Does Energy Count In Handgun Calibers?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

kokapelli
October 28, 2012, 01:22 PM
Do you think energy is an important factor in handgun calibers?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does Energy Count In Handgun Calibers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ozo
October 28, 2012, 01:37 PM
Sure...absolutely.
As it would with any round....
unless you only shoot beer cans.

jim243
October 28, 2012, 01:41 PM
For the most part, yes it does. Depending on what you are doing, the transfer of energy from projectile to target will determine how effective you are in using the caliber.

Speed times mass, or larger mass times slower speed could give the same results. Shape, caliber and weight of the projectile also will have an effect.

All are factors in the amount of energy that will find it's way to your target.

Now if you are just paper punching, energy is less of a factor except in pushing your bullet's mass to the target at a certain distance, the greater the distance the more energy you will need.

Jim

Steve C
October 28, 2012, 01:50 PM
As a function of mass and velocity energy certainly does count but IMO only as a less determinative number. i.e. a .44 mag load will generally have a higher energy level than say a .357 mag. However the number isn't a good single definitive method of determining effectiveness between different rounds with energy numbers of relatively small variation.

2wheels
October 28, 2012, 02:00 PM
I'm going to vote no, because I lean towards the "bullets make holes" school of thought so I'm more worried about the average penetration and expansion of any given defensive round than I am about the energy level of the round when comparing bullet A to bullet B.

But, that doesn't mean I discount energy levels entirely. I just don't know how much of a factor they are.

JERRY
October 28, 2012, 02:10 PM
the more energy the better chances of a hollow point opening up in soft tissue.

leadcounsel
October 28, 2012, 02:24 PM
Transfer of energy, especially with lower calibers, is important.

For rifle calibers, they are overkill so it's probably not as important in my view.

But for pistols, which are really undersuited for immediate results, energy dump is very important.

R.W.Dale
October 28, 2012, 02:29 PM
In terms of transferred energy into the target no it doesn't matter at all.

As a value that can be used to represent a loads ability to drive bullets of a given mass to an adequate depth it has limited usefulness




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complaints about

kokapelli
October 28, 2012, 02:36 PM
Anyone that thinks energy transfer in handgun calibers is a factor should read this......
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm

ozo
October 28, 2012, 02:37 PM
"But, that doesn't mean I discount energy levels entirely. I just don't know how much of a factor they are."---

Not really a factor, as much as a result.

[edit: I'll leave it to the obvious experts]

jmr40
October 28, 2012, 02:40 PM
Penetration, expansion and placement matter. Energy numbers help help predict what will happen with the 1st 2. Energy numbers aren't useless, but are easy to misinterpret if you don't also understand that there are other factors that influence bullet peformance such as bullet construction.

Also anything within 100 ft lbs of energy is close enough to call a tie. No point in arguing about caliber "A" getting 400 ft lbs of energy being inferior to caliber "B" getting 500 ft lbs of energy. When we see 300-400 ft lbs difference then it starts to matter.

Jaymo
October 28, 2012, 02:45 PM
Can't really compare gut shots that don't hit anything major to an arterial shot. Apples and oranges.
Plus, if the assailant is on certain drugs, stopping power goes out the window, unless you get a CNS shot.
Had the trooper hit the assailant in the same spot where the assailant shot the trooper, the assailant would have ended up the same way as the trooper.
Had the trooper shot the assailant in the heart/lungs with his .357, the assailant would have had a lot harder time breathing and functioning.
Stopping and killing are two different things, and that is one of the flaws in the linked article.

The assailant got lucky. Plain and simple. Had the trooper dumped those four rounds into the assailants chest, instead of his gut, the story would have been about a dead assailant, instead of a dead trooper.

The author lost credibility by referencing the Nicole Brown Simpson case, and by stating that the knife "ruptured" major blood vessels.
The knife severed the blood vessels.

SammyIamToday
October 28, 2012, 03:14 PM
Having personally seen people survive direct center mass hits with 7.62 machine gun rounds and keep fighting; I believe the energy difference between common handgun service calibers to be negligible to say the least.

Jaymo
October 28, 2012, 03:34 PM
At what ranges were they shot with the 7.62 NATO rounds? That makes a difference. As do adrenaline and drug use.
If handgun energy doesn't matter, then the .25 acp is a great service round.

I'm not saying it's the be all, end all of stopping power, but it does matter. Especially with expanding ammo.

The reality is, stopping failures can occur with any and all common small arms projectiles. There are a lot of reasons they can occur.

Bottom line is, we all need to carry a 12 gauge shotgun for SD.
Too bad it's not practical.

56hawk
October 28, 2012, 03:57 PM
When comparing cartridges with properly designed expanding bullets I think energy is the most important factor. If you look at 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP they are all very similar in effectiveness because they have very similar energies. 22LR, 25 ACP, and 32 ACP are much less effective because they don't have the energy to do the damage that the bigger rounds can.

Anyone that thinks energy transfer in handgun calibers is a factor should read this......
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm

I actually found this article to be pretty ridiculous. Is he really saying that a 22LR is just as effective as a 357?

Having personally seen people survive direct center mass hits with 7.62 machine gun rounds and keep fighting; I believe the energy difference between common handgun service calibers to be negligible to say the least.

Yes, that is a common problem with FMJ bullets. The wound cavity is very small until the bullet starts to tumble. The results would have likey been very different with hollowpoint bullets.

huntsman
October 28, 2012, 04:11 PM
I voted No but it's a really good marketing tool for magic bullets.

BSA1
October 28, 2012, 04:36 PM
Since all bullets must have energy in order to travel to the target the purpose of your question is unclear.

kokapelli
October 28, 2012, 04:36 PM
I actually found this article to be pretty ridiculous. Is he really saying that a 22LR is just as effective as a 357?
No that's not what he is saying at all. What it says is that the energy of the round is not relevant but rather shot placement and adequate penetration are what counts.

I think his examples make a lot of sense, but that's just me.

It's interesting to see how people see what they want to see, isn't it.

kokapelli
October 28, 2012, 04:42 PM
Since all bullets must have energy in order to travel to the target the purpose of your question is unclear.
Yeah I could have made it more clear. What I was looking for is do you think handgun bullet energy transfer is a big factor in stopping someone.

intercooler
October 28, 2012, 04:52 PM
Not at all. .22LR = .44 Magnum

psyopspec
October 28, 2012, 04:55 PM
It matters to me, but not in the sense of having fodder for 9 v. 45 discussions. Moreso in that it allows me to make a subjective judgment as to minimum caliber I find acceptable for SD. At the point of 9/40/45 I personally don't find much appreciable difference, with the next jump being at the magnum level.

k_dawg
October 28, 2012, 05:02 PM
Well, obviously it matters. A bullet with 0 energy would be worthless.

The question really is if it is the primary measure of how effective a bullet is. The heavier, fatter and faster bullets are all means to increase performance.

But X penetration with Y diameter are the results which what matters in the end.

56hawk
October 28, 2012, 05:15 PM
No that's not what he is saying at all. What it says is that the energy of the round is not relevant but rather shot placement and adequate penetration are what counts.

I think his examples make a lot of sense, but that's just me.

It's interesting to see how people see what they want to see, isn't it.

Well, if the energy of the round is not relevant then why is a 357 more effective than a 22?

kokapelli
October 28, 2012, 05:40 PM
Well, if the energy of the round is not relevant then why is a 357 more effective than a 22?
Penetration my friend, penetration.

easyg
October 28, 2012, 05:58 PM
What it says is that the energy of the round is not relevant but rather shot placement and adequate penetration are what counts.
Energy of the round is totally relevant.

Show me a round that can offer adequate penetration with no energy.

56hawk
October 28, 2012, 06:07 PM
Penetration my friend, penetration.

Well, according to Brass Fetcher Speer 158gr Gold Dot penetrates 13.5" and Federal 36gr Champion PLHP penetrates 13.9". Which would you rather carry?

RBid
October 28, 2012, 06:31 PM
It matters only insofar as it relates to penetration and expansion.

farm23
October 28, 2012, 06:36 PM
Big holes and penetration need energy.

mljdeckard
October 28, 2012, 06:44 PM
Among standardized service cartridges, no, not at all. They have enough to completely traverse a human target under most circumstances. That's enough. They don't have enough energy to create explosive force like a rifle bullet does.

kokapelli
October 28, 2012, 06:58 PM
Energy of the round is totally relevant.

Show me a round that can offer adequate penetration with no energy.
Any fmj 380 or 32 will give plenty of penetration, but I'm really talking about "energy transfer" and that's my fault for not being more specific.

coolluke01
October 28, 2012, 07:03 PM
Transfer of energy is foolishness. Leaving all the energy in the target is not what "stops" the BG. As has been said Penetration is what is important. An 13" ice pick and a .44 mag with 13" of penetration can have the same end result on a target. It will take much less energy for the ice pick to gain 13". But if the placement is right it will do the job. As will the .44 mag, if placed right it will stop the BG. The expansion of the .44 slug will buy you a little leeway and also offer more tissue damage so after he's done shooting/stabbing/clubbing you he will die in a few minuets.

I voted no as energy is hardly important. Mass and speed are, but not the product of the two multiplied but how it achieves penetration and allows a HP to expand reliably.

Shot placement if far more important. The force exerted on the target will only be as great as the opposite force you feel in recoil.

SammyIamToday
October 28, 2012, 07:37 PM
At what ranges were they shot with the 7.62 NATO rounds? That makes a difference. As do adrenaline and drug use.
If handgun energy doesn't matter, then the .25 acp is a great service round.

I'm not saying it's the be all, end all of stopping power, but it does matter. Especially with expanding ammo.

The reality is, stopping failures can occur with any and all common small arms projectiles. There are a lot of reasons they can occur.

Bottom line is, we all need to carry a 12 gauge shotgun for SD.
Too bad it's not practical.

This particular incident was down a street. Well inside 100 meters.

If you'll re-read my post, you'll also notice I said service calibers. To be more clear, there's a threshold of usefulness when it comes to handgun calibers for sure. Which may have been an assumption on my part to the purpose of this poll.

Bingo with stopping failures. Therefore, I've come to believe that more capacity and shootability while meeting a threshold of energy is the best solution. Personal opinion and all.

Yes, that is a common problem with FMJ bullets. The wound cavity is very small until the bullet starts to tumble. The results would have likey been very different with hollowpoint bullets.

I was perhaps again not descriptive enough. By hits, I meant several rounds of a burst to which the target suffered massive trauma. Organs needed to survive were done significant damage judging by placement. I'm not sure how a hollow point bullet at significantly less energy is going to suddenly provide a stronger stop than a series of rifle rounds at high energy even in a FMJ configuration. The target did expire after a short time, but more rounds were fired back our way in that time period.

Perhaps not a good scientific comparison, but certainly one powerful enough for me individually to not worry about small amounts of foot pounds of energy. If you think a bit more energy is a great thing, then that's a testament to choice and I think choice is wonderful. I've simply decided my anecdotal evidence makes it negligible at best.

wally
October 28, 2012, 08:27 PM
Not very much. Bullet placement on the target counts way more!

481
October 28, 2012, 08:37 PM
It is part of the picture, but not exclusively so.

Any bullet that has kinetic energy (1/2MV^2) also possesses momentum (MV)- regardless of which quantity you favor, how much it (KE or momentum) has is not nearly as imprtant as what it (the bullet) does with what (KE or momentum) it has.

The poll could really use an option that reflects this.

Sergei Mosin
October 28, 2012, 08:41 PM
Energy is an indicator of potential effectiveness. But it is only one factor - and a minor one - in what actually happens to a person struck by a bullet.

What are the important factors? Shot placement, penetration, and expansion - in that order.

Shot placement is affected by training and luck. The better you are trained, the more likely you are to be lucky. But sometimes it's just not your day. The death of Trooper Coates is a prime example of this. Four solid hits with a .357 Magnum didn't stop a bad guy. One bad hit with a .22LR killed a good guy. An unlikely outcome - but it happened. Just bad luck.

Penetration means getting deep enough to hit something vital. Penetration is dependent on the mass of the projectile, the velocity of the projectile, (these two are commonly thought of as energy) the shape and construction of the projectile, and the target characteristics (target angle, shape and construction of the target, etc.)

Expansion means making a big enough hole to increase the bullet's chances of hitting something vital once the projectile reaches an adequate depth. Without adequate penetration, expansion is irrelevant. Bullet design plays a huge role in this, of course. A bigger hole helps the luck side of the equation.

Ideally you want a bullet placed so as to hit the vitals, capable of penetrating deeply enough to reach the vitals, and big enough to do as much damage as possible to the vitals when it gets there.

Either big and slow or small and fast will work. Small and slow doesn't work very well. Big and fast works best.

Small and slow is exemplified by the .25 ACP. It's just too small to do very much and relies too much on luck.

Big and slow is exemplified by the .45 ACP. An expanding bullet can make it even bigger, at a cost in penetration.

Small and fast is exemplified by the 9x19, preferably with an expanding bullet to overcome the disadvantages of being small. However, expansion usually has a negative effect on penetration, which may effectively negate the gains in expansion.

Big and fast is exemplified by the .357 Magnum, which uses an expanding bullet to overcome the disadvantages of being small (it effectively becomes big) while using its very high speed to retain its ability to penetrate.

56hawk
October 28, 2012, 08:51 PM
I was perhaps again not descriptive enough. By hits, I meant several rounds of a burst to which the target suffered massive trauma. Organs needed to survive were done significant damage judging by placement. I'm not sure how a hollow point bullet at significantly less energy is going to suddenly provide a stronger stop than a series of rifle rounds at high energy even in a FMJ configuration. The target did expire after a short time, but more rounds were fired back our way in that time period.

I was referring to rifle rounds since that is what you were talking about. The same does hold true for pistol rounds, but not to the same extent. The drawings below show the difference for rifle rounds, but the quote is for pistol rounds.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal.htm
Incidentally, round or pointed nose, non-expanding bullets tend to push tissue aside rather than crush it, and the permanent cavity for a non-tumbling bullet of these designs usually runs about 65 -70 percent of the diameter of the projectile. Non-expanding heavy jacketed or monolithic (solid metal) projectiles with large metplates yield permanent cavities of between 70 and 80 percent of the diameter of the projectile (and the large metplats helps them to penetrate in a straight path rather than veer off. ) The very blunt and often sharp-edged shape of an expanded projectile can yield a a permanent cavity of between 80 - 90+ percent of the expanded projectile's diameter.

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0196064496700628-gr1.jpg

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0196064496700628-gr2.jpg

Jaymo
October 28, 2012, 11:56 PM
I've decided that there are too many variables, to be able to count on any weapon for self defense.
As a result, I'm just not ever going to try do defend myself.

SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE
October 29, 2012, 02:03 AM
What I get from the article is that he is telling me that if i shoot Mr. Grizzly bear with my .45 auto , that it will be just as effective as my .454 Casull ? I think he forgets that it takes energy to drive the bullet to sufficient depth to reach vital organs or circulatory and central nervous system, it also takes energy to deform a bullet so that it cuts a larger wound channel ! So yes energy matters ,but a direct hit to a vital area with a .22 is still better than a loud miss with a .44 ! Kevin

NG VI
October 29, 2012, 02:14 AM
Well, if the energy of the round is not relevant then why is a 357 more effective than a 22?

Because of the proportions of diameter, mass, and velocity that the .357 delivers. Energy numbers can show one aspect of a bullet's overall performance, but it doesn't show the most important factor, which is how the bullet behaves in a human-sized animal. It's entirely possible to deliver huge amounts of energy with a bullet that isn't capable of reliably reaching anything important in a human-sized body, and it's possible for a projectile with much lower energy to deliver more useful results, because energy alone is not useful.

.357 has more energy than .22, sure, but the attributes that give it more energy are what matters.

It has three to four times the mass.

It flies 50-100% faster from similar weapons.

It has much more frontal area.

And it is easy to load with projectiles made to penetrate a meaningful distance in medium sized animals while also expanding.

.22 cannot do the same things, not because it has lower energy, it has lower energy ratings because it is not capable of doing the same work. Energy is one way to measure the difference, it isn't the difference itself.

CZ57
October 29, 2012, 02:59 AM
Yes it matters. It's what makes the bullet expand and penetrate. Both are very important. The faster the bullet expands the larger the wound volume will be but I believe that the expanded bullet still needs to penetrate to a min. depth of 12". Momentum works in much the same way like say a 230 gr. .45 ACP JHP. It has a lot of momentum so it is not as dependent on kinetic energy to expand and penetrate. For a lighter bullet to develop higher momentum it has to have both higher velocity and thus kinetic energy.

I believe there is a kinetic energy window of about 400 - 600 Ft/Lbs. Handgun bullets, particularly older designs, tend to work better in this window. The best defense load that I am aware of in LE use was the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum. It is near the top of the energy window. Loads that exceed the window limit often do not expand very well because there is actually to much kinetic energy that actually works against expansion. Examples like Full power 10mm, .41 Magnum and the .44 Magnum have shown to have too much KE for practical defense use and more often than not behave like FMJ bullets.

Newer JHP designs do not require as much KE for expansion and 12" of penetration but a good many of them are subsonic. Personally I like to choose a bullet that develops 400 - 600 Ft/Lbs of KE provided it meets depth of penetration requirements. Especially testing to make sure a bullet will penetrate to 12" after passing through 4 layers of denim. If that requirement is met then all the KE you can get is desirable as in the case of the .357 SIG. Having said that I actually use a load that satisfies all requirements with a .45 ACP 230 gr. JHP achieving 900 FPS. It has both the momentum and over 400 Ft/Lbs of KE. With the 9mm, I tend to favor the 124 gr. +P or +P+ loads, but I wouldn't hesitate to use a 147 gr. +P JHP. For me the standard pressure 147 just does not have the KE to cause expansion to provide devastating wound volumes. What it does have is higher momentum so it penetrates very well, but the 124 +P penetrates as deep or nearly as deep while providing greater expansion. ;)

481
October 29, 2012, 12:27 PM
For me the standard pressure 147 just does not have the KE to cause expansion to provide devastating wound volumes.

Looks like the Federal 147 gr JHPs expand quite well given their "diminished" energy-

http://www.luckygunner.com/catalog/product/gallery/id/2432/image/12515

The Winchester Ranger 147s -RA9T and RA9B- do pretty well, too.

kokapelli
October 29, 2012, 12:39 PM
The interesting thing about energy is that the lighter and faster bullets produce more energy, but lighter means less inertia which (in my mind) means less penetration.

Here is a chart with velocity and energy comparisons……..
http://www.ballistics101.com/9mm.php

Thompsoncustom
October 29, 2012, 02:18 PM
Well, if the energy of the round is not relevant then why is a 357 more effective than a 22?

Is it? A .22 to the heart or head should put something down just as easy as anything other handgun caliber that's why shot placement will always be king.

The smiling swordsman
October 29, 2012, 02:35 PM
Well, obviously it matters. A bullet with 0 energy would be worthless.

My thoughts exactly.

coolluke01
October 29, 2012, 02:58 PM
I doubt a bullet with 0 energy will penitrate to vitals. The real factor is not energy but penitration. A single number such as energy won't provide the correct information. Bullet weight, surface area, expansion, etc are needed. These still wont tell you exactly how far the bullet will penitrate. Real world testing is required.

Pointing to energy is to simplistic and won't tell the true story.
That is why I say that energy really isn't that important.

AABEN
October 29, 2012, 04:32 PM
Transfer of energy, especially with lower calibers, is important.

For rifle calibers, they are overkill so it's probably not as important in my view.

But for pistols, which are really undersuited for immediate results, energy dump is very important.
Energy is very important in rifles!! You would not take a 22 to kill a bear!

AABEN
October 29, 2012, 04:51 PM
Well, according to Brass Fetcher Speer 158gr Gold Dot penetrates 13.5" and Federal 36gr Champion PLHP penetrates 13.9". Which would you rather carry?
the 158 G D any time over the 36gr ! For the 158 will do more body damage and you will bled out faster and it will have more knock down powder! Why did the navy have large guns on battle ships? Be caws it did a lot more damage than a 5in did! The larger the bullet the more damage it does that is why tanks have large gun and longer barrels!

coop2564
October 29, 2012, 04:56 PM
No not in the standard defensive guns such as 45 acp, 9mm but in like full load 10mm, 357 mag it starts barely making some edge. In standard guns its about the hole.

ku4hx
October 29, 2012, 05:03 PM
Of course energy counts. Ye ol' physics teacher says you go to get work done and that requires an energy be expended. There are no perpetual motion machines and Enthalpy rules.

kokapelli
October 29, 2012, 05:28 PM
the 158 G D any time over the 36gr ! For the 158 will do more body damage and you will bled out faster and it will have more knock down powder! Why did the navy have large guns on battle ships? Be caws it did a lot more damage than a 5in did! The larger the bullet the more damage it does that is why tanks have large gun and longer barrels!
"knockdown power"! You have been watching too many movies. Nothing, nothing in a handgun caliber will knock someone down and that is pretty much true of rifle calibers too.

Battleship guns! The subject of this thread is about handgun calibers.

ATLDave
October 29, 2012, 06:08 PM
Energy is a measurement. I suspect the question that the OP is trying to ask is: Do you believe energy correlates strongly with effectiveness of a handgun round, or is there a better predictive measure?

Energy is out of fashion right now along with fast-and-small bullets. For a long time, people engaged in some magical thinking about "energy dump" by itself being the primary incapacitation or killing mechanism of handgun rounds. The debunkers assembled empirical data suggesting that the primary method of forcible incapacitation is, instead, intersection of the wound channel with something immediately required for survival/aggression/action.

Many who are drawn to debunking and/or who crave a definitive and simple world-view went on to conclude that this is the ONLY meaningful mechanism of incapacitation. If one takes that view, then energy is important only to the extent that it predicts the dimensions of the wound channel. There are other calculations and experimentations that predict the wound channel better than energy, so energy is not viewed as being the most important number at the moment.

I have my suspicions that things are more complex, and that there are some shock/pressure/cavity incapacitation mechanisms that sometimes come into play. There are still a lot of "one shot stops" to explain where the CNS wasn't touched if a bullet is nothing more than a loud hole-punch.

Only a fool would take Wikipedia to be the gospel truth, but some of the controversy is laid out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

In the end, nobody yet KNOWS the truth of this matter. There are competing theories, each of which has some evidence. Keep an open but skeptical mind.

ozo
October 29, 2012, 06:16 PM
"It's interesting to see how people see what they want to see, isn't it."---

PERFECTLY !

CZ57
October 29, 2012, 09:12 PM
Looks like the Federal 147 gr JHPs expand quite well given their "diminished" energy-

http://www.luckygunner.com/catalog/p...32/image/12515

The Winchester Ranger 147s -RA9T and RA9B- do pretty well, too.
__________________

Well, almost anyone's JHP looks good in promo pics. Take a look at the test in calibrated 10% ballistic gel. Sure, the newer 147s expand and penetrate but they don't equal the total wound volumes created by the better 124 +Ps and +P+ that penetrate as well as the standard pressure 147s. For that reason, if I used a 147 gr. JHP load, it would be rated +P because of better expansion and total wound volume compared to the standard pressure 147. If you want to post something meaningful, post some pics comparing the 124 +P and +P+ loads compared to 147 gr. Standard pressure loads tested in ballistic gel. ;)

easyg
October 29, 2012, 09:46 PM
Well, if the energy of the round is not relevant then why is a 357 more effective than a 22?

Is it? A .22 to the heart or head should put something down just as easy as anything other handgun caliber that's why shot placement will always be king.
Not necessarily....

I work with a young lady who has the nickname "bullet-head".
She was hit in the head by a stray bullet (probably by some idiot shooting in to the air).
She didn't even know she had been shot at first....she thought a bee had stung her, but it wouldn't stop bleeding.
She went to the hospital and an X-ray showed that it was a slug.
The doctor removed it and it was a .22 slug...she still has it today.
It didn't fracture or enter the skull.

Now imagine if it has been a .50 round!!!

Yes, shot placement is king.
But with equal shot placement the more energized round is going to perform better.

481
October 29, 2012, 10:03 PM
Well, almost anyone's JHP looks good in promo pics. Take a look at the test in calibrated 10% ballistic gel. Sure, the newer 147s expand and penetrate but they don't equal the total wound volumes created by the better 124 +Ps and +P+ that penetrate as well as the standard pressure 147s.

Actually, the 147s produce slightly greater wound volumes than the 124 +Ps and +P+s and don't need those elevated pressures to do so.

For that reason, if I used a 147 gr. JHP load, it would be rated +P because of better expansion and total wound volume compared to the standard pressure 147.

The 147 gr +Ps only leave the barrel ~50 fps faster than the standard pressure 147s- heck, that's less than the variance between most of the pistols that it'll be fired in.

According to the Schwartz bullet penetration model, an increase of 50 fps in a 147 gr JHP that expands to 0.65" will only give you about 3/10ths inch more penetration over the slower standard pressure 147 gr. JHPs @ 1000 fps. It's a negligible difference.

If you want to post something meaningful, post some pics comparing the 124 +P and +P+ loads compared to 147 gr. Standard pressure loads tested in ballistic gel. ;)

Nah, I'm good- already posted something meaningful. ;)

hammerklavier
October 29, 2012, 10:09 PM
Well, obviously it matters. A bullet with 0 energy would be worthless.

Energy: the ability to do work (in this case, make holes in things). It's got to be important. I think the question you were trying to ask is, "Should I use light for caliber, high energy rounds, or heavy rounds with greater momentum/penetration?"

CZ57
October 29, 2012, 10:14 PM
Actually, all you've posted are your opinions. Nothing meaningful about it. Like I said, post the gel test pics. For one thing better +P 147s are traveling from 1125 FPS or faster whereas the standard pressure 147 is subsonic producing less than 1000 FPS at the muzzle and usually less at about 950 FPS. The disparity is considerably greater than 50 FPS.

I have yet to see a gel test where 147s were producing greater wound volumes than 124 +P or +P+. Show me the money!

It may be negligible to you but at .65" diameter and 3/10" deeper penetration still equates to greater wound volume and your assumption that a +P 147 is only going 50 FPS is absolutely wrong unless you've managed to find the weakest 147 +P I've ever heard of. ;)

Deaf Smith
October 29, 2012, 10:18 PM
Do you think energy is an important factor in handgun calibers?
Energy helps (more that is), weight helps, bullet diameter helps, bullet design helps, but really shot placement helps the most.

Deaf

481
October 29, 2012, 10:49 PM
Actually, all you've posted are your opinions.

Funny- so have you. ;)

Nothing meaningful about it. Like I said, post the gel test pics. For one thing better +P 147s are traveling from 1125 FPS or faster whereas the standard pressure 147 is subsonic producing less than 1000 FPS at the muzzle and usually less at about 950 FPS. The disparity is considerably greater than 50 FPS.

Lighten up, dude.

Those are the specs for the Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2) and Federal HST 147 gr JHP +P (P9HST4).

Your "better 147 gr +Ps", whatever those are :confused:, are nothing more than a vague superlative meant to distract from the issue under discussion.

I have yet to see a gel test where 147s were producing greater wound volumes than 124 +P or +P+. Show me the money!

Then you haven't seen many tests.

Look 'em up, they're easy enough to find.

It may be negligible to you but at .65" diameter and 3/10" deeper penetration still equates to greater wound volume and your assumption that a +P 147 is only going 50 FPS is absolutely wrong unless you've managed to find the weakest 147 +P I've ever heard of. ;)

The difference isn't even significant, it'd have to be a lot more to rise to the level of being "negligible". It's barely a rounding error.

An increase of just 3/10ths of an inch of penetration with an expanded JHP (@ 0.65") amounts to a difference of just 1.6 grams (or about 6/100ths of an ounce) of damaged tissue according to the Schwartz bullet penetration model.

For the sake of comparison, the MacPherson bullet penetration model concurs with those results yielding an increase of just 1.2 grams (or about 4/100ths of an ounce) of additional crushed tissue for that extra 3/10ths of an inch.

As for the quoted muzzle velocities, check out the specs for the Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2 is 1000fps) and Federal HST 147 gr JHP +P (P9HST4 is 1050fps)- it's all there.

1SOW
October 30, 2012, 12:06 AM
Show me a round that can offer adequate penetration with no energy.
Here we have it.

An "adequate" size and type bullet moving at an "adequate" speed is not significantly inferior to a bullet 50% bigger doing the same. The bigger bullet may have "more" energy, but it's effectiveness for SD is not 50% better.

So, yes energy matters up to a point; but not in a linear proportion up to practical sized SD handgun calibers.. A bowling ball would be near 100% effective at the proper speed.

leadcounsel
October 30, 2012, 12:30 AM
Energy does all sorts of things, like push bullets faster. The transfer of energy INTO a creature also causes shock - the more energy the more shock.

NG VI
October 30, 2012, 12:43 AM
There really isn't a better 147 bullet for defense use than the HST, it is one of the best in class for expansion and consistency, it reliably gets between twelve and thirteen inches of penetration in comparative testing, and it is one of the least sensitive JHP designs as far as clothing is concerned.

You may be able to buy a 147 going faster, or a 124 putting up better energy numbers, but you really can't use objective testing and claim that any of them work better than the 147 HST does.

It also apparently has done quite well for police departments who have had shootings while carrying it.

Spend some time here, this company has put a lot of money into research and development, and has put on a lot of test seminars comparing various service calibers.

http://le.atk.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx

Here's a comparison of the 124, 124+P, and 147 HST, along with the 115+P+ and 124+P Gold Dots. They all seem to work pretty well, doesn't really seem like differences in energy numbers have as much of an impact as choosing a well-designed bullet does.

CZ57
October 30, 2012, 01:26 AM
Those are the specs for the Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2) and Federal HST 147 gr JHP +P (P9HST4).

Your "better 147 gr +Ps", whatever those are , are nothing more than a vague superlative meant to distract from the issue under discussion.

Well, I'm glad you could find 1 example. There are +P loads available from Double-Tap, Buffalo Bore that are rated 1125 FPS or higher and Underwood Ammo has a 147 gr. JHP rated at 1175 FPS and +P+. They all use bonded bullets. Stick that in your theoretical Mcpherson modeler. No need to be in LE to buy from any of these companies either.

You can also go to Hornady's website and check out the new 135 gr. +P Critical Duty that is clearly better than a standard pressure 147 and it passes all FBI barrier penetration tests.

The only reason to use standard pressure 147 gr. JHPs is if you're recoil sensitive. Any serious shooter should be able to master 124 gr. +P or +P+ JHPs. If not consider the 135 gr. +P Critical Duty. ;)

CZ57
October 30, 2012, 01:49 AM
Here's a comparison of the 124, 124+P, and 147 HST, along with the 115+P+ and 124+P Gold Dots. They all seem to work pretty well, doesn't really seem like differences in energy numbers have as much of an impact as choosing a well-designed bullet does.

But what you don't see is the total wound volume these bullets produce in ballistic gel. You can go to www.m4carbine.net and see a fairly good stahdard pressure 147 @ around 1025 FPS which is about as good as it gets for standard pressure 147s and compare it to the 124 gr. JHP shown that is also standard pressure and the wound volume is both larger and better defined with the 124 gr. JHP load. Move up to 124 gr. +P or +P+ and it's a whole different ball game. ;)

Ignition Override
October 30, 2012, 03:17 AM
Edited.

maskedman504
October 30, 2012, 04:15 AM
Would you rather get kicked in the jewels by a five year old or kicked in the kneecap by a donkey?

Neither.

kokapelli
October 30, 2012, 09:08 AM
Let's say that you have never owned a handgun. You might first buy a .22LR in order to train with many rds. at a low cost, and then ponder the complex factors associated with legal carry.

As a possible second step, for me a potential carry gun must be concealable wearing my regular clothes in the Memphis climate.
I know very little about IWB, and have no idea whether it would be comfortable.

Is the ability to conceal a .380 or Makarov-caliber handgun more important than having (for example) a gun the size of the Beretta 9mm etc, which might require only long, loose-fitting shirts, or a new wardrobe for every situation? I realize from multiple websites and photos that many 9mms are very compact.
Two middle-aged friends who are very experienced with handguns carry the Polish P-64, often in their front pockets.
What does any of this have to do with the subject of this thread?

ATLDave
October 30, 2012, 09:28 AM
But what you don't see is the total wound volume these bullets produce in ballistic gel. You can go to www.m4carbine.net and see a fairly good stahdard pressure 147 @ around 1025 FPS which is about as good as it gets for standard pressure 147s and compare it to the 124 gr. JHP shown that is also standard pressure and the wound volume is both larger and better defined with the 124 gr. JHP load. Move up to 124 gr. +P or +P+ and it's a whole different ball game. ;)

In fairness to the heavy-for-caliber crowd, ballistic gel may show "wound volume" that would be temporary wound cavity in humans that is within the elastic range of tissue. In other words, the impressively large-diameter wound volume may only predict a temporary, non-wounding displacement of tissue in a human, even if the displacement remains in gel.

That said, having your organs moved around can be an overwhelming sensation. Temporary wound cavities may not cause bleeding, but I tend to think the overpoweringly unpleasant and visceral sensation it gives probably incapacitates, at least for a bit, quite a few people hit by bullets. As I mentioned earlier, there are still a lot of one-shot stops by light and fast bullets that don't kill to explain. The Facklerites tend to hand-wave those as "psychological" stops, but stops they remain. Heck, if a bullet somehow instantly transforms a criminal aggressor into a pacifist, then that's good enough - in fact, it's perfect.

481
October 30, 2012, 09:29 AM
Well, I'm glad you could find 1 example. There are +P loads available from Double-Tap, Buffalo Bore that are rated 1125 FPS or higher and Underwood Ammo has a 147 gr. JHP rated at 1175 FPS and +P+. They all use bonded bullets. Stick that in your theoretical Mcpherson modeler.

Now, now......there's no need to be rude. I'd remind you of rule 4 of the THR CoC, posted here for your convenience-

4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Do try to be civil.

If you have misgivings or lack an understanding of these models (Schwartz, MacPherson), you might do yourself a favor and read one or two of the two books.

You can also go to Hornady's website and check out the new 135 gr. +P Critical Duty that is clearly better than a standard pressure 147 and it passes all FBI barrier penetration tests.

Well , we were discussing 124s and 147s, so I am not sure why you are changing horses mid-stream. I see no proof that the 135s are "better" than the 147s or the 124s- again, all I see is another superlative tossed out with no explanation.

The only reason to use standard pressure 147 gr. JHPs is if you're recoil sensitive. Any serious shooter should be able to master 124 gr. +P or +P+ JHPs. If not consider the 135 gr. +P Critical Duty. ;)

I was unaware that the 124s were intended for "serious shooters" (another undefined superlative again? :confused: )- I think all of those rounds (115s, 124s, 135s and 147s) are pretty serious rounds.

So how is that it takes a "serious shooter" to master the 124s?

1911Tuner
October 30, 2012, 09:59 AM
The old axiom states that nothing is everything, but everything is something.

Too many people make a choice based on energy figures alone, and the picture is much bigger. For one thing, muzzle energy doesn't represent impact energy because energy and momentum are velocity dependent. And...The faster the bullet is moving when it hits the air, the more rapid it decelerates. So...The faster, more "energetic" bullet will lose more of that velocity and energy than a slower bullet, even of the same mass...at any distance further than about five feet. The faster/harder the bullet hits the air, the faster/harder the air hits the bullet. Newton's 3rd Law is always lurking.

Also...

Energy...velocity...momentum...are all variable, while only mass is constant.

Thus...The heavier, slower bullet will close the energy gap with the faster, lighter bullet as distances increase.

That Newton and his pesky 3rd Law. Always spoilin' the show.

481
October 30, 2012, 10:02 AM
Yeah, his second law is a real pain in the neck, too. :D

ATLDave
October 30, 2012, 10:42 AM
Thus...The heavier, slower bullet will close the energy gap with the faster, lighter bullet as distances increase.

Well, all else being equal. A heavier wadcutter isn't going to run down a boat-tail spitzer just because it's 10 grains heftier.

rsrocket1
October 30, 2012, 10:53 AM
Well, all else being equal. A heavier wadcutter isn't going to run down a boat-tail spitzer just because it's 10 grains heftier

I haven't seen too many boat-tailed spitzer bullets in handgun calibers, have you?

:pullchain:
Do you think energy counts in handgun calibers?

ATLDave
October 30, 2012, 10:59 AM
No, at least not if you don't count the current craze for rifles-sans-stocks.

And I knew what 1911Tuner meant. He's ordinarily VERY precise, though, and I simply wanted to give an illustration that showed that there were some other factors in there. For most defensive handgun bullets, I'm not sure it matters much. Of course, for defensive handgunning, I'm not sure the comparative velocity loss matters very much either... it takes space and time for the start-slow-finish-fast bullet to first match/exceed the velocity of the decaying fast-starter. (One could easily descend into a Zeno's paradox discussion if one weren't careful.)

NG VI
October 30, 2012, 12:04 PM
But what you don't see is the total wound volume these bullets produce in ballistic gel. You can go to www.m4carbine.net and see a fairly good stahdard pressure 147 @ around 1025 FPS which is about as good as it gets for standard pressure 147s and compare it to the 124 gr. JHP shown that is also standard pressure and the wound volume is both larger and better defined with the 124 gr. JHP load. Move up to 124 gr. +P or +P+ and it's a whole different ball game.

I think you have not yet mentioned the importance of bullet design in service pistol calibers and how it affects their behavior in tissue.

It's the single most important aspect of a defensive handgun bullet, and the only one that makes any real difference, provided you are within the reasonable limits of the discussion.

'147' grain loads do not all behave the same, and their differences are not the result of different speeds and energy figures, because they are all close enough. Same goes for the lighter bullets, they aren't really moving that much faster than the heavyweights, not enough to make the specific bullet in question less important.

Certaindeaf
October 30, 2012, 12:33 PM
The only time foot pounds of energy doesn't "count" is for some of the games where numbers/formulas have to be jiggered to make "major", thus making your .45 viable. lolz

1911Tuner
October 30, 2012, 12:47 PM
Well, all else being equal. A heavier wadcutter isn't going to run down a boat-tail spitzer just because it's 10 grains heftier.

Well...I assumed that everybody understood that I meant with identical bullet shapes...but I guess some people will look for anything to nit-pick.

ATLDave
October 30, 2012, 01:32 PM
Of course we will! ;)

Just trying to give full effect to your admonition that "everything is something." Bullet shape is something. It may not be material, but I'm not sure that decay of velocity is material at defensive handgun (which is what this thread seems to be about) ranges, either. I could be wrong, though.

Skribs
October 30, 2012, 01:35 PM
I voted "no", but this is a bit of a complicated question. The energy obviously matters in that you need the energy to drive the work, including penetration and possibly expansion; and excess energy for what's needed causes extra recoil. However, in handgun calibers, it's not the energy transfer itself that is causing the permanent damage; it is the mechanical actions of the bullet crushing through tissue. Bullet design is going to be a much bigger factor in wounding potential than the energy provided, especially if you use standard loads. I prefer to look at the terminal ballistics instead of the external ballistics.

CZ57
October 30, 2012, 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CZ57 View Post
Well, I'm glad you could find 1 example. There are +P loads available from Double-Tap, Buffalo Bore that are rated 1125 FPS or higher and Underwood Ammo has a 147 gr. JHP rated at 1175 FPS and +P+. They all use bonded bullets. Stick that in your theoretical Mcpherson modeler.


Now, now......there's no need to be rude. I'd remind you of rule 4 of the THR CoC, posted here for your convenience-

4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Do try to be civil.

If you have misgivings or lack an understanding of these models (Schwartz, MacPherson), you might do yourself a favor and read one or two of the two books.

So now your the conduct police because you know what the result of using the higher energy loads will do in the modeler? Who's being rude? All I said was "stick that in your MacPherson modeler". I think everyone here can recognize someone's attempt to be a subtle smartass.

MacPherson's theories put forth the notion that bullets behave like flying drill-bits. I guess that's because he's a mechanical engineer as well as a Facklerite. It seems that anyone with an interest can become a terminal ballistics expert these days. But go back to the case of the 147 gr. HST vs. the 147 gr. +P HST, since that's the load you seem to understand. The +P penetrates only 3/10" deeper and by MacPherson's model all that will achieve is to cut the wound cylinder by 86% of recovered diameter with a depth of 3/10" in addition to the permanent crush cavity created by the standard pressure 147 gr. HST. That's it and all he considers.

What is not considered in the model is the point where expansion begins, rapidity of expansion, the larger temporary stretch cavity created causing a larger Total Wound Volume. Again, without the actual representation showing the two rounds fired into ballistic gelatin your assumptions are simple hyperbole.

I only introduced the Critical Duty 135 +P into the conversation as a lower recoil option for those that may be recoil sensitive. But at least there is actual gel tests that can be viewed at the Hornady site. You, on the other hand have provided nothing but conjecture along with a recommendation to read two books. One of which I already know to be seriously flawed.

I also posted a link to m4carbine.net where anyone can go to see a ballistic gel test of various loads including on of the better performing standard pressure 147s and a standard pressure 124. No need to even see a 124 +P because the standard pressure 124 is out performing the standard pressure 147. There, at least, the viewer can decide for himself which is the better performing load.

One thing I can say for the 147 gr. JHP is that it's sectional density is very high due to it's length and .355" diameter. It is actually less dependent on KE than the 124 because it is capable of higher momentum at the right velocity. So lets use the simple method of comparing power factor of the two loads that is fairly representative of momentum. Your 147 gr. HST with a muzzle velocity of 1000 FPS has a power factor of 147. I'll use the example of the SPEER 124 gr. +P Gold Dot which is rated 1220 FPS at the muzzle and has a power factor of 151. The 147 develops 326 Ft/Lbs of KE at the muzzle. The 124 gr. +P Gold Dot develops 410 Ft/Lbs at the muzzle. So not only does the 124 have a greater amount of KE it also provides higher momentum than the 147 that's more dependent on momentum for expansion. The differences can be seen by examining rounds fired into %10 ballistic gelatin. So if I expected a 147 to perform as well as a 124 +P, I'd choose a 147 gr. +P.

And what I meant about "serious shooters" is that anyone contemplating carrying a handgun for self defense should be able to master the 124 gr. +P. They should practice until they can. If that doesn't work and you still decide to carry concealed, then go with a standard pressure 147. And before someone brings up something like accelerated wear by use of +P ammo, I'll remind everyone that when I started shooting and handloading 9mm, there was no +P. There was the pressure standard that had been in use since 1902 and that is 35,700 CUP. Test a similar load by the SAAMI PSI method and you'll find it achieves about 38,500 PSI. The SAAMI rating for +P. The European standard of 36,200 PSI CIP is almost an identical pressure they just use a slightly different test method. You can bet that any quality American or European manufactured 9mm Pistol is designed around the original pressure standard of 35,700 CUP. The difference being that pistols intended for the American market are sprung lighter. ;)

NG VI
October 30, 2012, 08:24 PM
What is not considered in the model is the point where expansion begins, rapidity of expansion, the larger temporary stretch cavity created causing a larger Total Wound Volume.

Both controlled by bullet design, not by fifty or a hundred feet per second here or there.

I don't think a temporary stretch cavity caused by bullets of the size, weight, and speed we're talking about here have much impact on the final wound either. Flesh is plenty elastic.

Bullet design accounts for the differences between final measurements of handgun wounds far more than specific weights and velocities do.

481
October 30, 2012, 08:31 PM
So now your the conduct police because you know what the result of using the higher energy loads will do in the modeler? Who's being rude? All I said was "stick that in your MacPherson modeler". I think everyone here can recognize someone's attempt to be a subtle smartass.

MacPherson's theories put forth the notion that bullets behave like flying drill-bits. I guess that's because he's a mechanical engineer as well as a Facklerite. It seems that anyone with an interest can become a terminal ballistics expert these days. But go back to the case of the 147 gr. HST vs. the 147 gr. +P HST, since that's the load you seem to understand. The +P penetrates only 3/10" deeper and by MacPherson's model all that will achieve is to cut the wound cylinder by 86% of recovered diameter with a depth of 3/10" in addition to the permanent crush cavity created by the standard pressure 147 gr. HST. That's it and all he considers.

What is not considered in the model is the point where expansion begins, rapidity of expansion, the larger temporary stretch cavity created causing a larger Total Wound Volume. Again, without the actual representation showing the two rounds fired into ballistic gelatin your assumptions are simple hyperbole.

I only introduced the Critical Duty 135 +P into the conversation as a lower recoil option for those that may be recoil sensitive. But at least there is actual gel tests that can be viewed at the Hornady site. You, on the other hand have provided nothing but conjecture along with a recommendation to read two books. One of which I already know to be seriously flawed.

I also posted a link to m4carbine.net where anyone can go to see a ballistic gel test of various loads including on of the better performing standard pressure 147s and a standard pressure 124. No need to even see a 124 +P because the standard pressure 124 is out performing the standard pressure 147. There, at least, the viewer can decide for himself which is the better performing load.

One thing I can say for the 147 gr. JHP is that it's sectional density is very high due to it's length and .355" diameter. It is actually less dependent on KE than the 124 because it is capable of higher momentum at the right velocity. So lets use the simple method of comparing power factor of the two loads that is fairly representative of momentum. Your 147 gr. HST with a muzzle velocity of 1000 FPS has a power factor of 147. I'll use the example of the SPEER 124 gr. +P Gold Dot which is rated 1220 FPS at the muzzle and has a power factor of 151. The 147 develops 326 Ft/Lbs of KE at the muzzle. The 124 gr. +P Gold Dot develops 410 Ft/Lbs at the muzzle. So not only does the 124 have a greater amount of KE it also provides higher momentum than the 147 that's more dependent on momentum for expansion. The differences can be seen by examining rounds fired into %10 ballistic gelatin. So if I expected a 147 to perform as well as a 124 +P, I'd choose a 147 gr. +P.

And what I meant about "serious shooters" is that anyone contemplating carrying a handgun for self defense should be able to master the 124 gr. +P. They should practice until they can. If that doesn't work and you still decide to carry concealed, then go with a standard pressure 147. And before someone brings up something like accelerated wear by use of +P ammo, I'll remind everyone that when I started shooting and handloading 9mm, there was no +P. There was the pressure standard that had been in use since 1902 and that is 35,700 CUP. Test a similar load by the SAAMI PSI method and you'll find it achieves about 38,500 PSI. The SAAMI rating for +P. The European standard of 36,200 PSI CIP is almost an identical pressure they just use a slightly different test method. You can bet that any quality American or European manufactured 9mm Pistol is designed around the original pressure standard of 35,700 CUP. The difference being that pistols intended for the American market are sprung lighter. ;)

Nope, I'm not the "conduct police", but I do recognize rudeness when I see it. Such behavior is indicative of an unhealthy emotional investment in the topic and your defensiveness, not to mention your misrepresentation of MacPherson's model, confirms it.

Since you continue to resort to such behavior, I see no value in continuing any further with you.

Done. :)

CZ57
October 30, 2012, 08:43 PM
I see no value in you ever have becoming part of this thread. ;)

CZ57
October 30, 2012, 08:54 PM
Both controlled by bullet design, not by fifty or a hundred feet per second here or there.

I don't think a temporary stretch cavity caused by bullets of the size, weight, and speed we're talking about here have much impact on the final wound either. Flesh is plenty elastic.

Bullet design accounts for the differences between final measurements of handgun wounds far more than specific weights and velocities do.

Try this then, consider the doctrine of people like Martin Facler, Roberts the Dentist and MacPherson the mechanical engineer. They don't believe that the temporary stretch cavity has any significance in wounding either. Try getting them to explain why you can get equal expansion and greater depth of penetration with a 158 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum, yet the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum with its higher KE is a better stopper. The first thing any of them will start is a diatribe on how flawed the statistical data is with Marshall & Sanow's Street Stoppers. Marshall & Sanow both admit that they are not scientists and that the one shot sop data is not science, nor a tactical philososphy. It's simply a reporting of events where a police officer expended one round to stop a fight where either the perp stopped aggression immediately or failed to move over about 10' from his aggressive position. Among all of the reports, the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum has been the most effective round in LE history. ;)

2zulu1
October 30, 2012, 11:07 PM
This is where the KE model falls apart;

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336612

Compare the KE advantage of the 10mm/180gr Gold Dot with the 45auto/230gr Gold Dot, same penetration and expansion. Check the 230gr Gold Dot with the uber high velocity 9x25mm/125gr Gold Dot, slight penetration advantage for the 45auto, but a sizable crush cavity advantage for the heavy and "slow".

CZ57
October 30, 2012, 11:20 PM
I guess I don't get it. At the link you provided I don't see any gel test pics, just a list of cartridge performance after passing through four layers of denim and two layers of light cotton.

Both the rounds you mention penetrate to 15.25". The 230 gr. Gold Dot expands to .95" and the 180 gr. 10mm expands to .96". According to the beliefs of experts like Fackler, MacPherson and Roberts, you throw energy and temporary stretch cavity out the window and in this case the 180 gr. 10mm by their standards would be the better stopping load by virtue of .01" greater expansion. ;)

481
October 30, 2012, 11:32 PM
This is where the KE model falls apart;

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336612

Compare the KE advantage of the 10mm/180gr Gold Dot with the 45auto/230gr Gold Dot, same penetration and expansion. Check the 230gr Gold Dot with the uber high velocity 9x25mm/125gr Gold Dot, slight penetration advantage for the 45auto, but a sizable crush cavity advantage for the heavy and "slow".

As usual, 2z1, your comprehension of the salient issues is excellent. ;)

Kinetic energy, while it plays a part in how a bullet behaves, is the least efficient/appropriate way to analyze terminal performance as both MacPherson (an MIT educated aerospace engineer) and Schwartz explain below:

Excerpt from Bullet Penetration by MacPherson:

“. . . every now and then someone wants to analyze or think about a problem involving energy, and when they attempt to do this without really understanding energy or other thermodynamic concepts the result is unfortunate. One such problem is the analysis of any of the various aspects of terminal ballistics; some individuals with inadequate technical training and experience have unwisely and unproductively attempted to use energy concepts in the analysis of bullet impact and penetration in soft tissue. (Many others have simply assumed that energy is the dominant effect in Wound Trauma Incapacitation; this assumption is even more simplistic than the attempt to actually analyze the dynamics problem with energy relationships, and is no more successful).

Any attempt to derive the effect of bullet impact in tissue using energy relationships is ill advised and wrong because the problem cannot be analyzed that way and only someone without the requisite technical background would try. Many individuals who have not had technical training have nonetheless heard of Newton’s laws of motion, but most of them aren’t really familiar with these laws and would be surprised to learn Newton’s laws describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships. The dynamic variable that is conserved in collisions is momentum; kinetic energy is not only not conserved in real collisions, but is transferred into thermal energy in a way that usually cannot be practically modeled. The energy in collisions can be traced, but usually only by solving the dynamics by other means and then determining the energy flow.

Understanding energy and how it relates to bullet terminal ballistics is useful even though energy is not a useful parameter in most small arms ballistics work.”

Excerpt from Quantitative Ammunition Selection by Schwartz:

While a projectile in motion possesses both momentum and kinetic energy, the penetration of a transient projectile through a homogenous fluid or hydrocolloidal medium constitutes an inelastic collision mandating that it be treated as a momentum transaction. Therefore, a momentum-based analysis of projectile motion is the most equitable approach in constructing a terminal ballistic performance model. Although it may be possible to devise a mathematical model based upon the expenditure of a projectile’s kinetic energy as it traverses a medium, there is nothing to be gained from the pursuit of such an unnecessarily complex approach.

CZ57
October 31, 2012, 02:28 AM
Theory and conjecture. Thanks for pointing out that MacPherson is an aerospace engineer. He should stick to his trade. His hypothesis are only tested by theoretical models, or are directly traceable back to the philosophy of Martin Fackler. And for those that don't know, it was Martin Fackler's theories dominated by penetration that led the FBI and other LE agencies to choose the 147 gr. JHP 9mm load in the late 80s. These rounds failed to provide adequate expansion and in some cases innocent bystanders were struck by overpenetrating bullets. Then came the "10mm Lite" based on the same principles dominated by penetration that proved to be only a marginal stopper in actual shootings. Marshall & Sanow's reports rated it at around 80% effective while the measuring stick for all LE ammo was the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum with three different loads coming in at 96%.

Next on the Fackler hit parade came the "Medium Velocity" 165 gr. JHP load in .40 S&W. Another lackluster performer that didn't last long. All of this at taxpayer expense, by the way. Rather than correct his own mistakes, Fackler and his followers began a crusade against the data collection method of Marshall & Sanow. Two police officers and laymen that simply compiled reports where only one shot was required to stop a fight by LE officers across the country. When you think about it, it's not much different from ballistic gel testing. Only one round can be examined at a time in order to compare it to any other tested round/caliber.

Part of Fackler's history might help explain some of his theories. He's a former Army doctor who had actual experience in treating wounds on the battlefield. The battlefield where only full metal jacket projectiles are used and jacketed hollow-points are forbidden and not used. He also examined some shootings where JHPs had been used but they were post-mortem and corpses do not provide the best representation of what occurs in a gun battle.

The one conclusion that Fackler arrived at and is very useful today is the minimum 12" of penetration standard. I think we can all agree that expansion is a very important factor in the wounding process. Penetration without expansion, well, you might as well use FMJ ammo. Expansion without penetration as we learned from the 1986 "Miami Shootout", also ends up with negative results. Heavier bullets definitely have a momentum advantage. For a lighter bullet to have as much momentum as a heavier one it must have higher velocity and KE. A 155 gr. JHP at 1200 FPS in .40 S&W that penetrates 12" after barriers is as good or better than a subsonic 180 gr. load just as a 124 gr. +P 9mm developing higher KE as well as higher momentum compared to a standard pressure subsonic 147, the 124 gr.+P will be the better stopper. The only subsonic round I'd consider for use is the 230 gr. JHP in .45 ACP traveling at 900 FPS or better. It is not as dependent on KE because of its high momentum, nonetheless, it achieves more than 400 Ft/Lbs of KE and falls into the window I mentioned in my earlier post with 400 - 600 Ft/lbs being the most effective range for defensive handgun rounds. This has proven the be the case when examining one shot stop data. Actual shootings, not unproven theories.

Bullet technology has definitely improved but I believe the 400 - 600 Ft/Lb window is still valid. So it's this simple; choose a load that has proven to provide a minimum 12" of penetration after passing through 4 layers of denim while achieving 400 - 600 Ft/Lbs of KE regardless of bullet weight because momentum can be provided in two different ways. Heavy bullets with enough velocity to achieve 400 Ft/Lbs of KE like the 230 gr. JHP in .45 ACP, or a lighter bullet that may need to be closer to the high end of 600 Ft/Lb as in the case of the 125 gr. JHP in .357 SIG or Magnum.

Let the theorist play their games because in the end it is only theory. Nothing has been proven empirically. For every theoretical opinion you consider you should also consider the one shot stop data where reality has proven what works and what doesn't. ;)

2zulu1
October 31, 2012, 03:34 AM
I guess I don't get it. At the link you provided I don't see any gel test pics, just a list of cartridge performance after passing through four layers of denim and two layers of light cotton.

Both the rounds you mention penetrate to 15.25". The 230 gr. Gold Dot expands to .95" and the 180 gr. 10mm expands to .96". According to the beliefs of experts like Fackler, MacPherson and Roberts, you throw energy and temporary stretch cavity out the window and in this case the 180 gr. 10mm by their standards would be the better stopping load by virtue of .01" greater expansion. ;)
In post #63 you used Double Tap, Buffalo Bore and Underwood ammunition to support a statement, yet you didn't post any ballistic gel pictures. I post DT's gel data and now you need pics, why the double standard?

It's interesting that you should denigrate MacPherson and at the same time want pictures of bullet performance in ballistic gel. Guess what, it was MacPherson who did the research, bullet testing and came up with the formulas that validated Fackler's ballistic gel composition as a soft tissue simulant. It doesn't seem to me that a person who conducts the tedious and time consuming tasks of shooting 400 rounds of ammunition, into an aggregate total of a ton of ballistic gel, be considered a theorist.

You can't have it both ways, if you accept the use of ballistic gel as a medium to determine bullet penetration in soft tissue, then you accept MacPherson's research. If you don't accept MacPherson's research, then you can't use ballistic gel as a test medium.

Either accept MacPherson's kinetic energy quote as posted by 481 or find a testing medium other than ballistic gel. BTW, MacPherson's book has pictures of bullets in it, the book by Schwartz doesn't, but both are excellent references for those who wish to intelligently discuss terminal ballistics.

The purpose and composition of ballistic gel is to measure bullet penetration in soft tissue, that's all.

There's a lot of excellent information at this website, I linked to this "myth" chapter because of its appropriateness to this thread.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#energy

vba
October 31, 2012, 08:27 AM
I'm in the mass x velocity, big fat bullet and momentum camp...

Certaindeaf
October 31, 2012, 08:49 AM
.If you don't accept MacPherson's research, then you can't use ballistic gel as a test medium..
Sure you can. You can shoot the test medium with a 125 grain .357 and then logically, all ammo that didn't perform like that/have those characteristics would essentially be inferior since it's the undisputed stopper.

481
October 31, 2012, 10:18 AM
In post #63 you used Double Tap, Buffalo Bore and Underwood ammunition to support a statement, yet you didn't post any ballistic gel pictures. I post DT's gel data and now you need pics, why the double standard?

It's interesting that you should denigrate MacPherson and at the same time want pictures of bullet performance in ballistic gel. Guess what, it was MacPherson who did the research, bullet testing and came up with the formulas that validated Fackler's ballistic gel composition as a soft tissue simulant. It doesn't seem to me that a person who conducts the tedious and time consuming tasks of shooting 400 rounds of ammunition, into an aggregate total of a ton of ballistic gel, be considered a theorist.

You can't have it both ways, if you accept the use of ballistic gel as a medium to determine bullet penetration in soft tissue, then you accept MacPherson's research. If you don't accept MacPherson's research, then you can't use ballistic gel as a test medium.

Either accept MacPherson's kinetic energy quote as posted by 481 or find a testing medium other than ballistic gel. BTW, MacPherson's book has pictures of bullets in it, the book by Schwartz doesn't, but both are excellent references for those who wish to intelligently discuss terminal ballistics.

The purpose and composition of ballistic gel is to measure bullet penetration in soft tissue, that's all.

There's a lot of excellent information at this website, I linked to this "myth" chapter because of its appropriateness to this thread.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#energy

2z1,

Hadn't run across the rathcoombe 'site before. Lots there to digest. Thanks.

I also find it funny (and hysterically so) that those who'd dismiss without any reasonable basis the empirical research found in Quantitative Ammunition Selection and Bullet Penetration are so quick to hold up Marshall & Sanow as an examplar of how empirical research should be conducted given the numerous analyses that reveals that M&S manipulated their data in order to arrive at a desired conclusion, unless of course, one considers one chance in 3.25 trillion to be "good odds" that M&S actually conducted a legitimate piece of research.

http://firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm#TooGoodToBeTrue

http://firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

http://firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm

What's even funnier is when the empirical research done by any other researcher is dismissed out-of-hand as "theory and conjecture" and then in the same breath utters as an example, the names of Marshall & Sanow- arguably two of the worst offenders where data manipulation is concerned. :D

1858
October 31, 2012, 10:47 AM
The FBI doesn't select a product based directly on energy calculations. Their selection is based on the bullet's performance in gelatin (eight different tests), accuracy and pressure. The barrier tests are the most important with bullet penetration accounting for 67% of the total penetration score. Bullet weight retention and expansion each account for approximately 16% each.

Energy obviously plays a part in bullet penetration, but more energy isn't always a good thing since it can reduce bullet penetration depending on how the bullet expands on contact with a barrier or tissue.

The short version is that energy does "count" in how a bullet performs but it's just one variable.

Shawn Dodson
October 31, 2012, 12:56 PM
Theory and conjecture. Thanks for pointing out that MacPherson is an aerospace engineer. He should stick to his trade.

Why? What’s your background?

His hypothesis are only tested by theoretical models, or are directly traceable back to the philosophy of Martin Fackler.

"G: How long have you been interested in wound ballistics?

"MacP: I had never thought much about it until the October 1975 issue of the American Rifleman (the NRA magazine) published an article praising the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII) produced by the NIJ (an agency in the Department of Justice) as a scientifically valid answer to the "stopping power" issue. This whole RII concept was badly flawed technically, and I wrote an article in response pointing out the errors and problems. The editor of the American Rifleman declined to publish this article on the basis of "extending a controversy without settling anything" (the NRA is no more standup than any other large organization when it comes to admitting mistakes). This article was eventually published in the April 1976 Guns and Ammo. In 1992 Dr. Martin Fackler was sent a copy of this article by one of his associates. Fackler immediately contacted me to provide him with engineering input on a few wound ballistics issues, and I have been more or less involved with professional wound ballistics ever since."

See - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And for those that don't know, it was Martin Fackler's theories dominated by penetration that led the FBI and other LE agencies to choose the 147 gr. JHP 9mm load in the late 80s. These rounds failed to provide adequate expansion and in some cases innocent bystanders were struck by overpenetrating bullets.

The IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification was developed as an alternative to the FBI Ammunition Tests protocol. The IWBA feels the FBI test program has led to the unfortunate development of handgun bullets that do not expand after passing through heavy clothing. This is due to the FBI’s insistence on testing bullets against various barrier materials (automotive grade sheet metal, drywall, plywood, and laminated automotive windshield glass). The overwhelming majority of bullets designed to perform well in the FBI test program tend to suffer expansion failures when heavy clothing is encountered. This is a common performance deficiency that seems to universally afflict all cartridges across the board.

Then came the "10mm Lite" based on the same principles dominated by penetration that proved to be only a marginal stopper in actual shootings.

The “10mm Lite” was the model for the .40 S&W 180gr load, which has performed very well in actual shootings. 180gr is to .40 S&W what 230gr is to .45 ACP. Both bullet weights have the same sectional density, but .40 S&W (“10mm Lite”) is propelled at slightly higher velocity.

Next on the Fackler hit parade came the "Medium Velocity" 165 gr. JHP load in .40 S&W. Another lackluster performer that didn't last long. All of this at taxpayer expense, by the way. Rather than correct his own mistakes, Fackler and his followers began a crusade against the data collection method of Marshall & Sanow. Two police officers and laymen that simply compiled reports where only one shot was required to stop a fight by LE officers across the country.

You mean like this? http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm

And this?: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/sanow.pdf

BTW, Fackler had nothing to do with the .40 S&W 165gr “medium velocity”.

easyg
October 31, 2012, 01:18 PM
Consider this:

We're talking about self defense, so we're talking about shooting human threats.

With that in mind....

There is no way to reliably predict the penetration of any given round in a shooting.
There are far too many variables at play (size of the threat, body composition of the threat, angle of the shot in relation to the threat's body, clothing worn by the threat, etc...).

There is no way to reliably predict the expansion of any given round in a shooting.
Again, too many variables.


But one can buy ammo that can reliably offer an approximate muzzle energy.


So, why would one discount energy in favor of other far less reliable factors?

kokapelli
October 31, 2012, 01:24 PM
Consider this:

We're talking about self defense, so we're talking about shooting human threats.

With that in mind....

There is no way to reliably predict the penetration of any given round in a shooting.
There are far too many variables at play (size of the threat, body composition of the threat, angle of the shot in relation to the threat's body, clothing worn by the threat, etc...).

There is no way to reliably predict the expansion of any given round in a shooting.
Again, too many variables.


But one can buy ammo that can reliably offer an approximate muzzle energy.


So, why would one discount energy in favor of other far less reliable factors?
Why is that any better of a prediction than actual gelatin tests through various barriers and actually seeing the performance in what has proved to be relatively reliable simulations?

1858
October 31, 2012, 01:34 PM
But one can buy ammo that can reliably offer an approximate muzzle energy. So, why would one discount energy in favor of other far less reliable factors?

I think it's fair to assume that the FBI is under considerably more pressure to "get it right" than the rest of us, and they don't select ammunition based on muzzle energy.

481
October 31, 2012, 01:49 PM
I think it's fair to assume that the FBI is under considerably more pressure to "get it right" than the rest of us, and they don't select ammunition based on muzzle energy.
That's a good point, 1858.

The criteria for a bullet to pass the FBI tests is that it can pass the different test events- it's not like the FBI screens ammunition based on its KE and tests whatever remains after that. I do not believe that there is a KE requirement in the FBI test procedure.

1858
October 31, 2012, 01:52 PM
I do not believe that there is a KE requirement in the FBI test procedure.


Correct!! There isn't even a direct velocity requirement, "just" penetration, weight retention, expansion, accuracy and pressure.

Certaindeaf
October 31, 2012, 02:00 PM
I heard the FBI is going back to the 9.

jimbo555
October 31, 2012, 03:23 PM
J.Edgar Hoover carried a 32 Colt revolver if that means anything!;)

1911Tuner
October 31, 2012, 03:38 PM
J.Edgar Hoover carried a 32 Colt revolver if that means anything!

It's reported that John Browning's favored carry gun was the Colt 1903 Pocket Model.

NG VI
October 31, 2012, 06:38 PM
Try getting them to explain why you can get equal expansion and greater depth of penetration with a 158 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum, yet the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum with its higher KE is a better stopper.


Is it actually a better stopper?

You keep upholding Marshal and Sanow's work as the one true set of data regarding actual shootings, but what you haven't mentioned is that in order to try to have a usable set of data, they threw out a large amount of shooting reports because either the target was hit more than once or was hit in a part of the body they felt disqualified the shooting from being usable in one to one comparisons.

Naturally a heavier recoiling weapon is going to be better represented in a list of single-hit stops, because an equal shooter with a lighter recoiling weapon is better able to land successive hits, giving the target less time to cease their activity before being shot again.

CZ57
October 31, 2012, 10:21 PM
In the M&S one shot stop data the 125 gr. JHP in .357 is #1 and easily better than the 158 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum. The only load that rivals the 125 gr. JHP in .357 is 3 or 4 loads of 230 gr. JHP in .45 ACP. So their data does not always favor lighter faster bullets. I'll put my money where my mouth is because I use the Remington 230 gr. JHP in .45 ACP. Here in Texas the DPS used the .357 Magnum as their service weapon almost as soon as .357 Magnum revolvers became available. When Jacketed hollow-points came on the seen the DPS began using the 125 gr. JHP and did so until they transitioned to autoloaders not so many years ago. The 125 gr. .357 has a sterling record with the DPS so when they did their testing to select their new service pistol and cartridge, they looked for the round that came closest to performing like the 125 gr. .357 Magnum and the only round that passed their test was the .357 SIG. No subsonic passed the testing. Tell me, what LE agency has more actual gunfighting experience than the Texas DPS and Rangers? Nobody but the US Border Patrol and that's happened in recent years.

I keep referring to M&S because it's the only data that covers real world gun battles and not just testing theories in ballistic gelatin. Of course they threw out shootings where more than one shot was fired. How else can you compare one load/caliber directly to another load/caliber. You do the same thing when testing in ballistic gel. One round compared to one round. ALL one shot events were included in the data regardless of where the bullet impacted the perp. Don't take my word for it, anyone that's interested can go to: www.stoppingpower.net where Evan Marshall participates in his own forum.

I don't consider the one shot stop data to be the be-all end-all, but I do believe that there were enough shootings to conclude Ed Sanow's theory concerning the 400 - 600 Ft/Lb window. I also believe that Fackler got it right with the 12" minimum penetration standard. I just don't buy into one single theory where the only evidence is ballistic gel testing or cadavers that may have been shot multiple times. I believe it's useful, I just also believe the one shot stop data is useful as well. More recent ballistic experts are making claims about loads like the California Highway Patrol's success with the 180 gr. JHP in .40 S&W but the data is very skewed and does include perps that were shot multiple times. How are you going to compare one round to another when a perp has been struck by multiple bullets?

We have better bullets today for sure and there may be some that will get it done at under 400 Ft/Lbs but the standard pressure 147 gr. JHP in 9mm only develops 326 Ft/Lbs @ 1000 FPS velocity. That's just not enough for me to bet my life on. We all know that it takes more skill to control heavier recoil, but do you guys actually consider 124 gr. +P JHPs in 9mm hard to control. I cut my teeth on magnum revolvers and find the 124 +P pretty easy to control. But like I said, my carry load is the 230 gr. JHP in .45 ACP and I can shoot it as fast and accurate as I need to. ;)

ugaarguy
November 1, 2012, 03:45 AM
And for those that don't know, it was Martin Fackler's theories dominated by penetration that led the FBI and other LE agencies to choose the 147 gr. JHP 9mm load in the late 80s. These rounds failed to provide adequate expansion and in some cases innocent bystanders were struck by overpenetrating bullets.
The 147gr Federal HST expands more and penetrates less than the 124gr +P GDHP. This is just further evidence that bullet construction and momentum are far more critical than energy in terminal ballistics.

We'll leave out that M&S so-called data set is seriously flawed, fails under scientific scrutiny, and was very likely fabricated.

x_wrench
November 1, 2012, 07:42 AM
probably not so much in the smaller ones. those basically push a hole into its target, allowing blood to leak out. but in the big, hunting guns it definitely does.

Shawn Dodson
November 1, 2012, 08:25 AM
I keep referring to M&S because it's the only data that covers real world gun battles and not just testing theories in ballistic gelatin.

Your beliefs about "just testing theories in ballistic gelatin" are incorrect:

"Given all the wound ballistic data that has been published over the past two decades, I am surprised regarding the continued amount of misinformation being perpetuated about this subject, especially in light of the voluminous results available from CONUS OIS [officer involved shooting] incidents, as well as OCONUS combat results. Anyone who has actually taken the time to read the research (not just peruse the internet) will clearly realize that far from being the "dark ages" we are now in the "Renaissance" of wound ballistics.

"A variety of equally important methodologies are used for terminal performance testing, including actual shooting incident reconstruction, forensic evidence analysis, and post-mortem data and/or surgical findings; properly conducted ethical animal test results; and laboratory testing—this includes the use of tissue simulants proven to have correlation with living tissue. Both diagnostic imaging (radiograph, CT, MRI) and high speed video are frequently used tools. Some individuals seem to be under the mistaken impression that one of these areas is more important than others--this is not the case, as each category provides important information to researchers.

"The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents.

"The last decade of OCONUS military operations have provided a tremendous amount of combat derived terminal performance information. The U.S. government gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to form the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in combat the past few years. The test protocol that was found to be correct, valid, and became the agreed upon JSWB-IPT “standard” evolved from the one first developed by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the 1980’s, promoted by the IWBA in the 1990’s, and used by most reputable wound ballistic researchers.

"The JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data. The whole raison d'ętre of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Physiological damage potential is the only metric that has been shown to have any correlation with field results in actual shooting incidents, based on law enforcement autopsy findings, as well as historical and ongoing combat trauma results. In other words a damage-based metric has relevance to and accurately reflects the real world, while other measures of "lethality" and "incapacitation" are elaborate fantasy games of mathematical calculations and engineering statistics that fail to truly reflect the fact that in the gritty realm of face-to-face combat, incapacitating the enemy is about rapidly inflicting sufficient physiological damage to the enemy’s critical anatomic structures in order to stop that opponent from continuing to be a lethal threat. The FBI BRF, NSWC Crane, USMC, and USSOCOM are all using physiological damage based metrics.

"Folks who choose to ignore these documented and verified facts may not like this, but based on all of this carefully collected, independently validated, real-world derived data the wounding characteristics an optimal combat/LE/personal defense rifle projectile are well known."

-- DocGKR: http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1375793&postcount=97



Of course they threw out shootings where more than one shot was fired. How else can you compare one load/caliber directly to another load/caliber.

See - "Reality of the Street? A Practical Analysis of Offender Gunshot Wound Reaction for Law Enforcement" at - http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number2/article421.htm

Shawn Dodson
November 1, 2012, 10:43 AM
In regard to the OP's question: Does Energy Count in Handgun Calibers?

"As clearly illustrated in the relevant scientific literature over the past 20 years, kinetic energy or momentum transfer from a projectile to tissue is not a wounding mechanism. For that matter, neither is velocity. The amount of energy "deposited" in the body by a bullet is approximately equal to the amount transferred to the body when a person is hit by a fast pitch baseball. The amount of kinetic energy "deposited" or momentum transferred to a body by a projectile is not directly proportional to the amount of tissue damaged and is not a measure of wounding power. Wounds of vastly differing severity can be inflicted by bullets of identical velocity, kinetic energy, and momentum. What the bullet does in the body--whether it yaws, deforms, or fragments, how deeply it penetrates, and what tissue it passes through is what determines wound severity, not velocity, kinetic energy, or momentum."

DocGKR - http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=577782&postcount=8

And...

"Kinetic energy is simply a measure of the work potential of a projectile. As noted above, although part of the equation, kinetic energy in and of itself it is not a predictor of incapacitation effectiveness. Recall:

"-- Bullets cannot physically knock down a person by the force of their impact.
"-- Kinetic energy or momentum transfer from a projectile to tissue is not a wounding mechanism.
"-- The amount of "energy" deposited or momentum transferred to a body by a projectile is not directly proportional to the amount of tissue damage and is not a measure of wounding power.
"-- Wounds of vastly differing severity can be inflicted by bullets with identical kinetic energy and momentum.

"What a bullet does inside the body--whether it yaws, deforms, or fragments, how deeply it penetrates, and what tissue it passes through is what determines wound severity, not KE!"

DocGKR - http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1171547&postcount=6

481
November 1, 2012, 10:44 AM
The 147gr Federal HST expands more and penetrates less than the 124gr +P GDHP. This is just further evidence that bullet construction and momentum are far more critical than energy in terminal ballistics.

We'll leave out that M&S so-called data set is seriously flawed, fails under scientific scrutiny, and was very likely fabricated.

Well said. :)

It is good see that there are others who "get it"... I mean, besides Shawn. :D

kokapelli
November 1, 2012, 11:14 AM
Well said. :)

It is good see that there are others who "get it"... I mean, besides Shawn. :D
In regard to "QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION" I remember a test done sometime back that showed JHP rounds that did not expand in gelatin would frequently expand in water, which brings into question "how reliable is shooting into water" a good gauge of bullet expansion?

481
November 1, 2012, 11:46 AM
In regard to "QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION" I remember a test done sometime back that showed JHP rounds that did not expand in gelatin would frequently expand in water, which brings into question "how reliable is shooting into water" a good gauge of bullet expansion?

That's a good question.

In their respective books, Schwartz (QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION) and MacPherson (BULLET PENETRATION) both explain that so long as both test mediums (in this case gelatin and water) have equal densities, the dynamic pressure (P = ˝V^2) that initiates and drives expansion is also equal.

On the first page of Chapter 2 of his book, Schwartz does a good job of satisfying this claim-

"Through comparative analysis, the dynamic equivalence (in terms of respective density and internal speed of sound) of water and calibrated 10 percent ordnance gelatin as ballistic test mediums will also be established."

-and actually shows his work (the math) which allowed me to further understand why both mediums are valid without talking waaaay over my head. There's also a supporting reference to Applied Wound Ballistics: What’s New and What’s True written by Dr. Fackler that states-

"Water can be used as a tissue simulant and causes just slightly more bullet deformation than gelatin or soap; the Firearms Training Unit of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation uses it as a screening mechanism to decide which bullets expand well enough to merit further scrutiny."

From the QAS website FAQ-

"Because water produces dynamic forces on transient projectiles that are nearly identical to those produced by calibrated ordnance gelatin, it is an excellent tissue simulant. Water is insensitive to ambient environmental conditions, requires no calibration in order to produce valid test results, and can be used with little difficulty. Ballistic tests conducted in calibrated ordnance gelatin require rigorous environmental control to ensure a valid test outcome and can cost in excess of $400 per test shot. The ease of use and low cost of testing in water make it an attractive option for those individuals seeking a valid, cost-effective ballistic test medium."

MacPherson also explains it referring to the same paper by Fackler (MacPherson also advocates water tests as a valid test method), but sometimes I found myself getting lost in the lengthy (but not quite "run-on") sentences. :o

Bullets do weird stuff and are unpredictable. Sometimes they don't expand in water either, but that doesn't mean that either medium is questionable. It is more likely a problem with the construction/manufacture of the bullet.

Although I have my favorite, both books are excellent reading for anyone interested in the topic.

2zulu1
November 1, 2012, 04:50 PM
^^^^ I agree, both books are a must read if one wishes to gain an informed understanding of WTI. There's a great amount of information to be learned by studying the IWBA articles that are available online.

FWIW, the 357 magnum attained its lethal performance reputation long before there were jacketed hollow point bullets on the market. The 158gr round nose lead bullet gave way to to the 158gr semi jacket hollow point during the mid to late 60s as I understand it. The 125gr SJHPs were developed during the mid 70s. I entered LE after returning from Vietnam and the only ammunition we carried was the Remington 158gr SJHPs.

During the peak decades of 357mag carry, we trained to keep shooting until the threat of return fire was eliminated. I've never understood the logic of one shot stops as a determining factor for bullet effectiveness, never during our training were we taught to fire one shot and wait to see if the threat was neutralized.

CZ57
November 1, 2012, 08:00 PM
The 147gr Federal HST expands more and penetrates less than the 124gr +P GDHP. This is just further evidence that bullet construction and momentum are far more critical than energy in terminal ballistics.

We'll leave out that M&S so-called data set is seriously flawed, fails under scientific scrutiny, and was very likely fabricated.

In the case you cite, the 124 gr. Gold Dot +P has both higher energy and momentum compared to the 147 gr. HST.

When you say the M&S data is flawed you should consider the source of it's biggest detractors. Most of 'em have an axe to grind because M&S data showed that sometimes a faster lighter bullet is more effective. In Fackler's case, his early models that the FBI used resulted in three ammo failures where they had to go to something else at taxpayer expense. After the Miami Shootout fiasco the FBI selected the poor expanding and overpenetrating 147 gr. JHP in 9mm. At the same time there were two very effective loads used by the Illinois State Police and the Secret Service as well as some other LE agencies. The loads were 115 gr. JHPs loaded to +P+ velocity with conventional JHPs and had stopping records above 90% effective. The FBI ignored them. The testing they use today is not that relevant for civilian shooters unless you really think you'll be involved in a gun battle where you'll need to shoot through sheetmetal or autoglass. 4 layers of denim is the necessary standard most shooters are likely to encounter. The 180 gr. .40 S&W load they use today may be more effective after penetrating barriers than say the 165 gr. "Medium Velocity"they were using, but in both cases the loads are subsonic and there are better loads out there for civilian use. Particularly the 165 gr. Golden Saber at around 1150 FPS.

I'm starting to think that some of you guys haven't been at this very long or haven't developed the skills to accurately shoot the higher energy loads, and in the case of the 165 gr. Golden Saber, it has considerably higher momentum to that of a subsonic 180. I enjoy good mathematical data as much as anyone else and can perform all of it. I just don't awe at it. In my work, I consult to engineers, so let's not go there. I'll suffice it to say that good engineers are not manufactured in our universities. The best of them and particularly design engineers have God given aptitude for their profession. Frankly I find it hard to understand how an engineer at the top of his craft would have the time to devote to writing up his opinions on wound ballsitics.

As far as Roberts and MacPherson, most of their opinions and theories are based on ballistic gel testing. When they have used actual shooting cases the perps were shot multiple times.

FWIW, the 357 magnum attained its lethal performance reputation long before there were jacketed hollow point bullets on the market. The 158gr round nose lead bullet gave way to to the 158gr semi jacket hollow point during the mid to late 60s as I understand it. The 125gr SJHPs were developed during the mid 70s. I entered LE after returning from Vietnam and the only ammunition we carried was the Remington 158gr SJHPs.

As I said, the Texas DPS has been using the .357 Magnum nearly as long as it's been around. The DPS started using 125 gr. JHP loads about as soon as they were developed. No other state in the US has more highways to patrol than Texas. No other state comes close to the gunfighting experience of the DPS. There are more LE personnel and agencies in some counties of Texas than there are the entire state of Arizona. Harris, Dallas and Tarrant county for example. And as I've stated, the load they used for around 25 years was the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum. Now they use the.357 SIG. You really think they haven't done their homework? Combined, the DPS Troopers and Rangers already have more actual experience than the FBI is ever likely to have. They don't find a need to consult Fackler, Roberts or MacPherson either. ;)

ugaarguy
November 1, 2012, 11:06 PM
In the case you cite, the 124 gr. Gold Dot +P has both higher energy and momentum compared to the 147 gr. HST.
First you complained that 9mm 147gr JHPs overpenetrate and don't expand enough. Now you're complaining about one of the largest expanding 9mm loads of any bullet weight not having enough momentum. What else do you want?

I'm starting to think that some of you guys haven't been at this very long or haven't developed the skills to accurately shoot the higher energy loads, and in the case of the 165 gr. Golden Saber, it has considerably higher momentum to that of a subsonic 180. I enjoy good mathematical data as much as anyone else and can perform all of it. I just don't awe at it
Actually, you're so awe struck with the energy numbers of exterior ballistics that you've been blinded to any rational discussion of terminal ballistics.

1911Tuner
November 2, 2012, 12:43 AM
FWIW, the 357 magnum attained its lethal performance reputation long before there were jacketed hollow point bullets on the market. The 158gr round nose lead bullet...

The original .357 Magnum cartridge was loaded with a 158-grain LSWC. If there was ever a 158 LRN commercially loaded in the caliber, I'm not aware of it.

so awe struck with the energy numbers of exterior ballistics...blinded to any rational discussion of terminal ballistics.

I think that pretty well sums it up for most people. I hear far more arguments for the "best" based on velocity/energy figures than anything else.

To me, it's a little like using the top speed as a basis for the selection of a new pickup truck

CZ57
November 2, 2012, 01:40 AM
You're putting incorrect words in your own mouth. Today's 147 gr. JHP in 9mm expands much better than the 147 gr. JHP in 9mm of the late 80s that didn't expand. I've said that if you bothered to read the post in its entirety. But at 326 Ft/Lbs I'm not gonna count on it to work as well on some adrenalin charged criminal as it does in gelatin, are you? As far as I am cocerned any rational discussion of terminal ballistics should at least consider actual gunfight performance in the M&S data and not just on theoretical models or examining perps corpses that where shot multiple times with whatever. ;)

CZ57
November 2, 2012, 02:13 AM
I think that pretty well sums it up for most people. I hear far more arguments for the "best" based on velocity/energy figures than anything else.

To me, it's a little like using the top speed as a basis for the selection of a new pickup truck

Well, I don't know about that analogy but I don't buy self defense ammo based on energy and velocities alone. I have said it repeatedly now that this is where ballistic gel testing can be useful. M&S also use ballistic gel testing that correlates to their one shot stop data. What they found is that the round that came closest to the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum is the 230 gr. JHP in .45 ACP at the mid or upper 90 percentile so they are not stuck on the light/fast issue at all. I happen to agree with this and since I switched to autoloaders for defense a good number of years ago I have found that the 230 gr. JHP in .45 ACP works best for me. The only thing better in autoloaders IMO is a 230 gr. JHP +P in .45 ACP. LOL. It provides both the energy and the momentum in all the quantity anyone should need for a self defense round. For practice I shoot a handloaded 230 gr. JHP .45 ACP load at 900 FPS. ;)

I also think y'all should look at the poll numbers. The overwhelming majority believe that energy in handgun rounds does matter!

ugaarguy
November 2, 2012, 03:19 AM
You're putting incorrect words in your own mouth. Today's 147 gr. JHP in 9mm expands much better than the 147 gr. JHP in 9mm of the late 80s that didn't expand. I've said that if you bothered to read the post in its entirety. But at 326 Ft/Lbs I'm not gonna count on it to work as well on some adrenalin charged criminal as it does in gelatin, are you? As far as I am cocerned any rational discussion of terminal ballistics should at least consider actual gunfight performance in the M&S data and not just on theoretical models or examining perps corpses that where shot multiple times with whatever.
You, like M&S, are correlating the incorrect variables. Every year in North America ice cream sales are at their highest in the months of June through July. During those same months, drowning deaths are also at their highest each year. Clearly consumption of ice cream leads to drowning if you ignore that recreational swimming is also at its highest during those months.

In the same way, the older 9mm 147 gr JHPs had poor terminal performance, and they have lower energy than some rounds with better terminal performance. Yes, they had poor expansion. So obviously they needed to be driven at higher velocity (which would result in more energy) to get better terminal performance. Right? Wrong - they were already being driven fast enough that had sufficient momentum to completely penetrate a human torso. Higher velocity (which would result in greater energy and momentum) wasn't what was needed. Changes in bullet construction allowed 9mm 147gr JHPs to reliably expand at their standard velocities and in turn greatly reduce over penetration risk.

Energy is not a wounding mechanism in handgun ballistics. Handgun rounds simply don't have the energy to impart hydrostatic shock in quantities sufficient to create a shock wave that stretches tissue beyond its elasticity limits to create a permanent wound cavity.

Penetration and expansion crush tissue, which is the only way to create permanent wound cavity when dealing with handgun ballistics.

I also think y'all should look at the poll numbers. The overwhelming majority believe that energy in handgun rounds does matter!
Which simply proves that the majority of the people who voted are uneducated or undereducated on terminal ballistics of handgun rounds.

mljdeckard
November 2, 2012, 03:26 AM
I will admit to having changed my mind in this. I believed all the stories. Then I did a little bit of homework and testing. Among the service calibers, the amount of energy expended makes little difference if any in the terminal performance of the bullet.

Snowdog
November 2, 2012, 05:28 AM
I do believe energy plays a part in effectiveness, particularly when expanding bullets are used. Once expanded, a bullet relies on bullet weight and remaining velocity (energy) to continue penetrating.

Put me in the camp of energy "counting" when expanding projectiles are used ( and less so with RN-FMJ style handgun rounds).

Just for the record, I have always rejected the idea of hydrostatic shock from a typical service round. However, if a bonded 147gr 9mm jhp were driven 300 fps faster from a 9x25 Dillion, I DO believe (presuming all other variables remained the same) it would likely be a "more effective" round.

1911Tuner
November 2, 2012, 07:23 AM
I have said it repeatedly now that this is where ballistic gel testing can be useful. M&S also use ballistic gel testing that correlates to their one shot stop data.

Using ballistic gelatin to "prove" or predict a bullet's behavior and performance in living tissue is petty much a crapshoot...and continuing along the lines of my pickup truck analogy...rather like predicting a Corvette's real-world cornering ability by having a professional driver wring it out on a skid pad. It pads the lateral G force numbers for advertising purposes...a little like velocity numbers for revolvers derived in an unvented test barrel. Looks good on paper, but none of it accurately represents what will happen on a real road or in a real revolver.

Ballistic gelatin...or any other homogenous medium...is mainly useful in comparing the performance of different bullet/cartridge combinations at various ranges. Gelatin simulates muscle tissues, so the results in that medium carry a little more weight than in water or duct seal.

mavracer
November 2, 2012, 08:12 AM
Ballistic gelatin...or any other homogenous medium...is mainly useful in comparing the performance of different bullet/cartridge combinations at various ranges.
And while it may be a crapshoot it's far more telling than energy numbers.
Energy is a poor way to compare rounds as it really doesn't corralate to permanent wound channel size. more energy doesn't always equate to a larger/deeper hole. If you look at large differences in mass IE 500 ft.lbs with a 100gr bullet is going to make a much smaller permanent wound track when compared to a 250gr bullet with 500 ft.lbs. because of the huge difference in momentum.

brnmw
November 2, 2012, 09:54 AM
I'm going to vote no, because I lean towards the "bullets make holes" school of thought so I'm more worried about the average penetration and expansion of any given defensive round than I am about the energy level of the round when comparing bullet A to bullet B.

But, that doesn't mean I discount energy levels entirely. I just don't know how much of a factor they are.
__________________


Same here even though I do believe that for certain cases energy does matter but as a whole if you are talking about how much more deadly is a .357 Mag. to an intruder's skull or vital organ area to a .22LR HV round........ it's well known fact a .22 short can kill.

Shawn Dodson
November 2, 2012, 10:39 AM
But at 326 Ft/Lbs I'm not gonna count on it to work as well on some adrenalin charged criminal as it does in gelatin, are you? I'm going to count on it to perform (expand and penetrate) as well as it does in gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth.

I don't expect any bullet to be effective at producing rapid incapacitation unless it damages tissues that are critical to immediate survival.

Placement and penetration are the keys to rapid incapacitation. A bullet must be placed so it will pass through vital structures and it must penetrate deeply enough to reach and damage them.

Rapidity of incapacitation depends on which vital tissues are damaged and how much they are damaged. The damage (wound trauma) produced is the only proven mechanism that can be counted on to be reliable in producing rapid incapacitation.

ugaarguy
November 2, 2012, 11:24 AM
Once expanded, a bullet relies on bullet weight and remaining velocity (energy) to continue penetrating.
This is a great example of folks not understanding the physics. First, velocity does not equal energy. Second, once a barrier - like a large mammal for example - is encountered it's momentum, not energy, that allows the projectile to penetrate. This is because energy is conserved only in plastic collisions, and not in elastic collisions. That's why momentum is far more important than energy when discussing the terminal ballistics of projectiles in a self defense context.

1911Tuner
November 2, 2012, 02:09 PM
And while it may be a crapshoot it's far more telling than energy numbers.
Energy is a poor way to compare rounds as it really doesn't corralate to permanent wound channel size.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Far too much credence is given to energy figures.

it's momentum, not energy, that allows the projectile to penetrate. This is because energy is conserved only in plastic collisions, and not in elastic collisions.

A point that I've tried to get across for years...with very little success. Good luck.

2zulu1
November 2, 2012, 05:20 PM
The original .357 Magnum cartridge was loaded with a 158-grain LSWC. If there was ever a 158 LRN commercially loaded in the caliber, I'm not aware of it.



I think that pretty well sums it up for most people. I hear far more arguments for the "best" based on velocity/energy figures than anything else.

To me, it's a little like using the top speed as a basis for the selection of a new pickup truck
Now you have me thinking about the old lead158gr bullets. I knew Keith and Sharpe were involved with the original 357/LSWC design, but I wasn't aware that it was the only design.

When I began in LE, some of the gray hairs had served in WWII and/or Korea, and others had been in LE during those wars. Early on I met an "old" officer who must have gone back about 30 years, what I remember most was that his duty belt rig had the old individual cartridge loop style. He was in a 357mag department and he carried a large frame Smith, the ammunition in those loops was LRN. Since then, I've had the belief that the "old timers" carried 158gr LRNs until the semi jacketed ammunition went into service.

Thoughts?

1858
November 2, 2012, 05:22 PM
This is because energy is conserved only in plastic collisions, and not in elastic collisions.

I was under the impression that kinetic energy is conserved in elastic collisions. What is a plastic collision? Do you mean an inelastic collision in which energy is not conserved?

jimbo555
November 2, 2012, 05:26 PM
It is simple for me.For 2 legged threats,357 in revolver.45 in auto.

2zulu1
November 2, 2012, 05:39 PM
In the case you cite, the 124 gr. Gold Dot +P has both higher energy and momentum compared to the 147 gr. HST.

When you say the M&S data is flawed you should consider the source of it's biggest detractors. Most of 'em have an axe to grind because M&S data showed that sometimes a faster lighter bullet is more effective. In Fackler's case, his early models that the FBI used resulted in three ammo failures where they had to go to something else at taxpayer expense. After the Miami Shootout fiasco the FBI selected the poor expanding and overpenetrating 147 gr. JHP in 9mm. At the same time there were two very effective loads used by the Illinois State Police and the Secret Service as well as some other LE agencies. The loads were 115 gr. JHPs loaded to +P+ velocity with conventional JHPs and had stopping records above 90% effective. The FBI ignored them. The testing they use today is not that relevant for civilian shooters unless you really think you'll be involved in a gun battle where you'll need to shoot through sheetmetal or autoglass. 4 layers of denim is the necessary standard most shooters are likely to encounter. The 180 gr. .40 S&W load they use today may be more effective after penetrating barriers than say the 165 gr. "Medium Velocity"they were using, but in both cases the loads are subsonic and there are better loads out there for civilian use. Particularly the 165 gr. Golden Saber at around 1150 FPS.

I'm starting to think that some of you guys haven't been at this very long or haven't developed the skills to accurately shoot the higher energy loads, and in the case of the 165 gr. Golden Saber, it has considerably higher momentum to that of a subsonic 180. I enjoy good mathematical data as much as anyone else and can perform all of it. I just don't awe at it. In my work, I consult to engineers, so let's not go there. I'll suffice it to say that good engineers are not manufactured in our universities. The best of them and particularly design engineers have God given aptitude for their profession. Frankly I find it hard to understand how an engineer at the top of his craft would have the time to devote to writing up his opinions on wound ballsitics.

As far as Roberts and MacPherson, most of their opinions and theories are based on ballistic gel testing. When they have used actual shooting cases the perps were shot multiple times.



As I said, the Texas DPS has been using the .357 Magnum nearly as long as it's been around. The DPS started using 125 gr. JHP loads about as soon as they were developed. No other state in the US has more highways to patrol than Texas. No other state comes close to the gunfighting experience of the DPS. There are more LE personnel and agencies in some counties of Texas than there are the entire state of Arizona. Harris, Dallas and Tarrant county for example. And as I've stated, the load they used for around 25 years was the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum. Now they use the.357 SIG. You really think they haven't done their homework? Combined, the DPS Troopers and Rangers already have more actual experience than the FBI is ever likely to have. They don't find a need to consult Fackler, Roberts or MacPherson either. ;)
I didn't need to read what others wrote to realize that M&S's data was seriously flawed. First and foremost is the fact that there isn't, nor was there ever, an OIS national database.

Using your own statement that Texas DPS carried the mag from the beginning (1935) to the 125gr JHP era (circa 1975) means they carried 158s for approximately 40 years and the 125s from ~1975 to 2000.

Do we agree with this?

2zulu1
November 2, 2012, 05:43 PM
It is simple for me.For 2 legged threats,357 in revolver.45 in auto.
I agree, but every once in awhile I get in a M29 mood here at Make My Day Ranch. :)

CZ57
November 2, 2012, 10:37 PM
Yeah, 2zulu1, we are in agreement but like 1911 Tuner said it started with the SWC in .357 Magnum. It was used for 40 years but where the DPS and Rangers found the Holy Grail was with the 125 gr. JHP.


Quote:
Once expanded, a bullet relies on bullet weight and remaining velocity (energy) to continue penetrating.


This is a great example of folks not understanding the physics. First, velocity does not equal energy. Second, once a barrier - like a large mammal for example - is encountered it's momentum, not energy, that allows the projectile to penetrate. This is because energy is conserved only in plastic collisions, and not in elastic collisions. That's why momentum is far more important than energy when discussing the terminal ballistics of projectiles in a self defense context.

I don't think you are actually grasping the physics. Velocity is a major player in both energy and momentum. For energy, velocity is the major player because velocity is squared: Vsquared X BW / 450240 = KE, and in momentum velocity is half the equation: BW / 7000 X V = Momentum. The real difference between energy and momentum is that with energy, velocity is squared and in momentum, bullet weight is equal to velocity in its calculation. It takes either energy or momentum to make a bullet perform as it was designed to. Heavier bullets perform because of momentum but a lighter bullet in some cases can perform as well but it has to have higher KE in order to equal the momentum of the heavier bullet. This is why I took exception to your example of the standard pressure 147 gr. HST @ 1000 FPS and the +P 124 gr. Gold Dot @ 1220 FPS. The 124 gr. +P Gold Dot has both higher energy and higher momentum.

My whole point about the 400 - 600 Ft/Lbs of KE window was to illustrate that a lighter bullet has to have higher KE to match the momentum of a heavier bullet. It's also why I brought up loads in .40 S&W like what the FBI uses in 180 grs, although probably a subsonic load. The best load I'm aware of for that particular loading is the Winchester PDX1. It may be what the FBI is using, I don't know to be honest, but lets look at the numbers. At 1076 FPS the PDX1 is achieving 463 Ft/Lbs of KE, pretty respectable, with a momentum of 28. The Remington 165 gr. Golden Saber @ 1150 FPS develops 485 Ft/Lbs of KE with a momentum of 27. Nearly identical momentum with a slight edge going to the 165 gr. Golden Saber in KE. Personally, I'd feel well armed with either load. The PDX1 180 gr. JHP, IMO, is the best offering in its weight class and is nearly supersonic in velocity. Go ahead and gel test with either and you'll find that performance is very similar.

The moral of this story is that you have to have either enough KE or enough momentum to get the job done. They do actually agree with each other in some case as presented by the 180 gr. PDX1 with a momentum advantage of 1 while the 165 gr. Golden Saber that has the advantage in KE at 22 FT/Lbs. Nether offers a clear advantage. Energy and momentum is what causes JHPs to work in the first place. The problem I have with these new idea experts is that they think that's where it ends without consideration of what KE or momentum of a bullet does to the human body. I firmly believe that it is translated by the temporary stretch cavity where they say it isn't a worthwhile consideration. The M&S data shows that these are clear factors in wounding. Try looking at a gel test pic and trying to discern where there is only a permanent crush cavity. You can't find one until the near end of the temporary stretch cavity.

I believe that Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson make some solid points. I also believe that M&S make valid points. The problem I have is that Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson have spent far too much time bemoaning the results found in the M&S data, although the last time I saw Fackler it was in a special episode on Nat Geo channel where it appeared he was singing a much different tune from his early beliefs in that expansion is an equal part of the wounding equation to penetration. That's why I say it takes both. I believe that the data from both sides is somewhat skewed, but to claim M&S data is a fraud is libelous.

Shot placement is paramount and we should all know that you don't stop shooting until the fight is over. M&S have never disagreed with this and state that their data is not science, just a reporting of the facts. They go on to say that the one shot stop is NOT a tactical philosophy, just reporting the facts where it had occurred. You guys should lighten up, these guys claim nothing more than being laymen. They don't boast credentials because none were required to get the numbers from various LE agencies that provided information to them other than their LE credentials.

That's why I go back to the simple argument of the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum. No matter what the testing media, nor how many corpses you examine with multiple gunshot wounds. The fact that the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum's 96 -97 % effectiveness can not be explained by Fackler, Roberts or MacPherson. They don't even try. Typically they bombard you with an unnecessary amount of mathematical formula's or they attack M&S as being fraudulent. The reason? The 125 gr. .357 Magnum created extremely large temporary stretch cavities that their data can not account for because they say it's inconsequential. ;)

AKMtnRunner
November 3, 2012, 12:33 AM
I mean no offense, but this is a silly question. Energy, inertia, momentum . . . c'mon guys, you're splitting hairs. It's plain DAMAGE that counts.

1911Tuner
November 3, 2012, 05:35 AM
I mean no offense, but this is a silly question. Energy, inertia, momentum . . . c'mon guys, you're splitting hairs. It's plain DAMAGE that counts.

The voice of reason emerges once in a while.

Again...far too often, energy figures are used for a determining factor while ignoring all else.

An example:

Many years ago, when I was an avid deer hunter, a huntin' buddy loaded up a few 158-grain Speer JHPs in .35 Remington cases to some frantic velocities. In spite of the .357/.358 diameter discrepancies, the rifle shot well enough to take to the field. We generally didn't get shots at much over about 50 yards where we usually hunted, and it was entirely adequate.

He reckoned that the energy and explosive expansion would be heap big Whitetail medicine.

His opportunity came at about 25 yards by his own estimation. The buck was hit well and solidly behind the shoulder at a slight angle...dropped like a train hit it...got up and proceeded to head for the next county at warp speed. Another hunter in the party dropped it with a .30-30 in the lungs. A cursory examination determined that the extreme energy pistol bullet blew up on a rib and never even got close to the vitals.

Beyond a certain level, velocity and energy can and sometimes does work against you. That pesky 3rd Law. The harder the bullet hits the target, the harder the target hits the bullet.

Energy alone doesn't kill the deer. The bullet kills the deer, and in order for the bullet to kill the deer, it has to hit something important.

2zulu1
November 3, 2012, 02:58 PM
The voice of reason emerges once in a while.

Again...far too often, energy figures are used for a determining factor while ignoring all else.

An example:

Many years ago, when I was an avid deer hunter, a huntin' buddy loaded up a few 158-grain Speer JHPs in .35 Remington cases to some frantic velocities. In spite of the .357/.358 diameter discrepancies, the rifle shot well enough to take to the field. We generally didn't get shots at much over about 50 yards where we usually hunted, and it was entirely adequate.

He reckoned that the energy and explosive expansion would be heap big Whitetail medicine.

His opportunity came at about 25 yards by his own estimation. The buck was hit well and solidly behind the shoulder at a slight angle...dropped like a train hit it...got up and proceeded to head for the next county at warp speed. Another hunter in the party dropped it with a .30-30 in the lungs. A cursory examination determined that the extreme energy pistol bullet blew up on a rib and never even got close to the vitals.

Beyond a certain level, velocity and energy can and sometimes does work against you. That pesky 3rd Law. The harder the bullet hits the target, the harder the target hits the bullet.

Energy alone doesn't kill the deer. The bullet kills the deer, and in order for the bullet to kill the deer, it has to hit something important.
Excellent points about bullet construction and their velocity designs. Speer #14 sets their hollow point bullets to a velocity max of 1300fps, this probably why a number of 40 cal Gold Dots blow up when pushed to 10mm velocities.

The shallow cavity Gold Dots can be pushed faster, but they can over expand as your friend learned.

To illustrate the point of your post, a few years ago I tested the 210gr Gold Dot in 44mag,

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/44mag210grGDST001.jpg

M629/6.5" 1570fps impact velocity, 1.014" expansion resulted in a calculated (MacPherson) penetration of ~9.1";

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/44mag210grGDST005.jpg

Knocking on 1200 ft/lbs of energy and 9" of penetration. :(

Changed to a M29 Mountain (4") and reduced the load to 1390fps, bullet expanded to 0.75" and penetration increased to 14", crush cavity size calculated (MacPherson) at 2.6oz; a 0.2oz reduction from the 1570fps test.

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/44mag210GD1390fps0_750004.jpg

The nice part about the M29 Mountain with this load is very controllable during double action shooting. :)

Ala Tom
November 3, 2012, 04:14 PM
Based on many years of experience in engineering involving impact phenomenon (admittedly not bullet impacts) I think energy is the most important in addition to bullet type. I pick the best weight to give the best energy for a given caliber and then a hollow point bullet to break up in the target's body. The best energy means you get the max penetration potential (depending on how much and what type of bone is struck) and the energy also adds to the explosive destruction in soft tissue. It makes a bigger and a deeper hole in general. Of course there are so many other variables that it is difficult to assess "stopping power" or "killing power." But of all basic parameters that have influence in the severity of a wound (from a properly aimed gun), energy is the most significant of all the "specs" normally available to the person shopping for an effective cartridge. Where momentum is simply the product of mass and momentum, energy is the product of mass and velocity squared so it is strongly related to velocity.

It is interesting to consider that Energy affects both ends of a shot. in the chamber, energy determines the speed of a given bullet mass, depending on the type of powder used. On the impact end it determines the severity of the damage done to the target.

On long distance shots (over 100 yards), bullet aerodynamics plays a part in the final velocity. This also relates to energy. The bullet starts with a given amount of energy, and loses it due to drag along its path.

I normlly shoot 40 S&W with 180 grain JHP for defense, FMJ for the range. If I need more energy or better penetration, I use 125 grain JHP or FMJ in my 357 Sig for about 140 more foot pounds of energy.

NG VI
November 3, 2012, 06:12 PM
What could you possibly be shooting that would make you 'need' a difference in penetration of an inch either way or a hundred foot pounds more energy?

Don't you think that maybe the differences are maybe not terribly significant?

2zulu1
November 3, 2012, 11:39 PM
Based on many years of experience in engineering involving impact phenomenon (admittedly not bullet impacts) I think energy is the most important in addition to bullet type. I pick the best weight to give the best energy for a given caliber and then a hollow point bullet to break up in the target's body. The best energy means you get the max penetration potential (depending on how much and what type of bone is struck) and the energy also adds to the explosive destruction in soft tissue. It makes a bigger and a deeper hole in general. Of course there are so many other variables that it is difficult to assess "stopping power" or "killing power." But of all basic parameters that have influence in the severity of a wound (from a properly aimed gun), energy is the most significant of all the "specs" normally available to the person shopping for an effective cartridge. Where momentum is simply the product of mass and momentum, energy is the product of mass and velocity squared so it is strongly related to velocity.

It is interesting to consider that Energy affects both ends of a shot. in the chamber, energy determines the speed of a given bullet mass, depending on the type of powder used. On the impact end it determines the severity of the damage done to the target.

On long distance shots (over 100 yards), bullet aerodynamics plays a part in the final velocity. This also relates to energy. The bullet starts with a given amount of energy, and loses it due to drag along its path.

I normlly shoot 40 S&W with 180 grain JHP for defense, FMJ for the range. If I need more energy or better penetration, I use 125 grain JHP or FMJ in my 357 Sig for about 140 more foot pounds of energy.
Let's take a look at the data and see if it supports your energy theory, not only between the 357SIG/40 S&W, but also the 9mm.

Winchester LE, heavy clothing gel penetration/expansion data:

9mm
RA9TA-127grs-1250fps, 14.4"x0.703"
RA9T-147grs-990fps, 14.0"x0.66"
RA9B-147grs-995fps, 15.8"x0.58"

357SIG
RA357SB-125grs-1350fps, 12.0"x0.684"
RA357SIGT-125grs-1350fps, 14.0"x0.680"

40S&W
RA40B-180grs-1025fps, 13.9"x0.689"
RA40TA-165grs-1140fps, 14.2"x0.828"
RA40BA-165grs-1140fps, 14.0"x0.688"

The published Winchester data does not support your assumption that the 357SIG's higher energy Ranger T is a "better" performer than the 40, let alone the time tested 9mm 127gr +P+.

Predicting bullet incapacitation based upon KE is not advised.

ugaarguy
November 4, 2012, 12:37 AM
M&S have never disagreed with this and state that their data is not science, just a reporting of the facts.
Yet you continue to assert it as science. If it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny it's not a fact. It's a theory, and a poor one at that. OIS National Database? They claim to gave gotten information from a non-existent database, and you still believe it's reporting of facts?

italy4nra
November 4, 2012, 04:00 AM
I have the very good fortune to not have the experience to know.
But experts seem divided, and each camp supported by good science and ample case study.
I say keep firin'. Now pass me the rifle.

Certaindeaf
November 4, 2012, 10:08 AM
What could you possibly be shooting that would make you 'need' a difference in penetration of an inch either way or a hundred foot pounds more energy?

Don't you think that maybe the differences are maybe not terribly significant?100 fpe is about equal to a .22lr at the muzzle from a pistol.

mavracer
November 4, 2012, 12:44 PM
What could you possibly be shooting that would make you 'need' a difference in penetration of an inch either way or a hundred foot pounds more energy?

Don't you think that maybe the differences are maybe not terribly significant?
It's in fact likely that an extra inch of penatration won't make a signifigant difference. But you really need to look at the stakes here not the odds.
In the 1986 FBI shootout in Miami 1" more penatration could have likely left two FBI agents very much alive.

NG VI
November 4, 2012, 05:14 PM
So there is a self-defense scenario a person could plan for where one well-designed service-caliber pistol JHP is preferable to another well-designed service-caliber JHP out of a similar or even identical weapon, seeing as it's .40 and .357 we're talking about, but that is reversed in other scenarios that could be planned for?

I understand that a deeper wound in certain shootings could have changed the outcome of the incident, what I don't get is how you could say or think that there is any set of situations in which a .357 Sig load is significantly better or worse than an equivalent quality .40 load.

481
November 4, 2012, 08:12 PM
Yet you continue to assert it as science. If it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny it's not a fact. It's a theory, and a poor one at that. OIS National Database? They claim to gave gotten information from a non-existent database, and you still believe it's reporting of facts?

Besides the evident manipulation of the "data" demonstrated by the analysis that I linked to earlier, this (the data obtained from a nonexistent data base) is the biggest problem that I have with M&S.

I have read those books (borrowed, never paid for 'em -*phew*) and they absolutely full of errors and flimsy analysis.

Certaindeaf
November 4, 2012, 08:40 PM
When in doubt, use a semi-wadcutter.

Jaymo
November 4, 2012, 08:53 PM
The biggest problem with the M&S book is the fact that CNS shots were included for calibers .40 and smaller (or smaller than .40, I forget), and were EXCLUDED for rounds larger than that. They lost ALL credibility with that.
A CNS shot with a .22 will give you a one shot stop, every time, whereas a heart shot with any round may or may not give a one shot stop.
The fact is, M&S LIED and FAKED their research, and tried to pass it off as gospel.
They have no credibility. Their work is worse than flawed, it's fraudulent.

I called BS, when I first read it, many years ago. Everyone told me I was full of BS.
After all, the 9mm was the hot ticket for cops and military. It was the best thing since sliced bread. Everybody was using it. The military unceremoniously dumped that old, outdated, slow .45 for it. It HAD to be better. After all, Evan Marshall said so.

Then, the truth came out. It turns out, you can't change the laws of physics because you don't like them.

I believe energy is important, but only if it's transferred to the target. Energy that is not transferred to the target is wasted.
I don't think energy is the be all, end all of handgun stopping power. I think it's a factor in handgun stopping power.

Warp
November 4, 2012, 09:17 PM
I answered the poll as it was phrased.

This is NOT the same as answering the question you put in the actual post.

I think it matters. I don't think it is an "important" factor. Shot placement, penetration, that's what really matters. After that more expansion/greater permanent crush cavity is better

mavracer
November 4, 2012, 11:07 PM
So there is a self-defense scenario a person could plan for where one well-designed service-caliber pistol JHP is preferable to another well-designed service-caliber JHP out of a similar or even identical weapon, seeing as it's .40 and .357 we're talking about, but that is reversed in other scenarios that could be planned for?
Yes, you can watch the weather if it's going to be 20 degrees out it might be a good idea to lean toward a better penatrating load.;)

Warp
November 4, 2012, 11:11 PM
Yes, you can watch the weather if it's going to be 20 degrees out it might be a good idea to lean toward a better penatrating load.;)

Can you provide an example of the kind of ammunition switch you would make for cold weather?

Are you aware that states where it gets plenty cold there are large police agencies that have had VERY good results with rounds that tend more towards expansion than penetration?

Examples: Illinois using 9mm 115 grain +P+, or Kentucky using 125gr .357 magnum.

mljdeckard
November 5, 2012, 02:06 AM
I will also roll my eyes at people thinking that they can so surely predict the results of different rounds based on weather conditions. Just carry one that works in ALL weather. (I doubt there is as much difference as you think there is anyway.) They will ALL likely completely traverse a human target under most circumstances.

mavracer
November 5, 2012, 07:42 AM
Can you provide an example of the kind of ammunition switch you would make for cold weather?
A lot of people here on THR switch from 380s to something larger in the winter.
Are you aware that states where it gets plenty cold there are large police agencies that have had VERY good results with rounds that tend more towards expansion than penetration?
Are you saying threr's no chance that they wouldn't have better results with better penatrating rounds?
Examples: Illinois using 9mm 115 grain +P+,
You sure you want to point to a Illinois bureaucrat's decision as sound?

481
November 5, 2012, 11:09 AM
I will also roll my eyes at people thinking that they can so surely predict the results of different rounds based on weather conditions. Just carry one that works in ALL weather. (I doubt there is as much difference as you think there is anyway.) They will ALL likely completely traverse a human target under most circumstances.

I've always wondered why folks do that.

It's not like come Oct 15th of every year, folks start wearing soft body armor as cold weather gear. :D

2zulu1
November 5, 2012, 11:24 AM
If KE is such a dominant determining factor for personal defense, why are we even talking about the 9mm and why isn't everyone carrying the 44mag?

Dirty Harry was right!

This thread should be moved to the revolver section. :)

kokapelli
November 5, 2012, 11:46 AM
If KE is such a dominant determining factor for personal defense, why are we even talking about the 9mm and why isn't everyone carrying the 44mag?

Dirty Harry was right!

This thread should be moved to the revolver section. :)
I agree! During the Moro rebellion in the Philippines They brought in the 45cal because the 38cal was not effective enough at stopping the Drugged up Moro fighters and despite the fact that the 45 was heavier and produced more energy it was no more effective at stopping the Moro fighters than the 38cal.

I know that there are all kinds of stories claiming the 45 was their salvation, it was not and the only reliably effective stopper was the 12 gauge 00 Buckshot which was even more effective than their Krag-Jorgensen 0.30 caliber rifles at stopping the Moros.

Certaindeaf
November 5, 2012, 12:25 PM
^
The .380/200 Manstopper worked pretty good using LRN.. they say as good as the .455 Manstopper.

NG VI
November 5, 2012, 06:41 PM
Yes, you can watch the weather if it's going to be 20 degrees out it might be a good idea to lean toward a better penatrating load.

Why, does the human body get larger in the cold?

NG VI
November 5, 2012, 06:47 PM
A lot of people here on THR switch from 380s to something larger in the winter.

Probably because they wear more clothing and carrying a larger gun is much easier than it is in the shorts and t-shirt summertime.

And .380 is not a service caliber. Some places may have used the caliber at one time in history as an issued caliber, but it does not fit into the category of service calibers.

If you mean a better penetrating load is desirable in cold weather because winter clothing makes people thicker, then I'd have to point out that when an expanding pistol bullet is affected by heavy clothing, the clothing will affect it by negatively impacting the expansion of the bullet, which directly increases the penetration of the bullet.

powder
November 5, 2012, 06:51 PM
Yes, and no.

I've seen more evidence of energy transfer from just plain shooters' mouths, voicing their wrist pain from a short career of IPSC with a .45, making the switch to 9mm.

...and no. As a Deputy Coroner I've seen that shot placement is king, and bullet size/weight has nothing to do with death and killing.

CZ57
November 5, 2012, 07:10 PM
If KE is such a dominant determining factor for personal defense, why are we even talking about the 9mm and why isn't everyone carrying the 44mag?

Dirty Harry was right!

This thread should be moved to the revolver section.

Too much of a good thing. Full power 10mm, .41 and .44 Mags have been used by some Clint Eastwood LE types. What was found is that the energy is so high that the JHPs did not expand. Instead they behaved more like an FMJ and overpenetrated. ;)

NG VI
November 5, 2012, 07:15 PM
Double

mavracer
November 5, 2012, 08:42 PM
And .380 is not a service caliber. Some places may have used the caliber at one time in history as an issued caliber, but it does not fit into the category of service calibers.
Sorry didn't realize I needed to fit your arbitrary service caliber spec. Just substitute 38 special for 380:rolleyes:

If you mean a better penetrating load is desirable in cold weather because winter clothing makes people thicker, then I'd have to point out that when an expanding pistol bullet is affected by heavy clothing, the clothing will affect it by negatively impacting the expansion of the bullet, which directly increases the penetration of the bullet.
Maybe bullets designed 20 years ago like some of the +p+ 115gr 9mm are. But I really wouldn't concider those a good choice in cold climates because of inconsistant expansion through clothing and limited penatration when they do expand. I however think they'd be a fine choice in southern ****.
Most of the better modern bullets do just fine expanding through the FBIs heavy clothing test.
I really don't think the concept I'm suggesting is all that dang difficult.
If it's cold pay more attention to the way a bullet performs in the heavy clothing test, If it's warm lean more toward how ammo behaves in bare gel.
For the record I don't give a rodent's behind what ammo you use as long as your shootin the same direction I am, but you asked:)

Warp
November 5, 2012, 09:33 PM
.380 is not a service caliber.

Generally service caliber handguns are 9x19, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .38spl and .357 magnum.

Substantially similar cartridges might also be counted, depending on the context. .45 GAP, .357 SIG, etc.

Think of it this way...for what calibers can you buy Speer Gold Dot, Federal HST, or Winchester Ranger?

NG VI
November 5, 2012, 10:11 PM
Sorry didn't realize I needed to fit your arbitrary service caliber spec. Just substitute 38 special for 380


But it's perfectly fine to answer my question with an example of people downsizing to very small guns in hot weather?

The question was what kind of situation would make one well designed service caliber JHP a significantly different choice than another well designed JHP from a near-identical caliber? Being forced to carry a pocket pistol in the summertime is not the same as consciously switching from one .40 JHP to an equal quality JHP from a .357 Sig in a gun of identical dimensions.

mavracer
November 6, 2012, 07:26 AM
Warp, first your a little late. read then reread then post;)
Sorry didn't realize I needed to fit your arbitrary service caliber spec. Just substitute 38 special for 380
second speer golddots and winchester ranger are both avaliable for a 380 so that's not really a good method;)
But it's perfectly fine to answer my question with an example of people downsizing to very small guns in hot weather?
Yes, because one of the reasons often cited that people are comfortable doing so is the lack of heavy clothing on BGs.
The question was what kind of situation would make one well designed service caliber JHP a significantly different choice than another well designed JHP from a near-identical caliber?
already answered
If it's cold pay more attention to the way a bullet performs in the heavy clothing test, If it's warm lean more toward how ammo behaves in bare gel.

2zulu1
November 6, 2012, 12:23 PM
Too much of a good thing. Full power 10mm, .41 and .44 Mags have been used by some Clint Eastwood LE types. What was found is that the energy is so high that the JHPs did not expand. Instead they behaved more like an FMJ and overpenetrated. ;)
Energy doesn't cause a JHP to expand or fail to expand. Bullets are designed to operate w/i a specific velocity window. Push a bullet beyond its velocity design and it will over expand, thus reducing its penetration, or, it can frag. A great example of pushing a bullet beyond its velocity design window is the 124gr Gold Dot when loaded to 38Super/357SIG velocities. Change the bullet to the shallow cavity 125gr Gold Dot and the bullet performs well given the added stress placed upon it.

Choose a bullet designed for personal defense in 44mag and it will perform as well as any of the more popular service calibers. Actually, I have a box (500 rounds) of 40 S&W ammunition that was issued to a federal LE agency and it delivers penetration in the 18" range.

One of the most destructive bullets I've ever tested is the 210gr Silvertip in 44mag, it explodes like a varmint bullet, yet it retains enough mass to penetrate w/i the FBI's preferred 12"-18" range; and less than the above 40S&W.

Let's remember, the Silvertip bullet was designed for law enforcement, including 357/44mags. :)

FWIW, not that long ago I had the fortune to spend some time with a retired homicide detective, from a very large Texas city, who grandfathered in with the M29/4".

481
November 6, 2012, 01:35 PM
Energy doesn't cause a JHP to expand or fail to expand. Bullets are designed to operate w/i a specific velocity window. Push a bullet beyond its velocity design and it will over expand, thus reducing its penetration, or, it can frag. A great example of pushing a bullet beyond its velocity design window is the 124gr Gold Dot when loaded to 38Super/357SIG velocities. Change the bullet to the shallow cavity 125gr Gold Dot and the bullet performs well given the added stress placed upon it.

Choose a bullet designed for personal defense in 44mag and it will perform as well as any of the more popular service calibers. Actually, I have a box (500 rounds) of 40 S&W ammunition that was issued to a federal LE agency and it delivers penetration in the 18" range.

One of the most destructive bullets I've ever tested is the 210gr Silvertip in 44mag, it explodes like a varmint bullet, yet it retains enough mass to penetrate w/i the FBI's preferred 12"-18" range; and less than the above 40S&W.

Let's remember, the Silvertip bullet was designed for law enforcement, including 357/44mags. :)

FWIW, not that long ago I had the fortune to spend some time with a retired homicide detective, from a very large Texas city, who grandfathered in with the M29/4".

That's a very good observation 2z1.

I've never seen a bullet fail to expand because it was pushed too fast. Pushed too fast, they fragment excessively and penetration is reduced greatly.

The Silvertip, as you've noted, offers good expansion.

IIRC, in that test, that 210 gr Silvertip hit the water bags at a speed of 1570 fps, expanded to an average diameter of 0.617" and retained 116.3 gr of its initial 210 grain mass. The Schwartz bullet penetration model indicates that it would penetrate to a depth of 12.19 inches and permanently crush 1.79 ounces of soft tissue along the way.

It's a great round.

:)

Warp
November 6, 2012, 01:37 PM
Warp, first your a little late. read then reread then post;)

.380 is not a service caliber. ;)

mavracer
November 6, 2012, 02:08 PM
.380 is not a service caliber.
for the fourth time now
Just substitute 38 special for 380
;);););););):banghead:

Billy Shears
November 6, 2012, 02:33 PM
Obviously energy counts: it's necessary to ensure enough penetration and reliable expansion. Cartridges that don't have both those qualities with JHPs (e.g. .380ACP), suffer a bit from the lack of energy. They've got enough either to penetrate deeply or expand, but not both.

I think a better way to put it would have been, assuming sufficient energy for reliable penetration and expansion with JHPs, is extra energy a really significant factor? The answer seems to be, not very. Someone already mentioned the shooting of Trooper Coates, where the trooper got hit once with a .22LR and died, while shooting his attacker 4 times center mass with a .357 magnum, and the bad guy survived. At handgun velocities, extra energy doesn't seem to be all that important. More energy seems to increase the size of the temporary wound cavity, but evidence suggests that's not all the significant. The size of the permanent wound cavity is what matters (and whether or not it intersects anything vital, of course), and handgun bullets that can penetrate deeply and damage a vital organ, and do with relatively little energy seem to do just fine, as long as they can achieve that minimum necessary penetration, and as long as the shooter can hit something vital.

This may mean that back in the days before JHPs, you really were just as well off with a .380 or even a .32 as you were with a .38 revolver. After all, when all bullets were FMJ or round nose lead, they all had enough penetration (assuming no intermediate barriers), and they made the same size holes, or close enough. This might also explain why .36 caliber Colt navy revolvers were the belt pistol of choice for many in the cap and ball era, even with .44s available -- given solid, non expanding projectiles, either you hit something vital and it stopped the bad guy, or it didn't, and he didn't stop (unless he lost heart for the fight -- a psychological factor beyond one's control). Assuming a hit to a vital organ, either the .36 or the .44 ball would probably do about as well at achieving incapacitation. There just wasn't enough difference in size or in energy to make a really significant difference.

I think you have to step up to rifle rounds before the extra energy makes a really decisive impact. With a long gun, you can get a lot more energy by having either a much heavier projectile, or much higher velocity, or both, which allows you do achieve more tissue damage from things like hydrostatic shock, which no handgun round will attain.

Warp
November 6, 2012, 03:08 PM
.38spl (+P) >> .380

mavracer
November 6, 2012, 06:21 PM
Warp, I'm not sure why your still stuck on the 380. Take the 380 out of the discussion since it is succh a distraction for you and replace it with a 38 snub. For the intent of my statement they would work the same as a lot of THR members ALSO carry a 38 snub in warm weather and trade it out for a 357 in colder weather. Understan there are many other possibilitys the 38 to 357 is only one possibility and it may or may not require changing guns as 38s can be shot in a 357.

CZ57
November 6, 2012, 06:27 PM
Energy doesn't cause a JHP to expand or fail to expand. Bullets are designed to operate w/i a specific velocity window. Push a bullet beyond its velocity design and it will over expand, thus reducing its penetration, or, it can frag. A great example of pushing a bullet beyond its velocity design window is the 124gr Gold Dot when loaded to 38Super/357SIG velocities. Change the bullet to the shallow cavity 125gr Gold Dot and the bullet performs well given the added stress placed upon it.

Energy and momentum are exactly what cause JHPs to expand. Raise velocity and you raise energy and momentum. The older .41 and .44 Magnum loads with fairly heavy jacket designs were found to be too high in energy to reliably expand their jackets in thin skinned humans and caused them to act like FMJ. The incidents were reported by M&S where they recommended the use of lower velocity/energy loads.

The difference is that in the energy calculation velocity is squared making it more proportionately equatable to energy. We're talking about .44 magnum, 9mm is not a good example because bullets are not constructed nearly as heavily as those for the .44 Magnum. 9mm bullets should never be use to load .357 SIG defense loads. I'm not saying the .44 can't be used, but the best loads have considerably lower velocity/energy.

IIRC, in that test, that 210 gr Silvertip hit the water bags at a speed of 1570 fps, expanded to an average diameter of 0.617" and retained 116.3 gr of its initial 210 grain mass. The Schwartz bullet penetration model indicates that it would penetrate to a depth of 12.19 inches and permanently crush 1.79 ounces of soft tissue along the way.

Evidently, you don't recall so well. The 210 gr. Silvertip in .44 Magnum has a rated muzzle velocity of 1250 FPS. ;)

2zulu1
November 6, 2012, 06:29 PM
That's a very good observation 2z1.

I've never seen a bullet fail to expand because it was pushed too fast. Pushed too fast, they fragment excessively and penetration is reduced greatly.

The Silvertip, as you've noted, offers good expansion.

IIRC, in that test, that 210 gr Silvertip hit the water bags at a speed of 1570 fps, expanded to an average diameter of 0.617" and retained 116.3 gr of its initial 210 grain mass. The Schwartz bullet penetration model indicates that it would penetrate to a depth of 12.19 inches and permanently crush 1.79 ounces of soft tissue along the way.

It's a great round.

:)
Yeah, the 210s are in the 10mm/180, 45/230gr sectional density group, so it makes for a decent weight to carry for personal defense.

This pic illustrates the violent expansion I was referring to;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/Nosuchthingasenergydump.jpg

Five water bottles were placed on this table with railroad ties placed on three sides. There's about 70lbs of wood laying on the ground, bottles #1, #2, #4 and #5 exploded. Number 3 bottle was not hit, meaning it had to bounce high enough for the Silvertip to pass underneath it, about 3"+. In this test, the ST expanded to over 0.7".

We've certainly witnessed our share of 40 designed bullets that have over expanded and/or fragged, at 10mm velocities, resulting in much less penetration than the same bullets at 40 velocities. As we know from experience, increased KE does not cause a JHP to behave like a FMJ, it's typically a plugged hollow cavity that prevents the JHP from expanding.

CZ57
November 6, 2012, 06:33 PM
You're basing your conclusions on shooting water jugs? Water will make any JHP expand and is much different than the soft tissue of human beings. Give me a break! ;)

2zulu1
November 6, 2012, 06:47 PM
Energy and momentum are exactly what cause JHPs to expand. Raise velocity and you raise energy and momentum. The older .41 and .44 Magnum loads with fairly heavy jacket designs were found to be too high in energy to reliably expand their jackets in thin skinned humans and caused them to act like FMJ. The incidents were reported by M&S where they recommended the use of lower velocity/energy loads.

The difference is that in the energy calculation velocity is squared making it more proportionately equatable to energy. We're talking about .44 magnum, 9mm is not a good example because bullets are not constructed nearly as heavily as those for the .44 Magnum. 9mm bullets should never be use to load .357 SIG defense loads. I'm not saying the .44 can't be used, but the best loads have considerably lower velocity/energy.



Evidently, you don't recall so well. The 210 gr. Silvertip in .44 Magnum has a rated muzzle velocity of 1250 FPS. ;)
Well, you're certainly in the dark here. The test 481 was referring to was a 210gr Silvertip loaded to 1570fps;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/44mag210grGDST007.jpg

Unlike the 210gr Gold Dot that over expanded as previously posted, the ST fragged;

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g474/aztrekker511/44mag210grSTfrag1570fps116_3grs004.jpg

For someone who places such a high emphasis on real world experiences, perhaps you should put M&S down for awhile and conduct your own experiments.

We know that 210gr Silvertips have performed extremely well on white tail deer, to think they wouldn't perform well against a 200# felon is foolish. :)

Maybe it's time to get past the KE myth and begin dialogue regarding cavitation and stress.

2zulu1
November 6, 2012, 07:03 PM
You're basing your conclusions on shooting water jugs? Water will make any JHP expand and is much different than the soft tissue of human beings. Give me a break! ;)
Well, you're wrong, again. Soft tissue, pig gut and water will expand bullets to basically the same diameter. In fact, the FBI uses water to assist in ammunition evaluations before ballistic gel protocol tests. Additionally, MacPherson's research lead him to formulate graphs that correlate water testing to ballistic gel penetration. Schwartz increased the reliability of water testing by incorporating over 700 real world data points to formulate his mathematical models.

CZ57
November 6, 2012, 07:27 PM
Well, you're certainly in the dark here. The test 481 was referring to was a 210gr Silvertip loaded to 1570fps;

Go to the Winchester Ammunition website and you'll see that the 210 gr. Silvertip in .44 Magnum has a Rated muzzle velocity of 1250 FPS. Before you emphasize anything, try to get your facts right. ;)

Jotojoe
November 6, 2012, 07:41 PM
Having read all the above I think I will just go out and get Me a BB gun
looks like most of the opinions are that it is just as good as a 45, energy being the most significant difference.

coolluke01
November 6, 2012, 07:45 PM
You can get 14" of penetration with a BB gun?

Jotojoe
November 6, 2012, 07:53 PM
That is My point! If energy didn't matter. The BB would get the same penetration as the 45. Energy is a very important part of the formula.

kokapelli
November 6, 2012, 08:02 PM
That is My point! If energy didn't matter. The BB would get the same penetration as the 45. Energy is a very important part of the formula.
If the BB can penetrate 12 plus inches that might be true, but since we all know the BB can't penetrate 12" your argument is not valid.

On the other hand if a 9mm penetrates the FBI recommended minimum of 12" and a 380 round will also meet FBI depth standards, how does the energy factor figure in, in this scenario?

Warp
November 6, 2012, 08:03 PM
Warp, I'm not sure why your still stuck on the 380. Take the 380 out of the discussion since it is succh a distraction for you and replace it with a 38 snub. For the intent of my statement they would work the same as a lot of THR members ALSO carry a 38 snub in warm weather and trade it out for a 357 in colder weather. Understan there are many other possibilitys the 38 to 357 is only one possibility and it may or may not require changing guns as 38s can be shot in a 357.

.38spl (+P) >> .380

One does not, IMO, "substitute" for the other.

Also, one is a service caliber cartridge. The other is not.

coolluke01
November 6, 2012, 08:43 PM
I can throw a baseball at you with more energy than a 9mm but it will not penetrate at all. When reaching vitals energy is not the important factor to MEASURE All factors play a part, but when deciding between on caliber or another, or loading, energy is not the best measurement to look at. Real world penetration is the best measurement next would be momentum, it would seem.

56hawk
November 6, 2012, 09:31 PM
I can throw a baseball at you with more energy than a 9mm but it will not penetrate at all.

You can throw a baseball at 200 mph?

mavracer
November 6, 2012, 10:06 PM
One does not, IMO, "substitute" for the other.
what is your problem, dude ignore the fact I ever said 380 please for the love of god.
Focus now, a lot of people carry a 38 snub in the summer and switch to a more powerful gun in colder weather. Now I can't say it any plainer.

Warp
November 6, 2012, 10:15 PM
what is your problem, dude ignore the fact I ever said 380 please for the love of god.
Focus now, a lot of people carry a 38 snub in the summer and switch to a more powerful gun in colder weather. Now I can't say it any plainer.

Yes, some people carry a larger gun when their clothing more easily conceals it.

coolluke01
November 7, 2012, 12:33 AM
You can throw a baseball at 200 mph?

While I may have overstated my fastball and I didn't do the math, the point is that a 200 mph baseball (if that is the equivalent of a 9mm) will not penetrate 14" but a 9mm with less energy could.

2zulu1
November 7, 2012, 01:56 AM
Go to the Winchester Ammunition website and you'll see that the 210 gr. Silvertip in .44 Magnum has a Rated muzzle velocity of 1250 FPS. Before you emphasize anything, try to get your facts right. ;)
As I stated, the 210gr Silvertip was loaded to 1570fps, same load that gave the 210gr Gold Dot an MV of 1570fps. As I recollect, AA #9 was the powder used.

The original experiment was conducted to do a heads up comparison between the GD and ST. At 1570fps both bullets performed differently, the Gold Dot over expanded, reducing penetration to 9"+. The ST fragged, yet retained enough mass to penetrate ~12". In yet another test, the MV of the GD was reduced and the bullet expanded less, causing increased penetration to 14".

Pictures of the recovered bullets were posted along with their data, you may wish to reread those posts in order to comprehend what was written.

It really doesn't serve any useful purpose to be argumentative about a person's chronographed load data, but I'm not the only one you are in conflict with.

mavracer
November 7, 2012, 07:19 AM
Yes, some people carry a larger gun when their clothing more easily conceals it.
SIGH, from post 164 page 7
Yes, because one of the reasons often cited that people are comfortable doing so is the lack of heavy clothing on BGs.

read then reread then post please it saves me typing everything twice.:banghead::banghead:

1911Tuner
November 7, 2012, 09:11 AM
Let's look at it with a little different perspective.

Consider the M193 ball round, which consisted of a 55-grain boattail bullet at a claimed 3250 fps and compare it with the original .45-70 Cavalry load...a 405 grain bullet at around 1250-1300 fps.

There is little practical difference in their respective muzzle energy figures...but if you're facing a charging Grizzly at a range of 50 feet...which one would you rather be holding?

And for the sake of keeping it apples to apples...we're assuming single-shot rifles.

coolluke01
November 7, 2012, 10:04 AM
I would rather hold the rifle that weighs the least if its a single shot. Cause if I'm being charged by a huge bear, I'm running! ;)

The larger round would feel more "comforting" but I would have to see how it performs to say for sure. What sort of penitration can you expect from this round?

2zulu1
November 7, 2012, 10:21 AM
If I were shooting my Sharps, I'd get a through and through on a large bison with the heavy weight WFNs, think cavitation. :)

coolluke01
November 7, 2012, 10:31 AM
Oh, but this isn't a good comparison for this discussion. We are talking handgun calibers. Rifle rounds are able to cause damage handgun rounds could never dream of.

mavracer
November 7, 2012, 11:14 AM
Tuner=:banghead:

Oh, but this isn't a good comparison for this discussion. We are talking handgun calibers. Rifle rounds are able to cause damage handgun rounds could never dream of.
If energy isn't a good way to judge in rifle rounds, where most agree that energy is at least a factor. Why would you think it would be a better way to judge pistol rounds, where most agree it's not as much of a factor as rifle rounds.

Guess some would just rather argue than understand.:scrutiny:

1911Tuner
November 7, 2012, 12:05 PM
Oh, but this isn't a good comparison for this discussion. We are talking handgun calibers.

It wasn't meant to be a comparison. It was rather an illustration to show the fallacy of relying on energy figures to predict terminal ballistics, regardless of the platform. Energy is only one factor to consider, and...in my bear analogy...probably the least important one.

Cause if I'm being charged by a huge bear, I'm running!

You'd just die tired. A Griz can outrun a horse for about the first 50 yards.

mach1.3
November 7, 2012, 12:24 PM
Energy release at the point of impact is important. I'm not a ballistics expert but knockdown power is directly associated with released energy at the point of impact. Bullet cross-section, expansion, penetration and placement all play a part in the effectivity of a handgun round on a perpetrator.

I come from the Harry Callahan school of thought. Bigger isn't always better but it ain't bad. Even Harry punched paper with lighter .44 Special ammo.
Not everyone needs a .44mag but even James Bond was persuaded to give up his .25cal Beretta 416 in lieu of the stouter .380 Walther PPK. There is also the matter of deterrence. You pull out a Beretta 950S Minx and bad people may not relent, you pull out a 1911 and they might think twice.

"Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot."
Harry Callahan, Magnum Force, 1973

2zulu1
November 7, 2012, 12:37 PM
Oh, but this isn't a good comparison for this discussion. We are talking handgun calibers. Rifle rounds are able to cause damage handgun rounds could never dream of.
This is true for the most part, but the "lowly" 44 Special loaded with Keith style bullets, @950fps, has been documented to cleanly take 500# hogs. Actually, this combination will penetrate deeper in soft tissue than the 9mm/115gr FMJ.

I can't speak for Tuner, but I interpreted his post to be a comparison between two different types of bullet construction.

The WFN and Keith style bullets I've tested in 357mag, 10mm and 44mag have penetration depths of at least three feet, with some exceeding 40". When I see large boar tracks at my place, the Marlin 1895 is loaded with 405s that penetrate 4ft+. Some 45-70 loads have been tested at 55" and this caliber has successfully taken the big 5.

There have been revolvers built in 45-70, way out of my shooting ability. :)

1911Tuner
November 7, 2012, 01:00 PM
I can't speak for Tuner, but I interpreted his post to be a comparison between two different types of bullet construction.

More of a comparison between energy and mass/momentum.

I'm not a ballistics expert but knockdown power is directly associated with released energy at the point of impact.

Well, there isn't any real "knockdown" power in any smallarm. If a bullet can physically knock someone down, the man who fires the gun will be knocked down by recoil. It's that whole action/reaction force forward/force backward equal momentum thing.

We'll try again.

If you had to knock down a brick wall, would you choose a framing hammer with speed and energy...or a 10-pound sledge with mass and momentum?

hardheart
November 7, 2012, 02:11 PM
I don't understand why that wiki on hydrostatic shock used energy level as a reference for when the pressure or shear waves would do damage to distant organs. A person falling a short distance into their butt would cause damage to the hippocampus according to the energy number with no minimum velocity needed.

The Lone Haranguer
November 7, 2012, 02:13 PM
It counts, but not by itself. Bullet design matters as much if not more.

mach1.3
November 7, 2012, 02:28 PM
Semantics aside---stopping power or whatever descriptor is proper. Knockdown power may not be the correct way to put it but we know what I mean. It's the reason the U.S. Army switched from the .38 cal. in use in the 1890s Philippine Insurrection/tribal uprisings. Where the .38 DA Colt revolvers couldn't bring down a charging doped up tribesman. This spawned the reintroduction of the old .45cal(LC) revolver. Apparently, the Muslim Mindinaoan Bangsa Moros tribesmen couldn't be stopped by the .38 when they were properly medicated and bound by multiple wraps of cloth and leather. The .45 ended this threat and U.S. soldiers survived. Now, I realize this was in wartime/combat and not exactly like a CC situation but it strikes true with me. We can shoot all the water and gelatin we want but why confound ourselves. Carry a big enough stick to do the job, and let's hope none of us have to find out the hard way.

BTW: a 1911 in .45acp should be a big enough stick.

mavracer
November 7, 2012, 03:11 PM
A person falling a short distance into their butt
Only if they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground.

kokapelli
November 7, 2012, 03:13 PM
Semantics aside---stopping power or whatever descriptor is proper. Knockdown power may not be the correct way to put it but we know what I mean. It's the reason the U.S. Army switched from the .38 cal. in use in the 1890s Philippine Insurrection/tribal uprisings. Where the .38 DA Colt revolvers couldn't bring down a charging doped up tribesman. This spawned the reintroduction of the old .45cal(LC) revolver. Apparently, the Muslim Mindinaoan Bangsa Moros tribesmen couldn't be stopped by the .38 when they were properly medicated and bound by multiple wraps of cloth and leather. The .45 ended this threat and U.S. soldiers survived. Now, I realize this was in wartime/combat and not exactly like a CC situation but it strikes true with me. We can shoot all the water and gelatin we want but why confound ourselves. Carry a big enough stick to do the job, and let's hope none of us have to find out the hard way.

BTW: a 1911 in .45acp should be a big enough stick.
That is a myth. If you do some research on the subject you will find that the 45 was not any better against the Moros in the Philippene uprising than the 38. Even the Krag 30cal rifle was not that effective and only the Winchester modle 1897 12ga with 00 shot proved to be reliably effective at stopping the Moros

481
November 7, 2012, 03:34 PM
As I stated, the 210gr Silvertip was loaded to 1570fps, same load that gave the 210gr Gold Dot an MV of 1570fps. As I recollect, AA #9 was the powder used.

The original experiment was conducted to do a heads up comparison between the GD and ST. At 1570fps both bullets performed differently, the Gold Dot over expanded, reducing penetration to 9"+. The ST fragged, yet retained enough mass to penetrate ~12". In yet another test, the MV of the GD was reduced and the bullet expanded less, causing increased penetration to 14".

Pictures of the recovered bullets were posted along with their data, you may wish to reread those posts in order to comprehend what was written.

It really doesn't serve any useful purpose to be argumentative about a person's chronographed load data, but I'm not the only one you are in conflict with.

Honestly, 2z1, you have made it more than clear that it was a handloaded Silvertip and specified the conditions under which it was T&E'd. MacPherson and Schwartz in their respective books have explained why water is a valid (it has to do with both mediums having similar densities and internal speed of sound) tissue simulants. As you said above, even the FBI uses it. Heck, I'll take all three as suitable corroborating sources.

Once highly accurate equations have been developed (e.g.: Schwartz and MacPherson) the process is simple enough- run the tests and plug in the data. MacPherson's sample was 400+, Schwartz's was 700+ with a correlation of .94 and a margin of error of one centimeter. Both models do an accurate job of predicting penetration in soft tissue and agree across a wide range of test conditions and bullet configurations.

In the end, the horse can be led to water, but you (and I) cannot make it think. Sometimes I think there are those who'd argue against any one of Newton's laws of motion if they thought that they could get away with it. So goes it with arguing against reality. ;)

mach1.3
November 7, 2012, 03:37 PM
OK, let's all CC 12ga. pumps with 00 or stagger loaded with slugs. It will work. Our Finest carry .45s or .40s on their hips and ride in a car with a 12ga. 870 within reach.

Thank God, we're not facing any wild charging Philippino Muslims. Yet.

1911Tuner
November 7, 2012, 03:52 PM
It counts, but not by itself. Bullet design matters as much if not more.

And bullet placement is still the most important factor.

With handgun calibers, people who are shot stop what they are doing for three reasons.

They either give up because they realize they've been shot, and they don't want to be shot again.

Or...

The brain or spinal cord takes a direct hit, and disconnects the command center from the rest of the body.

Or...

They bleed out...either quickly or slowly, depending on the size of the severed blood vessel.

That's pretty much it.

CZ57
November 7, 2012, 08:10 PM
As I stated, the 210gr Silvertip was loaded to 1570fps, same load that gave the 210gr Gold Dot an MV of 1570fps. As I recollect, AA #9 was the powder used.

When you posted your pic you didn't state that it was a handload, although I figured it would have to be. Winchester's design for that bullet calls for 1250 FPS of muzzle velocity, so you are clearly over-driving it. That's why it fragmented. Shoot a whitetail deer with that bullet @ 1570 FPS and it will likely over-expand and fail to penetrate sufficiently resulting in a very nasty wound that the deer is likely to take a very long time to die from. Game is the intended purpose for the Winchester load, but at medium velocity so it will provide the necessary penetration. Do you think that Winchester doesn't understand how their own bullet performs? Try shooting that 1570 FPS load through 4 layers of denim and into ballistic gel and see what happens.

At their factory rated velocities, the M&S data showed the medium velocity Silvertip loads in .41 and .44 Magnum to be about the best stoppers in their respective calibers. Winchester actually recommends the .41 Magnum load for defense as well as game with a 175 gr. Bullet also at 1250 FPS (607 Ft/Lbs). The reason is the softer, thinner aluminum jacket used in the bullets construction. The heavier copper JHPs are a different matter, yet 481's calculation using the Schwartz mathematical model predicted expansion and penetration without so much as any consideration for jacket material.

In 1986 when the "Miami Shootout" occurred, one of the perps took a 115 gr. Silvertip that expanded as advertised but failed to penetrate deep enough to incapacitate, and even though the wound was deemed unsurvivable, the perp continued to fight killing additional FBI agents. If the FBI had followed the lead of the Secret Service and Illinois State Police and used the heavier constructed conventional copper jacketed 115 gr. bullets used in both the SS(Rem) and ISP(Win) +P+ loads, the fight could have been stopped when the perp was shot. The only two loads I would even consider for using the Silvertip design for defense would be .41 and .44 Magnum and at medium velocity.

I've done my share of water jug testing as well, and any JHP bullet driven to sufficient speed will have impressive expansion and many will still provide adequate penetration. That's why I don't use it as a test medium. I really don't care what testing the FBI does because the only one that's relevant for civilian shooters is the 4 layers of denim test. But by all means continue. Try shooting that 1570 FPS Silvertip .44 magnum load and see how well it stands up to sheetmetal and autoglass penetration. ;)

481
November 7, 2012, 08:46 PM
The heavier copper JHPs are a different matter, yet 481's calculation using the Schwartz mathematical model predicted expansion and penetration without so much as any consideration for jacket material.


No need for that. If you'd actually read either book, you'd know why.

In Quantitative Ammunition Selection and Bullet Penetration, both authors (Schwartz and MacPherson, respectively) explain that water produces hydraulic forces upon the bullet that are (very nearly, within one percent) identical to those produced in gelatin and soft tissue driving bullet expansion (regardless of jacket material) the same way that it would in the other two mediums (ordnance gelatin and soft tissue).

Neither of the two models predicts expansion since that must be obtained via firing the JHP into water. Accordingly, non-expanding designs needn't be fired into water prior to applying the model because it is assumed (correctly so) by both authors that they will not expand under such conditions.

Once that is done (firing the JHP into water in order to make it expand), the average recovered diameter of the JHP, recovered mass of the JHP and its impact speed are entered into (either) model and the maximum penetration depth and permanent wound cavity volume (and mass) is predicted.

CZ57
November 7, 2012, 10:18 PM
So based on the expanded diameter of an aluminum jacketed bullet you were able to conclude what penetration would be from Schwartz's mathematical model? Does it account for the very thin and soft aluminum jacket?

That's my whole problem with mathematical models. They are purely theory with nothing conclusively proven. Hypothetical models don't cut it for me.

The bullet in question is designed for 1250 FPS, but because of it's expanded diameter at 1570 FPS after striking water, which is known to expand any fast moving JHP bullet, the model still predicts reliable penetration. I'd recommend actually trying that load on a whitetail except that I already know that it would be inhumane. Shoot it into gel after 4 layers of denim and see what happens. If that bullet worked at 1570 FPS, Winchester wouldn't be loading it down to 1250 FPS, now would they? ;)

481
November 7, 2012, 11:07 PM
So based on the expanded diameter of an aluminum jacketed bullet you were able to conclude what penetration would be from Schwartz's mathematical model? Does it account for the very thin and soft aluminum jacket?

Yes, that is correct.

Neither model needs a "correction factor" for the effect of bullet construction/composition upon expansion because the water produces the same hydraulic forces that would initiate and drive its expansion in ordnance gelatin or soft tissue.

You fire a JHP (through a barrier of your choosing, if you wish) into water. It expands as it would in soft tissue or ordnance gelatin (well, to be honest about 1% more) and you take the average of the smallest and largest diameters of the expanded JHP which is then applied to the model along with the JHPs recovered weight and impact speed. You get from that, a prediction of its maximum penetration depth and total permanent wound cavity volume/mass.



That's my whole problem with mathematical models. They are purely theory with nothing conclusively proven. Hypothetical models don't cut it for me.

Actually, there is a great deal that can be conclusively determined from a properly developed probabilistic model.

Look at F = ma, Newton's second law of motion. It is annoyingly correct (hardly pure theory) under all conditions (except where relativistic effects come into play- not that those matter to us much in our mundane everyday life) and its high probability (it is not "perfect", of course) of being correct comes from the fact that it so well constructed. Taking the Schwartz bullet penetration model for example- based upon over 700 points of data, it has a correlation of .94 and with a confidence level of 95% it has a margin of error of just one centimeter. (check out the second page of the QAS website for this information and the model's endorsement from a munitions development engineer)

Arguably, it isn't perfect (a correlation of 1.00 and a 100% confidence MOE of 0 cm), but it does an excellent job of predicting what it was designed to predict so far as I have seen. MacPherson's model (whose correlation and MOE is unknown to me), based upon 400+ data, is also quite good and it agrees with Schwartz's model across a wide range of conditions/speeds/configurations.

The bullet in question is designed for 1250 FPS, but because of it's expanded diameter at 1570 FPS after striking water, which is known to expand any fast moving JHP bullet, the model still predicts reliable penetration. I'd recommend actually trying that load on a whitetail except that I already know that it would be inhumane. Shoot it into gel after 4 layers of denim and see what happens. If that bullet worked at 1570 FPS, Winchester wouldn't be loading it down to 1250 FPS, now would they? ;)

Yes, regardless of bullet velocity (within reason of course) these models predict penetration depth reliably from what I've seen. I've actually had my favorite SD load tested in calibrated gelatin and the models (MacPherson & Schwartz) both do a fine job of producing agreement with those independent variables. You can see that data below-

Test /Predicted by Schwartz
13.7" /13.36"
15.4" /15.86"
16.5" /16.03"

correlation: 0.941

A correlation of .94 with a high confidence margin of error of 1cm is pretty darned good and likely about as precise as we'll see in anything as homogenous as gelatin.

I am not sure if 2z1 has tried that handload against a 4LD barrier in a water test.

If you get a chance to read either book, I'd highly recommend them both.

2zulu1
November 8, 2012, 12:23 AM
When you posted your pic you didn't state that it was a handload, although I figured it would have to be. Winchester's design for that bullet calls for 1250 FPS of muzzle velocity, so you are clearly over-driving it. That's why it fragmented. Shoot a whitetail deer with that bullet @ 1570 FPS and it will likely over-expand and fail to penetrate sufficiently resulting in a very nasty wound that the deer is likely to take a very long time to die from. Game is the intended purpose for the Winchester load, but at medium velocity so it will provide the necessary penetration. Do you think that Winchester doesn't understand how their own bullet performs? Try shooting that 1570 FPS load through 4 layers of denim and into ballistic gel and see what happens.

At their factory rated velocities, the M&S data showed the medium velocity Silvertip loads in .41 and .44 Magnum to be about the best stoppers in their respective calibers. Winchester actually recommends the .41 Magnum load for defense as well as game with a 175 gr. Bullet also at 1250 FPS (607 Ft/Lbs). The reason is the softer, thinner aluminum jacket used in the bullets construction. The heavier copper JHPs are a different matter, yet 481's calculation using the Schwartz mathematical model predicted expansion and penetration without so much as any consideration for jacket material.

In 1986 when the "Miami Shootout" occurred, one of the perps took a 115 gr. Silvertip that expanded as advertised but failed to penetrate deep enough to incapacitate, and even though the wound was deemed unsurvivable, the perp continued to fight killing additional FBI agents. If the FBI had followed the lead of the Secret Service and Illinois State Police and used the heavier constructed conventional copper jacketed 115 gr. bullets used in both the SS(Rem) and ISP(Win) +P+ loads, the fight could have been stopped when the perp was shot. The only two loads I would even consider for using the Silvertip design for defense would be .41 and .44 Magnum and at medium velocity.

I've done my share of water jug testing as well, and any JHP bullet driven to sufficient speed will have impressive expansion and many will still provide adequate penetration. That's why I don't use it as a test medium. I really don't care what testing the FBI does because the only one that's relevant for civilian shooters is the 4 layers of denim test. But by all means continue. Try shooting that 1570 FPS Silvertip .44 magnum load and see how well it stands up to sheetmetal and autoglass penetration. ;)
Your post has a number of errors, so many in fact that you have lost credibility.

I have no idea of what bullet you are talking about that has a thin aluminum jacket, perhaps you can be more specific as to how it relates to this Silvertip discussion.

FWIW, the Silvertip is a nickel plated copper jacket constructed bullet.

The Silvertip did not over expand, nor are hunters witnessing inhumane kills on whitetails when driven much faster than the 1570fps I tested. Winchester's ammunition MV is not an issue with me, I don't carry the 44mag CCW when I go to town.

A number of deer hunters load the 210gr Silvertip into the 1500s for handguns and much faster for carbines, I've read 1900fps from lever action action carbines. A number of deer hunters are witnessing DRT results with this bullet over a wide range of velocities, just the opposite of the inhumane kills you predicted!

2zulu1
November 8, 2012, 01:03 AM
Yes, that is correct.

Neither model needs a "correction factor" for the effect of bullet construction/composition upon expansion because the water produces the same hydraulic forces that would initiate and drive its expansion in ordnance gelatin or soft tissue.

You fire a JHP (through a barrier of your choosing, if you wish) into water. It expands as it would in soft tissue or ordnance gelatin (well, to be honest about 1% more) and you take the average of the smallest and largest diameters of the expanded JHP which is then applied to the model along with the JHPs recovered weight and impact speed. You get from that, a prediction of its maximum penetration depth and total permanent wound cavity volume/mass.




Actually, there is a great deal that can be conclusively determined from a properly developed probabilistic model.

Look at F = ma, Newton's second law of motion. It is annoyingly correct (hardly pure theory) under all conditions (except where relativistic effects come into play- not that those matter to us much in our mundane everyday life) and its high probability (it is not "perfect", of course) of being correct comes from the fact that it so well constructed. Taking the Schwartz bullet penetration model for example- based upon over 700 points of data, it has a correlation of .94 and with a confidence level of 95% it has a margin of error of just one centimeter. (check out the second page of the QAS website for this information and the model's endorsement from a munitions development engineer)

Arguably, it isn't perfect (a correlation of 1.00 and a 100% confidence MOE of 0 cm), but it does an excellent job of predicting what it was designed to predict so far as I have seen. MacPherson's model (whose correlation and MOE is unknown to me), based upon 400+ data, is also quite good and it agrees with Schwartz's model across a wide range of conditions/speeds/configurations.



Yes, regardless of bullet velocity (within reason of course) these models predict penetration depth reliably from what I've seen. I've actually had my favorite SD load tested in calibrated gelatin and the models (MacPherson & Schwartz) both do a fine job of producing agreement with those independent variables. You can see that data below-

Test /Predicted by Schwartz
13.7" /13.36"
15.4" /15.86"
16.5" /16.03"

correlation: 0.941

A correlation of .94 with a high confidence margin of error of 1cm is pretty darned good and likely about as precise as we'll see in anything as homogenous as gelatin.

I am not sure if 2z1 has tried that handload against a 4LD barrier in a water test.

If you get a chance to read either book, I'd highly recommend them both.
Great points, one only needs to read/study the ATK data to observe greater performance differences in ballistic gel than those observed in water. Even if I had unlimited funds to use ballistic gel, it would be nearly impossible to test properly calibrated gel during the summer months here because of the intense heat, even in shade.

I haven't tested the 210gr Silvertip with 4LD, the ST, with its nickel plated copper jacket has become an extremely expensive loading component, more so than the Gold Dot and twice as expensive as the XTP. What the 44mag offers at my place is long distance, but at double action distances the 357mag is more than adequate.

At one time I bought into the energy and knock down myths, but since the MacPherson and Schwartz books have been added to my library, my knowledge has increased dramatically. IMO, we owe a lot to the IWBA research articles, Doc Gary Roberts and those scientists, bullet techs and MDs etc who participated in multi year and multi million dollar research programs in the field of terminal ballistics.

It would be nice to progress past energy and get into topics such as stress and cavitation. :)

CZ57
November 8, 2012, 01:32 AM
Your post has a number of errors, so many in fact that you have lost credibility.

Yet you feel compelled to answer.

I have no idea of what bullet you are talking about that has a thin aluminum jacket, perhaps you can be more specific as to how it relates to this Silvertip discussion.

The original Silvertip had an aluminum or zinc alloy jacket and expanded faster than a conventional copper jacketed bullet. It was known for under-penetration. You say the .44 Mag Silvertip has a nickel plated copper jacket. I don't know where you got this information, I can't find anything about its construction at the Winchester website. If it is nickel plated copper Winchester is unnecessarily holding it back in velocity and they have heavier copper jacketed bullets at higher velocity. ;)

2zulu1
November 8, 2012, 03:56 AM
Yet you feel compelled to answer.



The original Silvertip had an aluminum or zinc alloy jacket and expanded faster than a conventional copper jacketed bullet. It was known for under-penetration. You say the .44 Mag Silvertip has a nickel plated copper jacket. I don't know where you got this information, I can't find anything about its construction at the Winchester website. If it is nickel plated copper Winchester is unnecessarily holding it back in velocity and they have heavier copper jacketed bullets at higher velocity. ;)
Looks like you will need to expand your search. BTW, only the 32 has an aluminum jacket. :)

481
November 8, 2012, 10:33 AM
Great points, one only needs to read/study the ATK data to observe greater performance differences in ballistic gel than those observed in water. Even if I had unlimited funds to use ballistic gel, it would be nearly impossible to test properly calibrated gel during the summer months here because of the intense heat, even in shade.

I haven't tested the 210gr Silvertip with 4LD, the ST, with its nickel plated copper jacket has become an extremely expensive loading component, more so than the Gold Dot and twice as expensive as the XTP. What the 44mag offers at my place is long distance, but at double action distances the 357mag is more than adequate.

At one time I bought into the energy and knock down myths, but since the MacPherson and Schwartz books have been added to my library, my knowledge has increased dramatically. IMO, we owe a lot to the IWBA research articles, Doc Gary Roberts and those scientists, bullet techs and MDs etc who participated in multi year and multi million dollar research programs in the field of terminal ballistics.

It would be nice to progress past energy and get into topics such as stress and cavitation. :)

Sure, I'd like that. I have answered what I can here and it seems to be winding down, so whaddya say we move this conversation to the Petals thru bone thread over in Handguns: General Discussion?

I've been reviewing those materials lately and wouldn't mind running some stuff back and forth with you.

coolluke01
November 8, 2012, 11:36 AM
Would you guys give a quick sum up of why energy is not the most importaint factor. And what is? Something for the 70% who still read this and vote for energy.

fatcat4620
November 8, 2012, 12:20 PM
If it didn't then .40S&W would be equal to 10mm

481
November 8, 2012, 12:22 PM
Would you guys give a quick sum up of why energy is not the most importaint factor. And what is? Something for the 70% who still read this and vote for energy.

Sure.

While kinetic energy is an important factor, it is not the only important factor. Where folks tend to get lost is that they begin to rely exclusively on one aspect of the physics (like a bullet's weight or its velocity) involved in terminal behavior to the exclusion of all else. There are other physical quantities and qualities that effect a bullet's behavior like shot placement, assailant anatomy, impact velocity, projectile expansion, and retained projectile mass. It is all important.

The analysis of terminal ballistic events is best analyzed using a momentum based approach because an energy expediture model is way too complicated to use even though it will get you to the same exact place.

On page 7 of Quantitative Ammunition Selection, Schwartz states that

"While a projectile in motion possesses both momentum and kinetic energy, the penetration of a transient projectile through a homogenous fluid or hydrocolloidal medium constitutes an inelastic collision mandating that it be treated as a momentum transaction. Therefore, a momentum-based analysis of projectile motion is the most equitable approach in constructing a terminal ballistic performance model.

Although it may be possible to devise a mathematical model based upon the expenditure of a projectile’s kinetic energy as it traverses a medium, there is nothing to be gained from the pursuit of such an unnecessarily complex approach."

MacPherson also makes similar comment early in his book, but I don't have time just this minute to go dig that one up. 2z1 might have it handy. ;)

ETA: Nevermind, I found it.

Excerpt from Bullet Penetration by MacPherson:
'. . . every now and then someone wants to analyze or think about a problem involving energy, and when they attempt to do this without really understanding energy or other thermodynamic concepts the result is unfortunate. One such problem is the analysis of any of the various aspects of terminal ballistics; some individuals with inadequate technical training and experience have unwisely and unproductively attempted to use energy concepts in the analysis of bullet impact and penetration in soft tissue. (Many others have simply assumed that energy is the dominant effect in Wound Trauma Incapacitation; this assumption is even more simplistic than the attempt to actually analyze the dynamics problem with energy relationships, and is no more successful).

Any attempt to derive the effect of bullet impact in tissue using energy relationships is ill advised and wrong because the problem cannot be analyzed that way and only someone without the requisite technical background would try. Many individuals who have not had technical training have nonetheless heard of Newton’s laws of motion, but most of them aren’t really familiar with these laws and would be surprised to learn Newton’s laws describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships. The dynamic variable that is conserved in collisions is momentum; kinetic energy is not only not conserved in real collisions, but is transferred into thermal energy in a way that usually cannot be practically modeled. The energy in collisions can be traced, but usually only by solving the dynamics by other means and then determining the energy flow.

Understanding energy and how it relates to bullet terminal ballistics is useful even though energy is not a useful parameter in most small arms ballistics work."

Certaindeaf
November 8, 2012, 12:43 PM
I say potato

481
November 8, 2012, 12:43 PM
No, potahto. :D

winfried
November 8, 2012, 01:15 PM
Can't really compare gut shots that don't hit anything major to an arterial shot. Apples and oranges.
Plus, if the assailant is on certain drugs, stopping power goes out the window, unless you get a CNS shot.
Had the trooper hit the assailant in the same spot where the assailant shot the trooper, the assailant would have ended up the same way as the trooper.
Had the trooper shot the assailant in the heart/lungs with his .357, the assailant would have had a lot harder time breathing and functioning.
Stopping and killing are two different things, and that is one of the flaws in the linked article.

The assailant got lucky. Plain and simple. Had the trooper dumped those four rounds into the assailants chest, instead of his gut, the story would have been about a dead assailant, instead of a dead trooper.

The author lost credibility by referencing the Nicole Brown Simpson case, and by stating that the knife "ruptured" major blood vessels.
The knife severed the blood vessels.
Yes you are right. Energy contents the potential of doing damage, energy disposal does the damage. I can post a picture here where a guy got shot 4 times with a 45 185 gr JHP. The first shot in the shoulder did not shock the guy at all, nor did two subsequent shots to the chest showed much effect, but the fourth shot hitting his hip joint stopped him.
Lung shots are generally not effective because no pain can be felt in the lungs, gut shots, intestines, liver and bladder cause a disabling pain.
Depending on velocity, but not much on caliber or construction (since the bullet has not expanded yet) bullets lose about 50 to 80m/s (x 3.3 in fts) on penetration of skin. These velocities result in reduced energy level and must be subtracted to start off.
Rifle bullets are a completely different issue and should not even quoted in this context.
I have a picture of a 110gr .357 bullet going at 510m/s (I think) hitting a large junk of meat. It shows the cost tremendous damage, but I caution everybody not to use a 110gr bullet at such high vel for poor depth effect.
The Brixton Murder and Robbery Squad used for a time 110gr JHP in Beretta's, but because of poor penetration went back to 115gr FMJ.
I carry only tracers in my 9mm as a result of my experiences, experiments and involvement in murder cases and spending watching autopsies.

I would gladly post a very few pictures, but I am scared the moderators will remove them for the unavoidable gruesome content.

The most comprehensive study was the RII which was ridiculed by Cooper and others because their pet calibers came short. I lost my copy and I would love to have one copy again. As for Cooper expertise, he said DA is a solution to a non-existent problem, and the performance of the 5.7 FN should also open some peoples eyes.
At least the congregation here is past the heavy-slow-bullet-is-better doctrine.

Regards

WAH

winfried
November 8, 2012, 01:23 PM
No Sir, the momentum of your recoiling gun is always a lot more then the impact of the bullet. Momentum is the least important factor. Since the recoil has no effect on you, the impact of the bullet from momentum point of view is never of any consequence.

Regards

WAH

mavracer
November 8, 2012, 01:41 PM
Would you guys give a quick sum up of why energy is not the most importaint factor. And what is? Something for the 70% who still read this and vote for energy.
Do you understand the difference between momentum and energy?

CommanderCrusty
November 8, 2012, 03:10 PM
People who are "stopped" by handgun bullets don't stop because they can't fight on--they stop because they give up.

If you want to literally STOP someone who really REALLY wants to kill you, better plan on a 12-gage or a rifle. Otherwise, plan on shooting them at least twice. Once to show them you WILL shoot them, and once AGAIN to show them the first shot wasn't a fluke. Very few people are angry, drugged or stupid enough to let you shoot them a third time.

coolluke01
November 8, 2012, 06:50 PM
Do you understand the difference between momentum and energy?
I had to do some reading to be able to make an attempt to understand and explain the difference.

Energy = work
Momentum = quantity of motion

Energy is not retained after a collision (and is transferred into heat?)

Momentum is retained after a collision and is applied to the medium it strikes.

Momentum also is linear with increased velocity. Energy is not linear and is very hard to model.

This is my very limited understanding of the difference. I know energy and momentum are not so one dimensional. I'm just tying to understand how they apply in the world of bullets.

hardheart
November 8, 2012, 09:15 PM
Would you guys give a quick sum up of why energy is not the most importaint factor. And what is? Something for the 70% who still read this and vote for energy.
I think a lot of people didn't read the first, or any other, posts before voting. Or they wanted to vote in a way to point out that the title wasn't specific enough, somehow expecting full description despite the character limit.

Some people also seem to be confusing velocity with energy. I say this because the 5.7 has been mentioned. Out of the Five Seven, the 5.7x28 doesn't have more muzzle energy than any other service caliber, and a lot less than other rounds coming out of semis or revolvers. It would be pointless to make energy comparisons. The difference is in velocity. So the key difference for many ought to be velocity. Heck, that's what separates rifle and handgun rounds to begin with, along with aerodynamic design for extending range. The difference in energy and momentum comes from velocity, not usually mass. 147 grain 9mm may not strike down all forms of animal life with ease, but it's still heavier than a 130 grain .270.

That's also why I mentioned someone falling on their butt (I thank swype for the 'into' post) Also consider getting hit by my truck. At something like 4400 pounds, that's 30,800,000 grains. Plugging that into a muzzle energy calculator - at around 2 mph it is beating the 5.7 out of a pistol. Yet, if I was pushing my truck and I accidentally bumped you in the chest, there wouldn't be a spike in your blood pressure causing remote hemorrhaging and broken bones.

Energy as a general idea is not the thing, velocity is. It is why hydrostatic shock, cavitation, etc are discussed for long guns. 'Energy' is important when it means that fluids and insides get accelerated beyond what they are designed to handle. If there was a poll asking about the importance of 'energy dump' for arrows, throwing knives, blow darts, melee weapons like daggers, war hammers, etc, then the results would likely not be the same. But there is this idea that bullets is bullets, and it doesn't matter how fast they go because at the 'speed of a bullet' things happen.

mavracer
November 8, 2012, 09:38 PM
Energy is not retained after a collision (and is transferred into heat?)
Correct. it's the heat that goes into the bullet as the metal bends and into the body from movement of tissue. Which is why energy more closely models temporary wound channel.
Momentum is retained after a collision and is applied to the medium it strikes.
And that's why it more closely relates to permanent wound volume.

I understand that this is over simplified due to different bullet diameter and expansion rates . But I believe if you look at some gel test from rounds with equal momentum and different energy (think 9mm 147gr @ 1000 vs +p 124gr@1220) you will find generaly the penatration to be similar but the round with greater energy will have a larger temporary cavity.
Also if you look at rounds with equal energy where they have different momentum they will have similar temporary cavitys and the round with more momentum will have more penatration.

mavracer
November 8, 2012, 09:42 PM
Yet, if I was pushing my truck and I accidentally bumped you in the chest, there wouldn't be a spike in your blood pressure causing remote hemorrhaging and broken bones.
Only if I move.

hardheart
November 8, 2012, 09:55 PM
Well, I would consider that a safe bet. I just think the notion of unqualified 'energy' doesn't allow for a clear discussion on how the target reacts to the impact. Knockdown keeps getting mentioned for one.

481
November 8, 2012, 10:06 PM
Well, I would consider that a safe bet. I just think the notion of unqualified 'energy' doesn't allow for a clear discussion on how the target reacts to the impact. Knockdown keeps getting mentioned for one.

I am surprised by that. Along with "stopping power", I thought that such terms were on their way out given their lack of a generally accepted definition/validity.

mavracer
November 8, 2012, 10:26 PM
I am surprised by that. Along with "stopping power", I thought that such terms were on their way out given their lack of a generally accepted definition/validity.
Which is really unfortunate because "stopping power" and "knockdown power" are a lot easier to type than "energy and momentum required for a bullet to achieve adequate expansion and penatrate enough to have a greater chance of CNS damage or blood loss to cause rapid incapacitation which causes the BG to fall down and stop agression":rolleyes:

481
November 8, 2012, 10:34 PM
Which is really unfortunate because "stopping power" and "knockdown power" are a lot easier to type than "energy and momentum required for a bullet placed in a vital location to achieve adequate expansion and penatrate enough to have a greater chance of CNS damage or blood loss to cause rapid incapacitation which causes the BG to fall down and stop agression":rolleyes:

Fixed it for you.

It might be more cumbersome, but the proper articulation of complex interactions often requires that.

mavracer
November 8, 2012, 10:53 PM
It might be more cumbersome, but the proper articulation of complex interactions often requires that.
Or people could just stop arguing insignifigant details.
Because my use of "greater chance" makes the addition of "placed in a vital location" redundant;);)

481
November 8, 2012, 11:01 PM
Or people could just stop arguing insignifigant details.

Therein lies the rub. What are the insignificant details and how are they determined to be so?

Because my use of "greater chance" makes the addition of "placed in a vital location" redundant.

Nope. "greater chance" suggests only a probability. "placed in a vital location" specifies a definite condition/effect.

hardheart
November 8, 2012, 11:09 PM
Which is really unfortunate because "stopping power" and "knockdown power" are a lot easier to type than "energy and momentum required for a bullet to achieve adequate expansion and penatrate enough to have a greater chance of CNS damage or blood loss to cause rapid incapacitation which causes the BG to fall down and stop agression":rolleyes:
I don't think they are the same thing. Too many people think that the 'heavy' bullets are 'heavy' enough to actually imbalance the target and cause 'knockdown' by shifting the target off it's center of gravity. Handgun bullets have a little trouble doing that with bowling pins, which weigh less than four pounds. Stopping is stopping, but the mechanism isn't clear. Heck, that's one problem with M&S, what about being shot made the perp stop? Blood loss, pain, disruption of nerve signal, damage to the musculoskeletal structures, emotional response? Shoot someone in the kneecap and they'll probably stop kicking you, and likely fall down. That isn't about blood loss or CNS damage.

481
November 8, 2012, 11:16 PM
I don't think they are the same thing. Too many people think that the 'heavy' bullets are 'heavy' enough to actually imbalance the target and cause 'knockdown' by shifting the target off it's center of gravity. Handgun bullets have a little trouble doing that with bowling pins, which weigh less than four pounds. Stopping is stopping, but the mechanism isn't clear. Heck, that's one problem with M&S, what about being shot made the perp stop? Blood loss, pain, disruption of nerve signal, damage to the musculoskeletal structures, emotional response? Shoot someone in the kneecap and they'll probably stop kicking you, and likely fall down. That isn't about blood loss or CNS damage.

I agree.

"Dumbing it down" to the point of employing inaccurate & sloppy catch-phrases isn't the answer.

Certaindeaf
November 8, 2012, 11:28 PM
I think the Army says you need 45 fpe minimum to kill a man.

coolluke01
November 8, 2012, 11:35 PM
More important buzzwords then are Penetration, Placement and Momentum.

mavracer
November 8, 2012, 11:55 PM
"placed in a vital location" specifies a definite condition/effect.
That's awfully vague to be definite condition and doesn't really specify anything.
I mean It might be more cumbersome, but if you want to specify a definite condition/effect your really going to have to define what exactly is a vital location.
But since vital location is really going to be vague because some locations are much more vital than others nailing down a definite condition or effect would probably be better left as a vague statement of probability.

hardheart
November 9, 2012, 12:34 AM
we should probably get it back on topic. So, I would ask, how does the energy from a handgun, which is limited in the mass and velocity a person can reasonably expect to handle from the platform, assist in the stopping of a threat/assault? Stopping the threat would be the important action, so then the question is how does energy contribute to the performance of that action.

Maybe a comparison of how a handgun stops a threat compared to how a taser or chemical spray does it.

mljdeckard
November 9, 2012, 12:37 AM
I'm less concerned about how the majority of the poll responders vote, than I am how the SMARTEST poll responders voted.

481
November 9, 2012, 01:12 AM
That's awfully vague to be definite condition and doesn't really specify anything.

"placed in a vital location" actually specifies something tangible as opposed to "greater chance" which does nothing of the sort.

I mean It might be more cumbersome, but if you want to specify a definite condition/effect your really going to have to define what exactly is a vital location.
But since vital location is really going to be vague because some locations are much more vital than others nailing down a definite condition or effect would probably be better left as a vague statement of probability.

Then it becomes more cumbersome. It is in error to over-simplify the mechanics of the terminal ballistic event since it involves great complexity.

At least specifying that a bullet strike a vital location defines what needs to occur. A vague statement of probability doesn't.

481
November 9, 2012, 01:18 AM
I'm less concerned about how the majority of the poll responders vote, than I am how the SMARTEST poll responders voted.

Who would those folks be? :scrutiny:

:D

481
November 9, 2012, 01:40 AM
Stopping the threat would be the important action, so then the question is how does energy contribute to the performance of that action.

Through the production of stress (force) that exceeds the elastic limit of the tissues that the bullet strikes resulting in damage to those tissues.

The underlying equation for this is Newton's second law of motion (F=ma) which, interestingly enough, serves as the primary basis of the derivation of the Schwartz bullet penetration model.

The entire derivation of Schwartz's model is covered thoroughly on pages 16-18 of Quantitative Ammunition Selection -it's a surprisingly simple and elegant process, IMHO.

mavracer
November 9, 2012, 06:38 AM
At least specifying that a bullet strike a vital location defines what needs to occur.
You can't quantify "vital location" any better than you can quantify "stopping power".
Because it is just as much an error to over-simplify the anatomy of the human body since it involves great complexity.;)

velo99
November 9, 2012, 07:10 AM
As far as shot placement....
If you want to put a BG down, use a follow up shot to the pelvis. Sherrif told me about that one. BG can't stand and it is extremely panfull.

1911Tuner
November 9, 2012, 07:12 AM
Going on the wisdom that placement is key, and that adequate penetration is necessary to reach the "right" place...it would seem that momentum would be of greater importance than energy. Momentum is the property that causes an object to keep moving after it encounters an outside/resistive force, and the easiest path to adequate momentum is mass.

I can't speak for anybody else, and this will probably elicit cries of "Over penetration" and placing Auntie Gert in jeopardy a block away...but I want a bullet that will drive through 6'5" Mongo the Mauler from front to back or on a quartering angle through his heavy coat stuffed with newspapers...aka "Poor Man's Body Armor"... and I want to make big holes in him before he can gut me or cave my head in or break my arms.

Just my 2% of a buck.

481
November 9, 2012, 09:50 AM
You can't quantify "vital location" any better than you can quantify "stopping power".

Sure I can. I can "quantify" (actually, it would be "specify", but we'll not worry about that distinction just now) a "vital location" as being the heart, the brain, the great vessels, the spinal column, the lungs, etc. That is highly specific.

That "quantification" cannot be done for "stopping power" since it has no unitary measurement and is nothing more than a loosely phrased concept whose meaning varies with the person using it- it's extremely vague.

Because it is just as much an error to over-simplify the anatomy of the human body since it involves great complexity.;)

Specifying a "vital location" is not an "over-simplification" of the human anatomy. It simply refers to the location of the structures (the heart, the brain, the great vessels, the spinal column, the lungs, etc.) that we all know about in the context of this topic. By calling the heart or lungs or CNS a "vital location" we are not calling it something other than what it is or redefining its function; we are simply saying "that is where the specific organ/structure that we are referring to is located".

mavracer
November 9, 2012, 10:14 AM
Sure I can. I can "quantify" (actually, it would be "specify", but we'll not worry about that distinction just now) a "vital location" as being the heart, the brain, the great vessels, the spinal column, the lungs, etc. That is highly specific.
Any one would be specific, as a whole they are not specific and which one is hit would certainly change the probability of incapacitation.

2zulu1
November 9, 2012, 12:46 PM
You can't quantify "vital location" any better than you can quantify "stopping power".
Because it is just as much an error to over-simplify the anatomy of the human body since it involves great complexity.;)
Certainly you can, many people use the term center mass, however, we were taught to shoot high center chest. In simpler terms, draw an imaginary line between the armpits and shoot to the center of the line, works for all shooting angles.

There were also training session that we used targets that had locations of human organs printed on the backside.

If hunters know the vital organ locations of game they are hunting, it would seem prudent for a person who is in a personal defense situation to know the same.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does Energy Count In Handgun Calibers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!