winchester silver tip was the round that was scapegoated in the shootout. It's penetration is only around 9-9.5". 12-14" would have got the job done.

Jed Carter
June 8, 2011, 06:11 AM
All science aside, I carry as large a caliber as I can control. I use a pistol with as long a barrel I can conceal easily. For me that would be 9mm in a CZ PCR or Glock G19. Recently I switched to a commander length/officer framed 1911 in .45ACP. This decision to go to the .45 was not my first choice, but there seems to be few choices in this size combination in a single stack chambered in 9mm. I shoot 9mm faster and more accurately than .45 from the same platform. To stop a threat with a handgun I would not rely on 1 center of mass hit, rather 2-3 shots as a minimum to neutralize a threat, maybe more. So I would shoot till they were down, or if more than 1 threat exists I would put 2 in each, repeat as needed...

Prosser
June 8, 2011, 07:01 AM
As Platt climbed out of the passenger side car window, one of Dove's 9 mm rounds hit his right upper arm and went on to penetrate his chest, stopping an inch away from his heart.

HMMM. 18" of penetration would have changed this...

Please feel free to cite reference to support your position.
My information came from Wikepedia, not the best of all sources, but, IIRC, it was sited by an FBI writer supporting the adoption of the 10mm.

Jed:
Detonics supplied me with plenty of LEO photos/experience that 200 grains of flying ashtray Speer at 1200 fps worked exceptionally well about 1984...''

I rely on the wound channel of one, over powered round, creating a 2" channel through the target. I also rely on my rounds to go through vests, barriers, etc.

Please read part one of Urey Patricks' comments on Platt, and get back to me...

THplanes
June 8, 2011, 07:35 AM
HMMM. 18" of penetration would have changed this...

Please feel free to cite reference to support your position.
My information came from Wikepedia, not the best of all sources, but, IIRC, it was sited by an FBI writer supporting the adoption of the 10mm.

Jed:
Detonics supplied me with plenty of LEO photos/experience that 200 grains of flying ashtray Speer at 1200 fps worked exceptionally well about 1984...

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm

You'll see the silvertip is rated at 10" in bare gell. Other tests I've seen rate it at 9.5" Either way it's 2" or more short of the FBI minimum.

I didn't realize Speer loaded +p+ .45 apc

Prosser
June 8, 2011, 08:18 AM
Who cares?

Read the agents comments and get back to me....
http://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/inside/miami-shootout-anniversary.mp3/view

Urey Patrick, FBI expert on the shooting:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf

For those that follow: the test is, what, and who is Urey Patrick?
What did he say about the Miami shooting 4/11/86?

What did he think of Doves' shot, his gun, and his bullet?
What did he say in B?
In other words, click the link, and read the article!!

Do you think my .475 caliber, 275 grain HPs at 1530 fps would have penetrated more, and perhaps stopped Platt, with one shot? Or, I guess these .500JRH 440 grain bullets would have penetrated the same? Only went through 6 feet of buffalo:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/H%20H%20375%20buffalo/Recoveredbullets500JRHor500MAX.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/expanded475275grainbullet.jpg

JustinJ
June 8, 2011, 11:33 AM
Prosser, nobody that i know of practices with HP ammo. After verifying a brand of HP ammo feeds reliably in a gun most never or rarely shoot it again at the range. Given a similar load and weight the ballistics are so close between HP and ball that there is no need to practice with more expensive ammo. I've never read a gun writer advocate practicing regularly with HP ammo. And regardless of penetration I agree with the vast majority of experts and novices alike, in the vast majority of situations HP rounds are far more effective.


"PRACTICE is THE most important part of this discussion."

The post was originally about ballistics.

Shawn Dodson
June 8, 2011, 01:49 PM
Friendly, Don’t Fire! writes: My philosophy is to take accurate shots…

I believe that’s everybody’s intent. The problem is that an attacker isn’t a cardboard or paper target on a square range. An attacker is dynamic – thinking, moving, acting and reacting – and, depending on the situation, he/she may be trying just as hard to quickly stop you with a well placed shot as you are trying to quickly stop him/her. Likewise, you'll also be dynamic - thinking, moving, acting and reacting.

In addition an attacker often uses the tactics of ambiguity, deception and surprise to get inside your OODA loop in attempt to gain a time-competitive advantage that prevents you from being able to react effectively in time. As a result you may start out with a time-competitive disadvantage and then have to move quickly to catch up with events as they unfold.

duns writes: rely on the work of Marshall and Sanow (yes, I know Fackler has tried to discredit it).

See – http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/sanow.pdf

Prosser writes: I don't buy the 14" penetration stuff. That's for cops, leos, that have to justify their huge ammo bill to the people, for hollow point ammunition that is not really anymore effective then expanding lead bullets…”

Lead bullets don’t perform well after passing through windshield glass. Lead bullets deform easily after passing through commonly encountered light barrier materials, which in turn decreases penetration potential in the human body.

Prosser writes: Penetration? The FBI started out with 18"

Fackler was the original proponent of an 18” minimum penetration. Over time his opinion evolved to 12” minimum. Whereas the FBI standard has always been 12” minimum ever since it established its performance standards in 1989 - http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

THplanes writes: This the ultimate book on the subject.

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

[It's a book by Duncan MacPherson. He's the guy who calculate the orbital trajectories for the Mercury space launches.

Note that this is a Fackler only look at wounding mechanism.

I have not read it…

…So I have a few problems with some areas of it.

MacPherson’s book primarily addresses the PHYSICS of bullet penetration and expansion in the human body. In it he also discusses various philosophies regarding terminal performance and then provides recommendations based on informed medical opinion.

Prosser writes: Better yet, flatten the tip on the ball ammo to increase resistance, and increase penetration.

You cannot “increase resistance” and “increase penetration”. When you increase resistance you DECREASE penetration.

Flat nose bullets encounter less penetration resistance and penetrate deeper than round nose bullets of the same caliber, weight and velocity. The reason is because the flat nose propels soft tissues radially away from the bullet. The result is less tissue comes into direct contact with the bullet, whereas with a round nose bullet soft tissues stretch and flow against the smooth contours. The round nose bullet is subject to greater drag forces and penetrates less.

Prosser writes: Many of the handgun shots are into 10 inches of gelatin. On the bottom, they have blocks 1", air space 1", so you can see how big the gelatin block is.
These blocks are short, and don't display the bullet slowing down as much as would be evident in a 14" block.

The gelatin blocks used by BrassFetcher are 20% gelatin that are refrigerated to a cooler temperature that produces about 0.75:1 penetration ratio, versus 1:1 for 10% gelatin at 39-degrees F and 1:1 for 20% gelatin at 72 degrees. Therefore penetration depths observed in the BrassFetcher gelatin is about 25% less than in typical human soft tissues or a realistic soft tissue stimulant.

Geckgo writes: The FBI 12" min is not a dead set rule, especially for SD where the target is facing you.

Human anatomy does not suddenly change in a self-defense situation. Human anatomy and the challenges of damaging and disrupting vitals remain the same in any shooting situation regardless of whether it’s self-defense by a private citizen or police action or military action.

Prosser writes: LEO get their ammo free, or rather paid for by the taxpayers.

Many LEOs, especially those employed by medium-smaller agencies, have to supply their own duty ammunition.

Premium JHP handgun ammunition can be purchased at retail for about 50 cents per cartridge. Law Enforcement agencies that buy ammo in bulk pay less. Individual officers can often buy it at discount too.

JustinJ
June 8, 2011, 04:45 PM
Well put, Shawn. Very few concealed carry individuals, and LE for that matter, ever begin to practice for all the possible scenarios that could warrant gun use. Standing in a line at the range and firing at paper is anything but a guarantee of accuracy in a real life situation. Not to mention that one could be injured or in some completely akward position when having to shoot.

There are plenty of debatable topics in defensive uses of firearms but wether or not to use HP is not one of them.

TenMillimaster
June 8, 2011, 07:04 PM
If anyone is interested this website has some interesting stuff to say on the different terminal ballistics theories that abound.
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Prosser
June 8, 2011, 08:10 PM
Hi Shawn
Nice to have you posting:

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, from the link you listed:
"Fackler was the original proponent of an 18” minimum penetration. Over time his opinion evolved to 12” minimum. Whereas the FBI standard has always been 12” minimum ever since it established its performance standards in 1989 - http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf"

From that link:
"It is essential to bear in mind that the single most critical factor remains penetration While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a a handgun bullet MUST RELIABLY PENETRATE 12 inches of soft body tissue, at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.

When you look at gelatin results, a couple things come to mind. The Permanent cavity, in most service caliber hollow points is reduced considerably by the lack of velocity, caused by the expansion of the bullet.

I can't help but be a bit cynical that part of the reason for the 12 in MINIMUM, something that should be in big bold letters. Perhaps because it's easier to create 14" gello blocks?

So, the FBI's expert says, "penetration up to 18" is preferable"!= 12 inches is ideal.

He also says:
"Expansion must never the be basis for bullet selection, but, considered a bonus, when, and if it occurs. Bullet selection should be determined based on penetration first, and the unexpanded diameter of the bullet second, as that is all the shooter can reliably expect."

Shawn, it's a bit much to knock lead bullets for various failures, when Hollow Points have similar failings.

"Handgun bullets expand in the human target only 60-70% of the time at best. Damage to the hollow point, by hitting bone, glass, or other intervening obstacles can prevent expansion. Clothing fibers can wrap the nose of the bullet in a cocoon like manner and prevent expansion. Insufficient impact velocity caused by short barrels and/or longer range will prevent expansion, as will simple manufacturing variations. Expansion must never the be basis for bullet selection, but, considered a bonus, when, and if it occurs."

To Geckgo, and keeping this on target:
Concerning your original post, Mr. Patrick's quote pretty much answers your question:
"Bullet selection should be determined based on penetration first, and the unexpanded diameter of the bullet second, as that is all the shooter can reliably expect.""

If you use that template, and apply it to each caliber, you get a pretty good idea of what works, and what doesn't.

Also keep in mind that Mr. Patrick prefers 18" of penetration, and, also says, concerning overpenetration:
"Also, a bullet that completely penetrates a subject will give up a great deal of energy doing so. The skin on the exit side of the body is tough and flexible. Experiments have shown that it has the same resistance to bullet passage as approximately four inches of muscle tissue." Some suggest that to get two holes, you actually need to add 4-6" of gello penetration to get through the offside skin.

Mr. Patrick puts to rest the argument for over-penetration with handgun bullets with the following prose:

"No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and, 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."

Geckgo: Mr Patrick addresses, with numbers, on page 17-19, the very issue you discuss, or bring up, shooting a large man with a .22lr, and, the chances of success.

JustinJ:

I firmly believe you should practice with what you are carrying. The only real solution is a Dillon 550, and loading your own. For 5 years, every other day, 2 hours a day, I shot .451 Detonics level loads out of a combat master, 200 grain speer flying ashtrays. Why? When you load your own, the cost of the ammunition was much less, and, I was used to the round, how it recoiled, and how it shot.

Shawn:

Since I'm good size, the only guys that have ever attacked me are at least 6'3", and over 240 pounds. A couple larger. While I might get by with a minimum penetration load, I'd rather have the preferred penetration level, or a bit more.

Geckgo: This link addresses the 22lr, and, this guys observations are pretty good:

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html#handgun

JohnBiltz
June 8, 2011, 08:44 PM
"No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and, 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."
That just is not true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOQOA_Lq1W4&NR=1

THplanes
June 9, 2011, 12:15 AM
Comments in redWho cares?

apparently you do.

Read the agents comments and get back to me....
http://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/inside/miami-shootout-anniversary.mp3/view

Urey Patrick, FBI expert on the shooting:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf

Nothing in these links contradict what I said.

For those that follow: the test is, what, and who is Urey Patrick?
What did he say about the Miami shooting 4/11/86?

What did he think of Doves' shot, his gun, and his bullet?
What did he say in B?

The same thing I did. If the 9mm HP met the current 12" minimum penetration it would have reached the heart a stopped the fight sooner.

In other words, click the link, and read the article!!

Do you think my .475 caliber, 275 grain HPs at 1530 fps would have penetrated more, and perhaps stopped Platt, with one shot? Or, I guess these .500JRH 440 grain bullets would have penetrated the same? Only went through 6 feet of buffalo:

These loads are way beyond the FBI max recoil allowed. In fact they are beyond well beyond normal service caliber loads. The 275 gr HP likely produces a temporary stretch cavity that will exceed tissue elasticity and provide damage beyond just the permanent crush cavity.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/H%20H%20375%20buffalo/Recoveredbullets500JRHor500MAX.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/expanded475275grainbullet.jpg

Prosser
June 9, 2011, 05:20 AM
The wisdom has always been if you are going to a fire fight, bring a RIFLE. If I can carry a 3.2 pound revolver that hits game like a .375 H&H rifle, why would I carry anything less?

If I have a choice, I would rather have something other then somebodies "minimum" penetration round to protect my life.

440's at 950 fps, out of a 3.2 inch FA feel like a heavy .357. Again, it's the FBI's recoil standard, and, I don't CARE about their standards, since they are LEO, and faced with certain situations. I can however learn from their errors, stupidity, and problems with Political Correctness. Also from their Scientific reasoning, testing, analyisis, and, their
evaluation of their theories.

As for Mas Ayoob's comments: He is a gunwriter, with a vested interest in the issues, and, a LEO experience slant. Not to mention that he makes money from expert testimony, and, writing articles for gun magazines, who's existence is paid for by the companies that produce the ammunition he is recommending. In law, his comments would be evaluated by conflict of interest. His youtube videos are not under oath. He is not under oath.
For legal references, I expect case numbers, names, docket numbers etc. to prove assertions such as he makes in those videos. Mr. Ayoob and I have exchanged emails on this subject. I ask for cases, he invited me to go shooting with him when he comes out to the west coast, since his daughter attended a school close to my location. Again: I'm pretty much Missouri, show me a case, let me read the facts, and I'll get back to you.

Mr. Patrick I do not know, other then also reading his material, and, since it is similar to my observations and preferences, I will admit to favoring Mr. Patrick. I'm not sure how the FBI works with people that make false statements, but, I suspect that providing evidence to the FBI implies that you are under oath, and, that your testimony can you fired and perhaps prosecuted for perjury. Seems Mr. Patrick's situation gives him a credibility vote, for the FBI, and, from me.

The bottom line on this is you believe what you want to believe, I'll believe what I want, and look at evidence and actual cases that have gone to court. Until I see an actual case, on point, I'm with Mr. Patrick.

If you have any doubt about Mas Ayoob being a sales person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzDiyxiICxY&feature=related

JohnBiltz
June 9, 2011, 08:08 AM
So you think a man as well known as Ayoob would risk his name, reputation and fair amount of income to just make up a PA police officer being shot by other officers because of over penetration. Remarkable. All I can do is repeat wisdom.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." Churchill

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." William G McAdoo

THplanes
June 9, 2011, 09:00 AM
As for Mas Ayoob's comments: He is a gunwriter, with a vested interest in the issues, and, a LEO experience slant. Not to mention that he makes money from expert testimony, and, writing articles for gun magazines, who's existence is paid for by the companies that produce the ammunition he is recommending. In law, his comments would be evaluated by conflict of interest. His youtube videos are not under oath. He is not under oath.
For legal references, I expect case numbers, names, docket numbers etc. to prove assertions such as he makes in those videos. Mr. Ayoob and I have exchanged emails on this subject. I ask for cases, he invited me to go shooting with him when he comes out to the west coast, since his daughter attended a school close to my location. Again: I'm pretty much Missouri, show me a case, let me read the facts, and I'll get back to you.


http://www.odmp.org/officer/13553-police-officer-albert-a-valentino

http://articles.philly.com/1989-10-25/news/26117993_1_james-davis-philadelphia-police-officers/3

I'm not going to waste my time trying to look up any others. You'll just come up with some line of BS.

Shawn Dodson
June 9, 2011, 01:45 PM
Prosser writes: I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, from the link you listed:
"Fackler was the original proponent of an 18” minimum penetration. Over time his opinion evolved to 12” minimum. Whereas the FBI standard has always been 12” minimum ever since it established its performance standards in 1989 - http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf"

From that link:
"It is essential to bear in mind that the single most critical factor remains penetration While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a a handgun bullet MUST RELIABLY PENETRATE 12 inches of soft body tissue, at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.

It appears you're misintepreting. The FBI minimum standard is 12 inches, not 18 inches. The desired range of penetration is 12-18 inches. Penetration beyond 18 inches simply wastes a bullet's wounding potential because it will most likely pass all the way through the body. (Potential that can be used to produce a larger diameter crush cavity due to increased bullet expansion versus a longer wound track.)

Well-designed modern JHP handgun bullets, loaded in common combat cartridges, intended to meet the FBI 12 inch minimum standard, appear to penetrate between 14-16 inches in bare gelatin, gelatin covered with FBI spec "heavy clothing", and IWBA four layer denim covered gelatin tests. 14-16 inches appears to be the sweet spot for penetration range when a JHP bullet is optimized to reliably penetrate a minimum of 12 inches AND reliably expand after passing through a soft barrier material such as heavy clothing.

The most difficult test is for a bullet to penetrate a minimum of 12 inches after passing through automotive laminated windshield glass. Bullets usually become mishapen hunks of lead. Jacketed bullets, however, resist deformation better than unjacketed bullets and penetrate deeper. Windshield glass is the most challenging barrier material.

Whereas drywall, plywood and sheet metal usually, but not always, prevent the bullet from expanding in flesh or gelatin - however the bullets are still capable of achieving 12 inches penetration, and in many cases exceed 18 inches penetration.

I can't help but be a bit cynical that part of the reason for the 12 in MINIMUM, something that should be in big bold letters. Perhaps because it's easier to create 14" gello blocks?

Yeah, that's exactly the reason why FBI chose 12 inches as its minimum penetration depth because its SO MUCH EASIER to cast 14" gelatin blocks. FBI is simpy too lazy to cast larger blocks.

FYI - FBI standard gelatin block dimensions for testing handgun ammo are 6x6x16 inches. That's the volume of one batch of 10% ordnance gelatin solution (9L water, 1kg ordnance gelatin powder). The FBI normally places two gelatin blocks end-to-end longitudinally to capture up to 32 inches of a handgun bullet's wound track.

Larger blocks are easy to cast - all one needs is a larger mould and more gelatin solution. Two batches will cast a block 8x8x18 inches and three will cast a block about 10x10x18 inches for testing rifle cartridges.

Shawn, it's a bit much to knock lead bullets for various failures, when Hollow Points have similar failings.

Show us test results for unjacketed lead bullets in all 8 FBI test events that demonstrate equivalent terminal performance to modern well designed JHPs. Lead bullets deform when they strike hard barrier materials - more so than JHPs. Increased deformation DECREASES penetration in the human body. The FBI's .38 Special +P 158gr LSWCHP achieved a success rate of 68% in achieving 12 inches minimum penetration, and a 40 round average penetration depth of 11 3/4 inches.

Shawn, it's a bit much to knock lead bullets for various failures, when Hollow Points have similar failings.

"Handgun bullets expand in the human target only 60-70% of the time at best. Damage to the hollow point, by hitting bone, glass, or other intervening obstacles can prevent expansion. Clothing fibers can wrap the nose of the bullet in a cocoon like manner and prevent expansion. Insufficient impact velocity caused by short barrels and/or longer range will prevent expansion, as will simple manufacturing variations. Expansion must never the be basis for bullet selection, but, considered a bonus, when, and if it occurs."

JHP bullet design has improved substantially in the past 20 years.

Shawn Dodson
June 9, 2011, 04:56 PM
JohnBlitz writes: So you think a man as well known as Ayoob would risk his name, reputation and fair amount of income to just make up a PA police officer being shot by other officers because of over penetration.

Unfortunately here's no information about the length of the wound track through Davis' body. The bullets could have merely hit the periphery of Davis' body, in which the bullets didn't have a whole lot of meat to penetrate, which allowed them to exit his body and continue on to strike and kill Officer Valentino. If the bullets normally possessed 14 inches of penetration potential and the wound path through Davis' body was 4-6 inches, then there would still be plenty of penetration potential remaining. If this is indeed the case then the root cause is not an overpenetrating bullet, but a situation caused by the the short wound track through Davis' body instead.

Given that the shooting occurred in late October during the early morning hours, Davis was probably wearing medium-heavy clothing, which would have probably impaired bullet expansion - more so given the state of bullet design in 1989.

I am aware of a fatal shooting of a police officer caused by an overpenetrating bullet. The bullet was a Winchester .38 Special 125gr SJHP. When the bullet expanded in the bad guy's body only the exposed lead at the nose expanded, which was then sheared off by the leading edge of the jacket. The bullet had struck the bad guy squarely in the torso but because it didn't mushroom it exited the body and continued on to strike and kill the officer downrange. This particular bullet mushroomed superbly in ductseal, but exhibited terminal performance in ordnance gelatin that was identical to the shooting.

Prosser
June 9, 2011, 05:13 PM
THPlanes:

From the links you posted, they are not sure if the bullets went through the victim or not. They do know he was shot by the other officer. They also know the officer that killed him failed to make sure of his backstop.

A handful of over-penetration cases? If the statistics are minimal, then the likelyhood of a successful civil lawsuit is minimal. There is no mention of the type of ammunition used in the Valentino shooting, either.

What I am saying about this kind of situation is Urey Patrick is likely to be accurate. Facts on shooting situations are hard to get, and, their interpretation, and the conveying of information on the cases can be inaccurate. Much like yourself, actually finding, accurate, well supported legal documents that document such a shooting are difficult to obtain.

For 9 months of torts class we tracked news reporting of the facts of cases in the area of law we studied. EVERY initial report was inaccurate, usually followed by at least 2-3 revisions, and, when the actual case was filed, the pleadings bore little resemblance to the newspaper reports.

An over-penetration case would require a ME's report, and a number of facts,
type of ammunition, range, etc. will all play into if the bullet passed through a prior barrier or not. I for one, am not willing to accept as accurate newspaper sources on these issues, because they also have a vested interest: sensationalize the news, and get it in print as quickly as possible.

I would also, on my own, like to examine the documentation involved in such alleged shooting. In otherwords, I'm not much for hearsay evidence, regardless of how gilded the reputation of the person who is stating the hearsay evidence.

As for Mr. Ayoob's reporting skills and accuracy, our own Shawn Dodson wrote an excellent, accurate review of one of Mr. Ayoob's works, here:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm

Shawn's conclusion is pretty much what I've been trying to state here.

Shawn: I suggest that depending upon weight, caliber, bullet design, and hardness of the material, you can design a hardcast bullet to achieve the penetration results you are after. You are making a bit of a strawman taking
"lead" to mean pure lead, rarely used in casting bullets. However, that is a possibility for SD, where shooting through barriers is unlikely, and or the bullet is heavy enough to penetrate the barrier.

I do wonder if a 260 grain lead bullet at 950 fps might not make a VERY effective SD round. Over 100 years says this works...

It also appears monometal hollow points may overcome some of the short comings of the normal hollow point bullets.

What this really comes down to is a properly tailored load, using a hard cast bullet, with the proper weight, can give a wound channel equal to or larger then a HP. Also, from the mountain of hunting evidence, LFN type bullets are much more reliable when used against game, the closest we have to a test platform, rather then gello.

The problem I have with most service caliber hollow points is they expand well, but, once expanded, they slow down so much the temporary and
permanent wound cavities look like ice cream cones, doing little damage in the last part of the wound channel. Victims of their own success, if you would.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/High%20Speed%20Video/45ACP%20Remington%20185gr%20+P%20Golden%20Saber%20Glock%2036.wmv

I'm after something that expands, and maintains velocity after expansion, much like those 45-70 300 grain bullets do:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/High%20Speed%20Video/45-70GOV%20Lehigh%20Defense%20300gr%20HP%20closeup%20view.wmv

Shawn: I have used your website for a long time, and read a LOT of what you've wrote, and, it's the basis for much of my opinion, and observations.
Martin Fackler as well, and, I have in the past used your website to find his work.

It is my opinion that using hard cast, LFN bullets, of LFN jacketed bullets, you can design bullets that penetrate well, create a long, wide wound channel, much like what Martin Fackler shows in his shotgun solid round through gelatin, vs the average hp bullet.

I would like it all, however. With non-service caliber guns it is possible to use Hollowpoints heavy enough to both expand, and continue through the target at
velocity so that the wound cavity doesn't collapse to a minimum.

I've shown what Speers 275 grain Hp opens up to, in .475 caliber.

I've also got some 300 grain .510HP's from Hawk. They recommend at least 1200 fps for reliable expansion in game. I've a few friends that use these for hunting, and, their only complaint is the round isn't as easy to get to group well as cast LFN's are.

Just a quick note on the monometal HP's from Barnes. They are light, and, if they weren't a couple bucks each, might be THE bullet. Barnes X bullets, when pushed hard, had some endearing characterisitics. The 4 petals
would open up, or break off on bone, creating secondary projectiles. With all four broken off, you have a 250-285 grain wadcutter that goes straight and deep, this at least out of a .375, and, if you are lucky
enough to use it on 120 or so cape buffalo, as Saeed has, you'll find this type bullet, at least at 2700 fps, kills like the Hammer of Thor. I haven't got any feedback on how well these handgun bullets work on game,
but, the combination of light weight, giving high velocity, and excellent expansion should be interesting.

THplanes
June 9, 2011, 09:31 PM
THPlanes:

From the links you posted, they are not sure if the bullets went through the victim or not. They do know he was shot by the other officer. They also know the officer that killed him failed to make sure of his backstop.

Like I said, no matter what you are presented with you'll make up your own BS to in order to ignore it.

This is from the second link I posted:

Three of the police officers shot, too. Muzyk fired his service revolver four times, and Valentino and Halasa fired their weapons twice each.

Davis was hit eight times. Valentino was hit twice - once below the left armpit, where his bulletproof vest did not reach, and once in the left hip, below the vest. The first wound proved fatal. Police officials said both gunshots came from Muzyk, who was within three feet of Davis when he fired.

Preliminary findings by the Medical Examiner's Office revealed eight

entrance wounds in Davis' body and five exit wounds. Sources speculated that Valentino was hit by two bullets that left Davis' body. Bolstering this contention, they said, is the fact that the nose of the bullet that killed Valentino was mutilated - indicating it struck something before it hit him


The officers fired a total of 8 times. The bad guy had eight entrance wounds. If the bullets that hit Valentino didn't pass through Davis' body first, where did they come from.

A handful of over-penetration cases? If the statistics are minimal, then the likelyhood of a successful civil lawsuit is minimal. There is no mention of the type of ammunition used in the Valentino shooting, either.

Are you really claiming that if I shoot a bad guy and have a complete pass through that hits a bystander, I won't be successfully sued in civil court because it's a rare event.

As for Mr. Ayoob's reporting skills and accuracy, our own Shawn Dodson wrote an excellent, accurate review of one of Mr. Ayoob's works, here:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm

I have seen Dodson and Ayoob go at it on Glock Talk. It's not as one sided as you may think. No offense Shawn, but you both just get into a pissing match and it's very difficult to sort the wheat form the chaff.
.

Prosser wrote:

"No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and, 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."

You now have 2 cases that disprove the first sentence. Whether you you choose to ignore them is up to you. From a factual stand point you have been proved wrong. I suppose Dodson is wrong too because it doesn't fit into your preconceived paradigm.

Prosser
June 10, 2011, 03:13 AM
Prosser wrote:

"No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and, 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."

Not true. Urey Patrick wrote that.:neener:

Original poster:
"but for this lets look at the bullets themselves. I basically want to know how, looking at these comments, if there is something else that I have missed that would make small, non-hp rounds bad for SD if they can adequately penetrate.

Just food for thought, let's keep it friendly "

To address that:

small non-hps make more sense then small hps. It's fairly rare to be able to get adequate penetration in a small round, if the HP opens up. I think Patrick had it right that penetration first is most important, and diameter second. Expansion should be a bonus.

Dodson had a case that may point out that if the bullet in a small caliber, like a .38, is too heavy, and doesn't expand, it may over-penetrate. I suspect one must carefully tailor bullet design and bullet weight to caliber with non-expanding bullets to make penetration the depth you are after.

As for your concern about penetration, that is another issue. Where do you live, what are the surroundings like, population density, and are you using this for home or carry away from home? Farm, town, etc?

We now have a couple cases of over-penetration killing officers, which certainly indicates that if you are LEO you should use lower powered rounds, that penetrate towards the lower end of the FBI's 12-18" penetration guidelines.

I'm still waiting for evidence of over-penetration killing a non-LEO, in a SD shooting.

You might want to keep in mind that looming in the dark is the elephant position of Mas Ayoob, that you should use what your local LEO uses for SD, both firearm and ammunition. The argument being that you are complying with 'expert' guidelines provided by your LEO, and, that this is an easier position to defend then some gun nut who carries a 10MM(guy in Arizona convicted for using a 10MM, pretty much, only recently overturned), or a .475 Linebaugh, etc.

Prosser
June 10, 2011, 06:50 AM
Shawn: You've got to get on youtube

I mean Mas Ayoob has me respecting his position on youtube....;)

Darn, that guy reminds me of my last roommate: makes you feel like you are his best friend, and, he's the world's expert, while he's stealing your wallet....:evil:

Geckgo
June 10, 2011, 08:05 AM
Prosser - "As for your concern about penetration, that is another issue. Where do you live, what are the surroundings like, population density, and are you using this for home or carry away from home? Farm, town, etc?"

No concern really, more penetration is more better :P Was just getting tired of reading the same posts over and over about "I would never use nothin less than 9mm" without some factuals. I've already made my choice on bullets for my defense weapons, and those are my choices, same as everyone else here has their own bullets/guns that they choose for SD, and I would not pass judgement on any of them now that I'm getting a little more well read about firearms/ammo. Just love ingaging in these conversations to see if anything new drops that I haven't heard before :)

a 22LR that passes though a persons heart and out of their back (no CNS), I always wonder if that would stop someone, or actually any bullet through the heart. Bullets through the heart seem to do very well on game.

Geckgo
June 10, 2011, 08:06 AM
^-- sorry, just to be sure, I am aware of the 22 changing direction upon hitting a rib probability, but just for fun.

Al Thompson
June 10, 2011, 02:57 PM
Bullets through the heart seem to do very well on game

Bullets through the heart still require the animal to bleed out. If you pop a critter with a standard handgun bullet, the effects are much more like an arrow hit than a hit with a rifle bullet. I've seen several deer make 75 or 100 yard sprints after a good heart hit - with a rifle.

Prosser
June 10, 2011, 06:20 PM
Some heart shots:
.45 Colt, 1100 fps, LFN.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/45deer01045coltentry1150fpshardcast.jpg
.375 H&H Cape buffalo heart
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/H%20H%20375%20buffalo/Buff_Bore_1st_Heart1.jpg
Garrett 45-70 Hammerhead cape buffalo
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/H%20H%20375%20buffalo/Garrett_Buff_Heart1.jpg

Don't know how a 22lr would do. I can say that getting shot with a 22lr hurts a ton. Think getting stabbed with a 6-8" Ice pick...

JohnBiltz
June 10, 2011, 08:10 PM
Bullets through the heart still require the animal to bleed out. If you pop a critter with a standard handgun bullet, the effects are much more like an arrow hit than a hit with a rifle bullet. I've seen several deer make 75 or 100 yard sprints after a good heart hit - with a rifle.

Not exactly. That can be true but a heart shot could cause a heart to stop pumping blood in which case the brain stops from oxygen starvation faster than it would have from just exsanguination

Geckgo
June 11, 2011, 08:29 AM
John, you think that's what causes the "bang, flop" when taking deer? or if I start talking about rifles do we start entering the realm of (gulp) pressure effects?

Al Thompson
June 11, 2011, 08:44 AM
John, you are correct, but it's a matter of degree. That bullet in the heart is probably going to be fatal (Officer Lim being a classical exception) but it may not turn the bad guy off fast enough. That same bullet in the CNS (IMHO) would be much more effective.

Geckgo, IME, bang-flops are almost always CNS hits. :)

For those who don't know who Stacey Lim is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhSACg_QWz4

JohnBiltz
June 11, 2011, 07:41 PM
I'm no doctor. Some things, some people die hard and some things, some people die easy. No one really knows why. I would guess you can damage an organ bad enough that it just quits. They do restart hearts after all and that implies they stop for reasons short of total destruction. You could destroy one of the valves and no blood is going to get through the arteries to the brain as well.

You start reading accounts of Medal of Honor winners and you realize some men are just ridiculously hard to kill or stop. Others take a wound and curl up and die from shock.

Prosser
June 12, 2011, 05:56 AM
A lot of it's genetics. Cape buffalo, lions, elephants, if you shoot them, they are predisposed to make sure you die for shooting them.

People are little different. Watching fighting, some guys wilt, some will try and kill you, no matter how much damage you've done.

ripp
June 12, 2011, 05:09 PM
lots and lots of misconceptions on this thread. When the pucker factor kicks in, accuracy is mostlly gone, no matter who you are or what gun/load you use. To claim otherwise marks you as ignorant or a liar, plain and simple. As for accuracy, if you can hit the heart, you can also hit the brain, they are the same size. Hitting the brain is a lot more likely to give you the instantaneous stop that you need. There is nothing about shooting any of the chest organs that is at all likely to result in such a stop, other than the shock factor, which you have ruled out, in your ignorance. yes, shock exists and has an effect, and I can prove it to your complete belief, just by smashing your testicles. no vital organs will have been damaged, and no blood lost, but there you lie on the ground, anyway! :-)

ripp
June 12, 2011, 05:12 PM
Hollowbasing a bullet makes it 'nose heavy" so it's less likely to tumble, actually. You are quite wrong on that statement. Also, all mammals keep 5 second's worth of oxygenated blood in the cranium, and if the heart has just contracted, yet another 5 second's worth of blood has just been sent to the brain. So there is no reason at all to expect a heart hit to stop man or animal, simply because it shuts off blood flow. This is why many deer are able to run 50 yds after having their hearts blown to bits by a sp rifle hit.

Prosser
June 13, 2011, 01:36 AM
http://rkba.org/research/fackler/figure3.gif
http://rkba.org/research/fackler/figure5.gif

Somewhere in Facklers' testing, he brings up the British .303. Their war bullets were hollow base, filled with wood, with the specific intention of making them unstable when penetrating tissue.

If making a bullet nose heavy makes it less likely to tumble, why are so many matchgrade bullets hollow point boat tails?

RugerMcMarlin
June 13, 2011, 02:15 AM
I have read the posts in this thread, well, some of them, it seems penetration is pretty much the most important goal. To the exclusion of all others, I dont think I agree with.
Caliber should be considered in my opinion. So with penetration first, caliber 2nd.

Might I suggest a fencing foil,....in .45 caliber.

Panzercat
June 13, 2011, 01:05 PM
Against a human attacker, your goal isn't to kill them necessarily, but rather to incapacitate them. Punching a bunch of clean holes through them may very well kill them, but probably not immediately unless you severely damage the CNS.
Like this. Humans are incredibly fragile to the right form of damage. But they also have a lot of non-lethal or not immeditely lethal surface area to hit. Sure, we'd all like to think we will be dispensing silver bullets to absolutely vital areas of the body because we're all just that good, but real life is seldom that clean cut.

Penetration isn't my priority* for an HD round. We're not bears. Making sure I do enough damage to the target so it drops and doesn't get back up is, all while providing for less than ideal firing scenario redundancy. A head shot does that. And so does a round that expands to the size of a silver dollar pancake.

You're allowed to have both ;)

* Hey now, don't be silly. Of course penetration is required for a firearm to do its job. try not to be too anal retentive concerning this one.

ripp
June 13, 2011, 03:07 PM
hpbt match RIFLE bullets are made with ZERO concern with what they do after they punch a hole in a paper target. I should have said that having the bullet be nose heavy makes it more stable as it penetrates FLESH, since one can no longer just assume common sense on the part of readers of gun forums. Of course the performance of rifle and pistol bullets in the air differ, bud. The 2-3x greater velocity and faster rate of twist of the rifle barrels makes for 3-4x the rpm of the rifle bullet, as vs the pistol bullet, so they can get away with being butt-heavy, in the air, making them streamlined, for minimal resistance as they pierce the air.

Prosser
June 13, 2011, 06:40 PM
Probably just stay with what works. LFN type bullets, not wadcutters, going at least 1200 fps, prefer 1350 fps. This gives you enough velocity so the bullets
tend to mushroom, like this:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/H%20H%20375%20buffalo/Recoveredbullets500JRHor500MAX.jpg

and leave exit holes like this:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/440grainHardcastat950fps500JRH300wincartridgeforcomparision.jpg

I suspect you might be able to tailor lesser calibers to expand in a similar manner, using a lighter bullet, at the same or higher velocity.

The problem for CCW then becomes having enough barrel length for the bullet
to get to speed, and, the speed of the powder you use, faster generally tending to hit higher pressure much faster.

KimberUltra
June 13, 2011, 06:58 PM
I agree with panzercat.

I use hollow points to do as much damage to a target as I can. My .45 will have plenty of penetration from a typical self defense distance which would probably be inside 10 feet. For all intents and purposes that's a muzzle velocity range. You can also bet your balls that I'm not going to stop pulling that trigger until I'm empty. If hes not incapacitated after 7 rounds to the torso then my kimber weighs like 14 lbs and I'd probably throw it at him.

If a 7 rounds to the chest with a .45 doesn't stop someone from close range and the BG manages to do whatever it is he wanted to do to me, then that's just the cards I had been dealt. You can't do a whole lot more than that.

Al Thompson
June 13, 2011, 10:07 PM
You can't do a whole lot more than that.

Yes you can. It's called a non-standard response.

Get some training. If after a couple of shots to the chest the bad guy isn't reacting, shoot something different. Body armor is not uncommon.

MCgunner
June 13, 2011, 11:05 PM
Yeah, whatever...:rolleyes:

Just buy what you can carry always and shoot well, practice, and don't worry about it. Hell, there are times I can only conceal a .22 mag mini revolver, but I CAN hit with it.

JustinJ
June 14, 2011, 01:18 PM
"Body armor is not uncommon."

I would venture that far less than 1% of SD related shootings involve body armor.

Al Thompson
June 14, 2011, 05:44 PM
Justin, agree completely that it's unlikely, but, again, if what I'm hitting with isn't working, time to hit him somewhere else. Regardless of why it isn't working. :)

KAS1981
June 14, 2011, 09:02 PM
My school of thought on calibers & self defense:

If you start putting holes in somebody, no matter what diameter they are, they're (more than likely) going to stop molesting you.

That being said, I won't carry anything less powerful than .38 special or 9mm for self-defense.

Prosser
June 15, 2011, 02:47 AM
Body Armour? Get a caliber that penetrates it. What are calibers that penetrate armour in a handgun?

If you enjoyed reading about "On handguns and calibre wars..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!