Velocity vs Bullet weight. Here we go.


PDA






JRWhit
October 18, 2013, 08:01 AM
This recent thread on this police shooting reopened a contrast in my mind. http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=bc941e3763153dcab459cab96c9770e4&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehighroad.org%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D730940%26highlight%3DHow%2Bquickly%2Bthing%2Bunfold&v=1&libId=19f7b238-0572-48f9-8cd9-fd04b8ed5212&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oregonlive.com%2Fpacific-northwest-news%2Findex.ssf%2F2013%2F10%2Foregon_state_police_video_capt.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehighroad.org%2Fsearch.php%3Fsearchid%3D12093596&title=Never%20forget%20how%20quickly%20violence%20can%20unfold%20-%20THR&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oregonlive.com%2Fpacific-no...ideo_capt.html&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13820928290106
In this video it is hard to determine when the perp was actually hit by the round shot from the officer and shows little effect on the perp even though it proved to be fatal. This once again raises the question to me of higher velocity vs heavier bullet weight. In hunting I have seemed to experience that while a heavier projectile will in many cases do more damage, a faster moving lower weight projectile will have a more incapacitating effect overall even if not a fatal shot. For me it brings to question the effects of the shock wave that reverberates through a target and it's ability to incapacitate the target either from psychological, or muscular response to the shock wave. It would seem from hunting experiences that the higher velocity rounds offer a longer span of immobilization after impact than the heavier, slower moving projectiles,even in cases where the heavier projectile does more damage. Namely the difference between a heart shot that drops vs a heart shot that runs 50yds. This video reignited this question for me. Would a faster moving projectile of a lighter bullet weight offer a longer period of immobilization after impact due to felt shock wave and greater perceived injury by the perp?
Let the firestorm of thoughts and opinions fly.

If you enjoyed reading about "Velocity vs Bullet weight. Here we go." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fast Frank
October 18, 2013, 10:33 AM
My personal experience leads me to agree with your theory.

Look for instance at the .17HMR. My first impression of the 17 grain bullet idea was that it's silly. The velocity of the round, however, makes it an explosive little smasher that blows things up. I am amazed at the little bullet every time I shoot something with it.

When you compare that to the .38 Special 158 grain RNL...

There you have a bullet that possesses several times the energy of the little .17, but doesn't do much but poke a hole.

Sure, the .38 drives in deeper, and does way more damage, but it lacks the "Splat Factor" of the .17 HMR.

I think in the end it's going to come down to the compromise.

The "Best" bullet is going to have a combination of bullet mass and velocity that provides good penetration, while still maintaining the velocity for the "Splat Factor".

It's also going to have as much power as possible, while not going to far and becoming difficult to control because of excessive recoil.

It's going to be as large as possible to poke big holes, but not too big so that as many rounds as possible will fit in the magazine.

The compromise I just described is what the .40 S&W was designed to be.

Of course... That still leaves the "Light and Fast VS. Heavy and Slow" choices within that caliber alone.

Personally, I tend to prefer the heavy ones for self defense, But that's just me. I tend to trust the penetration more than the splat. Your Mileage May Vary.

Splat factor from velocity definitely adds something to the hit, but I just don't trust it as much as deep penetration and damage

Outlaw Man
October 18, 2013, 10:36 AM
I think its more a question of energy transfer. Every bullet has a known (calculated) energy at a certain distance. The question is how much that energy is and how efficiently it's transferred to the target. Size, structure, composition, and a host of other factors contribute to that. Obviously you want that energy to explosively, violently transfer to the target at just the right time. As you know, penetration can make all the difference, whether it's too much or not enough.

Then there's that human adrenaline wild card. Go read Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrel, or any of a number of reports on almost superhuman responses to gunshots. If the person immediately thinks, "I'm dead," the fight is over. On the other hand, it takes a LOT to kill a human. If you find one that knows that and is determined to finish the job, short of a central nervous system-destroying shot, I don't think it matters what bullet you use and how fast its going. You're going to have to hit him with several.

Kleanbore
October 18, 2013, 10:44 AM
Within the realm of normal defensive handgun cartridges, you will not see "energy ... explosively, violently transfer to the target at just the right time."

The mechanics of wounding involve two things: penetration and the diameter of the permanent wound channel. The net effectiveness depends upon what is hit and the physiology and psychology of the target.

Pizzapinochle
October 18, 2013, 11:06 AM
Is there a discussion thread on this incident? Would be interested in reading.

Gregaw
October 18, 2013, 11:26 AM
I think I remember reading that this was a .40S&W that the criminal was shot with. Do you know if that is correct?

gdcpony
October 18, 2013, 11:33 AM
I think its more a question of energy transfer. Every bullet has a known (calculated) energy at a certain distance. The question is how much that energy is and how efficiently it's transferred to the target. Size, structure, composition, and a host of other factors contribute to that. Obviously you want that energy to explosively, violently transfer to the target at just the right time. As you know, penetration can make all the difference, whether it's too much or not enough.

Then there's that human adrenaline wild card. Go read Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrel, or any of a number of reports on almost superhuman responses to gunshots. If the person immediately thinks, "I'm dead," the fight is over. On the other hand, it takes a LOT to kill a human. If you find one that knows that and is determined to finish the job, short of a central nervous system-destroying shot, I don't think it matters what bullet you use and how fast its going. You're going to have to hit him with several.
Beat me to it.

It comes down to bullet construction and the momentum it has at impact. A bullet's job is transfer as much energy to the target as it can at the right time after impact (penetration). Momentum is different from energy and you can google it and find that archers like myself will argue arrow weights vs speed for this reason till the sun burns out (arrows try and do the opposite of bullets and pass through the target expending as little energy as possible to cut more)

Momentum (M) drives penetration. It is very closely related to Energy (E) so most use that. Regardless, the bullet should attempt to drive to a point before deforming. The faster it is moving the more M it has to do so.

Too much though and the bullet will likely deform too quickly before vitals are damaged significantly. The target may survive or die depending on the damage done. Or I have seen some that didn't have the time inside the target to fully deform too which simulates too little, but it is actually too much again.

Too little and it will not deform due to a lack of force placed upon it by target. While it may pass through, it will do so transferring any E to the target. In a living creature if the path of travel is through vital organs it will die, but more slowly and painfully.

Bullet construction MUST match the purpose. It must match not only in weight, but in construction. I have seen 60gr .223 bullets take down deer. I have seen 90gr .257 bullets vaporize a groundhog. Construction is more important than weight IMHO. I would not try to figure exactly when my bullet will start deforming at a given speed on a given target. That is done by the maker. My responsibility is to choose the right one. I tend to use a mid weight projectile moving at a decent speed.

Now in the video, I am betting that the bullet didn't deform as much as it should.

Outlaw Man
October 18, 2013, 11:54 AM
Within the realm of normal defensive handgun cartridges, you will not see "energy ... explosively, violently transfer to the target at just the right time."
Totally agree, at least compared to most rifle cartridges. Doesn't stop me from wanting it, though. If I could conceal, deploy, and maneuver with a rifle the way I could a handgun, I'd be getting that type of energy transfer, too. :)

While a normal handgun bullet doesn't yaw and fly apart inside human tissue on a regular basis, the maximum expansion and wound disruption is what you're going for and hoping happens at the optimum spot. It's not terribly different from a rifle. Just less overwhelming.

buck460XVR
October 18, 2013, 12:25 PM
SD and hunting ammo are two different cans of beans. The only things similar between them is that every target hit will react differently and every gun owner has their own opinion as to what works best. Differences in shot placement of only a inch, especially with a handgun, can mean the difference between a bang-flop/one shot incapacitation or a non-lethal wound. Looking at ONE video or using ONE example of incapacitating/not incapacitating to make judgement as to the effectiveness of any round would be foolish. Use your heart shot example. Shoot a relaxed deer thru the heart with an arrow and it will be hard pressed to go more than 40 yards. Shoot a running deer full of adrenaline thru the heart with a .357 and it may go 100 yards....even tho the .357 does more tissue damage. There are just to many variables. Modern bullets are very well made and most major manufacturers spend lots of R&D monies designing bullets specific to their intended usage. That does not mean that bullet will work perfectly within all scenarios. We, whether we are looking for a SD round or hunting round need to know what parameters we are looking for in the bullet used in that round and use it accordingly. If we do our job with shot placement, odds are the bullet will also do it's job.

Orion8472
October 18, 2013, 12:40 PM
That video gives me little encouragement, as a ccw. A "kill shot", yet the guy keeps going . . . . or could easily keep coming AT you. It seems that pretty much any handgun is merely a "better than nothing" tool that may still not save your life [even if the perp is killed too].

It makes me want to be sure I'm never in a gunfight to begin with, so staying out of potentially risky areas or situations.

Queen_of_Thunder
October 18, 2013, 01:13 PM
F=MA

MachIVshooter
October 18, 2013, 01:14 PM
Oh, boy, here we go. Big 'ol can-o-worms opened. lol.

In hunting I have seemed to experience that while a heavier projectile will in many cases do more damage, a faster moving lower weight projectile will have a more incapacitating effect overall even if not a fatal shot.

For one, we call that anecdotal. Without many, many, MANY examples with variables made as consistent as possible and many other controls in place, you can't chalk it up to any more than shot placement and the individual state of the animals, both physically and psychologically. A larger, stronger animal hit in a place that does less damage to vital organs is going to appear less affected than his smaller, weaker counterpart drilled right through the heart & lungs.

Secondly, rifles and handguns are not in the same league when it comes to wounding-not even the big magnums. Handgun rounds do not achieve the velocity to cause rifle bullet damage; they wound by crushing and tearing tissue directly in their path, with very little peripheral damage to the wound channel-especially in highly elastic tissues. Rifle bullets, due to their velocity, create a permanent cavity much larger than the bullet itself. We start to see these larger-than-bullet permanent cavities at speeds around 2,000 FPS.

If you want to learn about this stuff more, I'd suggest searching on here, and elsewhere, paying particular attention to the likes of Martin Fackler and Michael Courtney. Those two will give you very different perspectives on bullet wounding mechanisms, including temporary and permanent cavity properties, the hydraulic shock theory, etc. Personally, though I respect his efforts, I remain unconvinced of Dr. Courtney's theory for many reasons. But it's still an interesting read.

Common service caliber rounds actually vary little in the kinds of wounds they leave; if you do a bit of research, you'll find that without a bullet or cartridge case to tell, trauma surgeons and coroners alike cannot determine by the wound channel what caliber and weight of bullet made the wound.

As kleanbore said, with handguns, the net effects are going to depend on the depth & breadth of the wound channel, what was hit, and the psychological and physiological state of the person shot.

I could go on for pages, but I have work to do today, and the information is out there. If you have specific questions, I will do my best to answer them or point you toward a source that can.

MTMilitiaman
October 18, 2013, 02:59 PM
I disagree with the OP, especially in the context given.

In the included link, I can only assume that all shots were exchanged with handguns. Handguns are handguns and rifles are rifles, specifically because of certain velocity thresholds that most handguns are unable to obtain. All defensive handgun rounds behave pretty similar, because they all operate below 2000 fps, and they are all designed around the same FBI sponsored tests. Regardless of whether the officer was using a .357 SIG 125 gr at ~1500 fps or a .45 ACP 230 gr at ~800 fps, no real damage due to "hydrostatic shock" can be expected. Both rounds rely completely on the permanent wound channel created by tissue actually displaced by the projectile--only penetration and expansion contribute to the wound.

Living tissues are amazingly resiliant to these oft touted shock forces produced by high velocity projectiles. While it is impressive to demonstrate this effect shooting full milk jugs and such, it is important to realize that the human body behaves much differently. Our vital structures are far more elastic than the plastic of the milk jug. Consequently, research by Fackler and others shows that impacts below 2000 fps have little or no shock effect on the vast majority of tissues.

Now, even among rifles, I think the effect of shock on the body has been grossly exaggerated. I've seen too many animals run a decent distance after sustaining high velocity magnum rifle rounds to the chest to rely on the effects of shock. It's nice when it works, but is fickle and unreliable, in my experience. I shot this fat doe once with a 7mm Rem Mag loaded with a 160 gr Partition over a compressed charge of H870, listed in the manual at 3100 fps, at a range of about 30 feet. The round was perfectly placed and at that velocity, shock and fragmentation damage from the front of the projectile coming apart was obvious. The heart was blown bruised and battered from its protective lining, the lungs looked like bloody oatmeal in their entirety, fragments from the front of the round could be found six to eight inches off the track of the projectile. The deer still ran about 40 yards before succumbing. I've also seen the results of a 250 gr Sierra Matchking coming apart on a steep quartering shot on a small doe. My dad had just put together a .338 RUM built around a Rem M700LA and a 30 inch Lilja, which drove this projectile over 3100 fps (chrono'ed). The round hit base on neck, on side, and exited just behind the last rib on the offside. The exit wound looked like it was produced by a chainsaw--a large gash ten inches long and four inches wide, out of which the entire contents on the animals abdomen and most of its chest cavity had been blasted all over the backstop. The deer still ran about 50 yards. It didn't even really have to be field dressed...50 yards.

Bottom line is that terminal ballistics is as much black magic as science right now. We have some amazing projectiles, and a better diversity of launching platforms than ever. But regardless of all the testing and science, when it comes to predicting the effect of a projectile on a living organism, we just don't have the technology. Killing something is fairly simple and straight forward. But stopping someone relies on a bunch of physiological effects and other factors that can't accurately be predicted or quantified. If someone wants to stay in the fight, and has the mindset to do so, it can be very difficult to take them out of the fight. Prosecute your targets all the way down, until they are no longer a threat. And in my experience, hunting, shock is awesome when it works but not nearly as reliable as penetration through something vital, so I tend to prefer heavy for caliber projectiles, even at relatively mild velocities.

denton
October 18, 2013, 05:05 PM
It's a huge can of worms. I'll start by saying that nobody has a really, fully successful model that predicts bullet success, including me. You can do pretty well with a target made of uniform stuff, like ballistic gel. But when you throw in tough stuff like bones, or airy stuff like lungs, the models don't work so well.

There are some things that are known, that help.

When a bullet impacts, energy divides into two main effects. One is the tearing and crushing to form a permanent wound cavity. The other is temporary elastic stretching of the surrounding tissue.

Slow bullets spend practically all their energy on the permanent wound cavity. Death follows quickly if the wound cavity intersects a large blood vessel, or a blood-rich organ such as the liver or lungs, or, of course the heart. For slow bullets, Kranz's Law roughly applies: Wound cavity volume is proportional to kinetic energy.

Faster bullets divert more energy to temporary elastic stretching, and Kranz's law breaks down.

The one law that firmly holds is that momentum of the bullet at impact = momentum of the target and bullet after impact. Sadly, I don't think it helps much with the discussion at hand.

Sam1911
October 18, 2013, 06:20 PM
That video gives me little encouragement, as a ccw. A "kill shot", yet the guy keeps going . . . . or could easily keep coming AT you. It seems that pretty much any handgun is merely a "better than nothing" tool that may still not save your life [even if the perp is killed too].This is why defensive handgunning has coalesced around the idea of multiple well-aimed shots on target as fast as humanly possible. You don't take a shot and wait to see if it did the trick. You shoot and shoot and shoot until the threat stops being a threat.

It makes me want to be sure I'm never in a gunfight to begin with, so staying out of potentially risky areas or situations.Well that is a very good thing, then! Glad you saw the video!

MachIVshooter
October 18, 2013, 08:06 PM
F=MA

Force and kinetic energy are NOT the same thing. Force is more closely approximated by potential energy, but still not synonymous.

A certain amount of force is required to accelerate an object at a given rate. Hence force is a calculation of mass and acceleration.

A certain amount of energy is available/developed when and object is traveling at a given rate. Hence energy is a calculation of mass and velocity.

Think of it as a coil spring. When the spring is compressed, it has potential energy. If the spring suddenly decompresses, the end that is moving has kinetic energy. If the spring is used to move another object, the rate at which it can accelerate that object is the force.

When a bullet impacts, energy divides into two main effects. One is the tearing and crushing to form a permanent wound cavity. The other is temporary elastic stretching of the surrounding tissue.

Slow bullets spend practically all their energy on the permanent wound cavity. Death follows quickly if the wound cavity intersects a large blood vessel, or a blood-rich organ such as the liver or lungs, or, of course the heart. For slow bullets, Kranz's Law roughly applies: Wound cavity volume is proportional to kinetic energy.

Faster bullets divert more energy to temporary elastic stretching, and Kranz's law breaks down.

The one law that firmly holds is that momentum of the bullet at impact = momentum of the target and bullet after impact. Sadly, I don't think it helps much with the discussion at hand.

Definitely over-simplified, but basically, yes. A bullet's kinetic energy translates to its ability to do work, that work generally being tissue destruction. So while predictable terminal effects are something of a unicorn, one can say with reasonable certainty that a lighter weight expanding projectile traveling at higher velocity is going to create a larger but shallower wound cavity than a heavier, non-expanding bullet at lower velocity if both generate the same amount of KE.

RetiredUSNChief
October 18, 2013, 08:22 PM
This recent thread on this police shooting reopened a contrast in my mind. In this video it is hard to determine when the perp was actually hit by the round shot from the officer and shows little effect on the perp even though it proved to be fatal. This once again raises the question to me of higher velocity vs heavier bullet weight. In hunting I have seemed to experience that while a heavier projectile will in many cases do more damage, a faster moving lower weight projectile will have a more incapacitating effect overall even if not a fatal shot. For me it brings to question the effects of the shock wave that reverberates through a target and it's ability to incapacitate the target either from psychological, or muscular response to the shock wave. It would seem from hunting experiences that the higher velocity rounds offer a longer span of immobilization after impact than the heavier, slower moving projectiles,even in cases where the heavier projectile does more damage. Namely the difference between a heart shot that drops vs a heart shot that runs 50yds. This video reignited this question for me. Would a faster moving projectile of a lighter bullet weight offer a longer period of immobilization after impact due to felt shock wave and greater perceived injury by the perp?
Let the firestorm of thoughts and opinions fly.

The problem of relating your experience in hunting (presumably with rifles) with handguns in self-defense is that handguns are not rifles. Most especially those handguns typically carried for self-defense.

Handguns are inferior firearms compared to the capabilities rifles are able to acheive. The obvious advantage of handguns, however, is that they can be carried about far more conveniently than a rifle. This is the tradeoff people make when they choose to carry a handgun for self-defense.

Add to that the fact that every handgun has it's advantages and disadvantages compared to other handguns.

And further add to this the fact that shot placement is absolutely critical in any self-defense scenario.

AND every person, and every scenario, is different...so one person getting shot one particular way might not react the same way as another person getting shot the same way.


I used to think it was all about energy transfer, too. But it's not. Energy transfer is just ONE means of evaluating the POTENTIAL any given round has. But it's not the be-all and end-all with respect to bullet performance from a handgun.

The critical factor is the severity of the actual wound produced for any given shot. This involves a lot of different factors which have to be taken into account holistically. Where the wound is located, damage to organs, amount of bleeding caused, how vital the damaged organs are to continued survival and function are some of the most important factors.

Yes, mass plays a part in this. And so does bullet diameter, construction, and velocity. But any bullet has to be placed effectively in order to BE effective. And yes, some bullets may be more "forgiving" than others in this respect, within limits. But that's no substitute.

IBEWBULL
October 18, 2013, 08:32 PM
I agree with the Chief here.
There is a "threshold" where HV becomes more useful in the stopping power. I don't know what it is.
Also the heavy slower moving projectile has more time to transfer energy and is not wasted so much in the pass through scenario. Evident in the 45 Colt working on bear.
This debate can not be proven either way since each individual and his energy level or adrenalin and frame of mind come into play.

denton
October 18, 2013, 08:41 PM
Force and kinetic energy are NOT the same thing.

That's absolutely true.

Force is more closely approximated by potential energy, but still not synonymous.

I don't see how that explanation works.

Start with F=MA. Integral (MA)=MV=momentum. Integral MV=1/2MV^2=kinetic energy. If mass is a constant, which it often is, then if you know force as a function of time, you know momentum and you know kinetic energy. That's how they are hooked up. Or you can do derivatives and move the other way on the chain.

So one relationship that does hold is that when a bullet strikes a target, the bullet loses speed. The rate at which it is losing speed and momentum determines how much force it exerts on the target. The bullet continues to penetrate the target until it has shed enough momentum that it can no longer exert enough force to cause the target material to fail.

Stress_Test
October 18, 2013, 09:27 PM
It's all a big crap shoot (heh).

Some people take a .45 through the chest and walk to the hospital, and go home a week later.

Some people take a .22 LR to the chest and drop dead.

Me, I just want something that will make the 12-inch minimum penetration with a comfortable margin, and don't worry about the rest.

Black Butte
October 19, 2013, 12:54 AM
Add to that the fact that every handgun has it's [sic] advantages and disadvantages compared to other handguns.

Each handgun can be viewed as a tool, and what's important is having the right tool for the job at hand.

RetiredUSNChief
October 19, 2013, 01:19 AM
Each handgun can be viewed as a tool, and what's important is having the right tool for the job at hand.

Absolutely. And it's (correct example of usage, thank you!) also important to realize that there are multiple suitable tools perfectly suited for the job at hand, provided they're used properly.

:neener:

JRWhit
October 19, 2013, 09:33 AM
I think I remember reading that this was a .40S&W that the criminal was shot with. Do you know if that is correct?
According to the info I read,yes

JRWhit
October 19, 2013, 10:17 AM
No disagreements here, I have no solid position in this, just open for discussion.

However, my train of thought here is not which design and weight is better for a one shot end to a threatening situation, but would one combination offer a longer window of time for which a target is stunned or fatigued due to effects on surrounding body tissue? Sort of like the difference of shooting a 50bmg,one with a muzzle break and one without. Due to the pressure on the body from the directed shock wave of the muzzle break, the effects on the body can be quite dampening to an untrained shooter vs shooting the same rifle without a muzzle break. It is the fraction of a second hesitation caused by the pressure felt throughout the body that I would perceive to be an advantage in a defensive situation, if it exists within higher velocity rounds.
Two rounds to compare: 175gn 40cal critical duty vs 125gn .357 magnum critical defense. Looking at gel tests, both loads are designed for similar penetration depth. The 40 cal rests at 15.75 in, The .357 rests at 16.5in. The effects on the surrounding media outside of the wound channel, are more exaggerated with the .357, this is where I question If that would have the more stunning effect, stressing muscle and tissue further from the POI , and causing a slight longer delay in the targets motor skill. The reason This all comes to mind, in watching the video The officer sure could have used a few extra split seconds or even milliseconds.
Also noticed in a different gel test: A 9mm +p Critical duty 115gn offering Nearly identical penetration to the .357 magnum, Had a far less effect on the surrounding media than the 40cal. showing that it cant just be a little faster.
My point of intrigue in this is rather it would be more likely,not guaranteed, that the shock felt from the .357 would be more of an immediate mind changer than the .40cal? Or even offer that split second of hesitation giving a defensive shooter a greater chance of survival, giving the fact that in a defensive shooting situation, your objective is not specifically to kill and attacker, it is to stop them from fatally harming you?

MachIVshooter
October 19, 2013, 01:13 PM
Again, JR, different people will react very differently to be shot with the same round in the same place. It depends on myriad factors.

People have dropped instantly with a non-fatal wound from small caliber handguns, but also soldiers have continued to fight, not even realizing the had a rifle bullet hole in them for some time.

The person's own physical and mental state, the specific parts hit, the nature of the situation (relaxed, or pumped full of adrenaline?) are going to matter a whole lot more than the cartridge/bullet.

RetiredUSNChief
October 19, 2013, 04:40 PM
Also again, JR, you can't make comparisons with rifles. A .50 BMG is a whole 'nuther beast. Might just as well compare a 20mm or 30mm round at that point.

If you must make comparisons, then limit them to other handguns, like the .357 example you gave (a good one)...even then there is enough variety in performance characteristics to keep any debate going ad nauseum.

"Shock wave" effects, both physiological and psychological, cannot be entirely discounted. However, the one true factor which has consistently proven to be more important than any other is PENETRATION. Not shock effects, not velocity, not even caliber.

You MUST have penetration sufficient to reach vital organs.

When push comes to shove, penetration is EXACTLY what ANY handgun (and rifle/shotgun) is really designed to do: poke holes in the target using some kind of pellet. I think people sometimes lose sight of this.

Additional side effects/benefits which may go along with that are supplementary to that primary purpose.

JRWhit
October 19, 2013, 07:22 PM
The rifle comparison is just to exaggerate the effect, or theoretical effect, I'm referring to. I know the difference is extreme. I was just questioning if there could be any more chance of survival by buying that split second of more time,even if that extra time was not guaranteed in every scenario. I know nothing is guaranteed. Those who choose to carry, do so to increase chances of survival, but know it does not guarantee it. I myself, reflecting on what I use for defense rounds, Have made a choice that does not correlate to this theory. It's just that in watching the bad guy in the video take a hit and carry on as though it didn't even sting a little even though it was a well placed fatal shot, gets the ole hamster wheel turning.

Missileman
October 19, 2013, 07:49 PM
As some have mentioned the adrenaline level of the target is the biggest difference in my mind. Even a totally incapacitating fatal shot is almost useless if the target has already received his adrenaline surge. When I was hunting I had a buck one time that heard me click a safety off, but couldn't locate me. He was alert with ears up trying to locate me for an escape. The 220 grain 30-06 went in the front shoulder, through one lung, split the heart, and left an exit hole having part of the other lung hanging out. He ran almost 1/2 mile before collapsing. Anytime they were alert , it was going to be a chase. Most times when they were oblivious to my presence, they dropped on the spot. I believe you get the same reaction from a human target. Adrenaline is an extremely powerful chemical. Like someone said earlier, if you don't do a CNS shot, they will probably continue to fight until they bleed out or die when the tissues just can't perform anymore.

blarby
October 19, 2013, 07:51 PM
I'd say again that the "shockwave" and "knockdown power" arguments are still pretty invalid.

"Threats" in this case, violent perps, stop for only a few reasons- as illustrated in the video.

You can either get an extremely lucky CNS hit, rendering your subject unable to tranmit electrical impulses through the body causing motion, OR

You can cause a loss of blood sufficient to disable the functioning of the brain, OR

You can cause a combination pyschological and physical condition similar to "shock" that shuts the attacker down. Essentially, they give up, and quickly expire due to their wounds. This is one thats still under debate, and I wouldn't count on an assailant "given' up and dyin" on you in an assault. It does however, happen. People give up and die all the time- especially when wounded or otherwise harmed.

You can expand your wound channel, hoping for either faster blood loss- OR hoping to sever nervous channels that allow mobility. Thats pretty much it on a soft target.

No amount of wounding you can do, short of vaporizing your target, can stop a determined assailant before they can hurt you. Heart, lungs, any other organ short of the brain- is still going to leave you with a still live and now potentially lethally wounded attacker.

Magdump until they stop. The more holes, the faster they bleed out- and you might even get lucky with a CNS hit.

Doesnt matter if you have a 45 with 7-10 rounds, or a 9 with 17-30... your object should be the same : perforate as efficiently as possible. Do not stop until your assailant stops.


On a human assailant, assuming you can penetrate ( which it isn't hard ) the weight or velocity is less of a consequence. The delivery device enabling you to place those shots on target efficently is more of the concern.

On a hunting target of large size, being able to create a wound channel of appropriate size to cause the animal to bleed out is more a matter of bullet construction than weight. Velocity in rifles ( between 1900 and 2800 FPS in most hunting weights ) is more than sufficient to do the job. At the high, or the low, end. Its simply a measure of math used in steering your bullet where you want it to go.

RetiredUSNChief
October 20, 2013, 02:51 AM
The rifle comparison is just to exaggerate the effect, or theoretical effect, I'm referring to. I know the difference is extreme. I was just questioning if there could be any more chance of survival by buying that split second of more time,even if that extra time was not guaranteed in every scenario. I know nothing is guaranteed. Those who choose to carry, do so to increase chances of survival, but know it does not guarantee it. I myself, reflecting on what I use for defense rounds, Have made a choice that does not correlate to this theory. It's just that in watching the bad guy in the video take a hit and carry on as though it didn't even sting a little even though it was a well placed fatal shot, gets the ole hamster wheel turning.

Fair enough.

However, increasing one or more performance charactistics is ALWAYS an exercise in pros and cons, cost and trade-offs. And by "cost", I don't mean financial expenses. I mean what it costs the individual to actually utilize the weapon in terms of performance.

If you want to significantly increase the velocity of a given mass/caliber, this will involve some expenses and trade-offs. By "significantly", I mean in readily measurable and repeatable results in actual performance dynamics. For example, let's assume you want to increase the velocity of a 230 grain .45 acp bullet from a nominal 850 fps to 1500 fps.

There is a huge difference in recoil in accomplishing this. This will cost the individual in terms of being able to control the gun and be able to accurately and quickly put rounds on target, especially in a self-defence scenario.

These kinds of chamber pressures and physical forces felt on the static and dynamic parts of the gun require the gun to be built larger and beefier in order to funciton reliably without catastrophically failing under use. This affects such things as concealabilty and handling, which in turn costs the user in ability to accurately and quickly put rounds on target.

So there are a couple things that have to be considered here:

1. Is the increase in performance due to the increase velocity actually worth it in terms of actual down range performance?

2. Are the trade-offs and expenses in engineering the handgun to withstand this increase in velocity actually worth it in terms of the ability of the person to handle the weapon?


So, maybe you decide that jacking a 230 grain, .45 acp bullet up to 1500 fps requires sacrificing too much elsewhere...so you decide to change the mass of the bullet or the caliber of the bullet. Now you're intentionally shifting the trade-offs to mass and caliber to see if the cost will justify the performance.

You can see where this is going.


Fortunately for us, there is a HUGE market of handgun calibers to choose from which offer us an incredibly wide variety of choices in performance.

And for all these performance characteristics, we can see the engineering requirements which go into them. There is a reason, for example, that you don't see a .500 Magnum in a .380 sized semi-automatic. And that reason is due to the inherent limitations with handguns.


The 500 S&W Magnum can easily launch a 400 grain bullet a half inch in diameter at velocities in excess of 1600 fps. But for self-defense, do you want to try carrying this concealed...or even open carry? Can you physically draw, aim, and put six rounds on target as quickly and accurately as another handgun which doesn't have near this extreme in performance characteristics?


Increasing velocity DOES have an effect on terminal performance. Unfortunately for handguns, getting velocities significant enough to actually have an overriding significant effect on the terminal performance simply costs too much.


I said before that the single most important factor in being able to take down a living target with a personal firearm is that firearm's ability to penetrate. ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE SECONDARY TO THIS! If you can significantly increase performance by significantly increasing those other factors, GREAT. But be mindful of the cost entailed.

A firearm is designed first and foremost as a weapon to remotely perforate a target. The better it can perforate the target, the better chance you have at reaching vital organs and causing enough blood loss to incapacitate that target.

Pizzapinochle
October 21, 2013, 11:02 AM
I said before that the single most important factor in being able to take down a living target with a personal firearm is that firearm's ability to penetrate. ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE SECONDARY TO THIS!


Wouldn't the most important factor in being able to take down a living target be the ability of the user+firearm to HIT the target?

Penetration of the empty air to the left of the target is less than useful.

:-)

RetiredUSNChief
October 21, 2013, 08:47 PM
Wouldn't the most important factor in being able to take down a living target be the ability of the user+firearm to HIT the target?

Penetration of the empty air to the left of the target is less than useful.

:-)

Heh! That should go without saying that poking a hole in one's target requires one to HIT the target...

;)

Trent
October 21, 2013, 09:34 PM
Transferring force doesn't kill someone.

Otherwise body armor would be useless. It causes ALL of the energy to be expended before entering the body. It effectively transfers *all* of the force to the object (bad guy) in an instant.

But that doesn't do any damage. Because the round is stopped just short (or in most cases, a dimple, in the human flesh, which bounces back out). All of the energy transfers, but it does no damage.

No, what incapacitates people is:

A) Blood loss, caused by permanent crush cavity damaging and/or destroying blood vessels.
B) Structural damage (shattered femur, spine); hard to do with a gun, easier with a car..
C) Central nervous system disruption. (Brain can't communicate with vital organs anymore either due to intervening nerve disruption or disruption of the brain itself).

Nothing short of one of those three will end a threat, unless they CHOOSE to stop being a threat.

"Oh I've been shot I have to fall down" = conditioned response by watching too many movies. Plenty enough humans and animals have been shot and decide to not fall down over the years, to prove you don't need to.

Permanent crush cavity causes damage. If that permanent crush cavity opens a big enough artery, you bleed out, but you are still in the fight until you lose consciousness.

If it destroys something structural that prevents you from standing (knee, femur; but not pelvis), you fall down but aren't out of the fight.

If it destroys a vital organ, you bleed for awhile and then die, but doesn't necessarily mean you are out of the fight. Heart-shot criminals have killed the officer that shot them before they collapse and die.

If it destroys your brain, spine, or otherwise prevents signals from reaching your heart and lungs, you die. Usually you are done for instantly in that case.

Note that some wounds (Severed aorta, for instance) cause such a rapid loss in blood pressure from bleeding that you WILL lose consciousness; shock sets in almost immediately. That's kind of a special case, though. If your aorta is severed (as it was when my uncle had his firearms accident), you really don't have time to do anything. Your circulatory system has a massive loss of pressure and it shocks your brain, you go down and fall unconscious. (First hand report of when my uncle shot himself accidentally, severed his aorta).

Anyway.. definitely energy transfer doesn't mean diddly, unless you're talking about a 155mm howitzer detonating next to you or you are within the area of effect of a 500 lb bomb. Then, yeah, I'll argue that energy transfer does matter. :)

Orion8472
October 22, 2013, 10:45 AM
So Trent . . . [nice post, BTW], it would seem that most handgun rounds [from 22lr to 5.7x28 to 9mm to 45acp] can be effective or ineffective, depending upon where the person is hit.

MachIVshooter
October 22, 2013, 11:33 AM
So Trent . . . [nice post, BTW], it would seem that most handgun rounds [from 22lr to 5.7x28 to 9mm to 45acp] can be effective or ineffective, depending upon where the person is hit.

I know you directed this at Trent, but......

You can broaden that from handgun to firearm. The high velocity of a rifle round does not mitigate poor bullet placement.

High velocity rifle rounds definitely do more damage than pistol rounds, but if a vital structure isn't hit, then a vital structure isn't hit, whether the wound channel is 0.35" wide or 3.5" wide. Rounds that do greater damage simply give you a wider margin of error.

Trent
October 23, 2013, 12:24 AM
Orion;

Yes, *all* firearms rounds can be effective depending on where the person is hit.

Using larger calibers offers you a broader swath of permanent crush cavity. If you discount jacketed hollowpoint expansion and fragmentation (neither of which are 100% reliable), and compare base projectile size, a 45 caliber projectile gives you about a 20% boost in the width of the crush cavity. That doesn't mean it does 20% more damage (the human body is LARGE, compared to that tiny hole, you're damaging VERY little tissue if you compare the two by surface area)! That just means that the crush cavity is around 20% wider in diameter.

This means that you *might* nick an artery that you otherwise missed.

Permanent crush cavity is that - the tissue is obliterated. Gone. History. Hamburger. It's what happens when a near-or-above-supersonic bullet impacts with cells in your body which are mostly made of water. The cells rupture, and cease to be cells!

As the bullet slows, the permanent crush cavity narrows and then ceases to exist. What you get then is tissue tearing, very little permanent damage. (You also get tissue tearing around the permanent crush cavity but very little - arteries, muscle, etc are very elastic and very tough tissues). At the end of the bullet's wound channel it might only push arteries aside. Or crack, instead of obliterate bone.

When you get to VERY high velocity projectiles you can get a nifty phenomenon where you induce nerve shock in nearby nerve clusters. This was witnessed during the FBI miami shootout where an agent took a 223 round through the neck, it temporarily paralyzed the agent as it disrupted nerve communications (but did not strike the nerves).

However, the shot has to be VERY close to the central nervous system, and moving VERY fast, for that to happen.

The "hydrostatic shock" you might hear about from supersonic rounds is true, but not to the awesome degree you might hear it described in various articles. It's a very localized effect caused by the supersonic "bubble" around the projectile. Supersonic rounds WILL induce more tearing of tissue than subsonic rounds, because the tissues are displaced with much greater force. This "temporary cavity" that forms can be very destructive to certain organs, which are not as resilient as others when stretched.

Now, given the surface area of an average human being, and the .097 difference in diameter between a 9mm and a 45 ACP round, what do you think the net effect is in overall stopping power?

Compare a .22 caliber to a .45 caliber hole. Are you more likely to hit something that will incapacitate an attacker, knowing that only two things will stop them? (Unconsciousness from blood loss or central nervous system damage)

Shot placement is key.

In fact, it's downright CRITICAL.

The only BIG difference in calibers comes in how deep the projectiles penetrate while still doing permanent crush cavity damage.

A #7 pellet from a shotgun crushes very little tissue, leaves a tiny permanent crush cavity radius, and doesn't penetrate deeply. But get ENOUGH of those pellets in one area, if the area is critical, you're in big trouble.

A 22 subsonic round won't kill a man if it hits him in the hand. But then, neither will a 50 BMG. One hole will be .22" across. One will be .50" across. One might break a bone. The other will remove the whole bone.

When you shoot to stop an attacker, you shoot center of mass. Because that's where all the blood vessels meet. And in order to stop that attacker, you need to cause blood loss until they are unconscious. (Or get lucky, and get a CNS hit.)

All things being equal, a bigger bullet will let more blood out.

But a little bullet in the right place will kill you dead as a doornail, too.

Considering that your potential future attacker might be a 350 pound body builder, you need to make sure the round you have penetrates to hit vital organs. You might hit him in the side. Through an arm. Through a wall and THEN in to the arm, through a thick coat, and then through 2" of muscle before hitting a rib, and then MAYBE hitting an artery.

I don't mind keeping a 5.7x28mm for home defense because I know when I pull the trigger I'm center of mass. I'm *going* to hit something vital. I don't plan on shooting once. I don't plan on shooting until they fall down. I plan on shooting until they fall down and aren't pointing that weapon at me anymore. I can do all of that faster with a 5.7. And still have rounds to spare if his armed buddy follows him around the corner.

But that 5.7 is going to fragment fast, stop fast, and not hit one of my 5 kids or 3 dogs or 4 cats in another room (hopefully).

When I travel, I keep a 9mm on me. Because I'm faster (by .08 seconds) on split times with it (avg. .17 seconds). That's a third bullet out the barrel for every 2 bullets I'd fire from my 45 (accurately; I average .25 seconds split times on it).

And it gives me 50% more ammo capacity to boot.

And it penetrates deep enough that I'm comfortable with it's lethality, if the bad guy happens to be a steroid pumped body builder. Kids and pets I can't see behind walls aren't as much of a factor outside as they are when they're all clustered in my house together. They still are, so shot placement is still very important, as is knowing when to shoot, and when not to shoot.

So I go with the biggest caliber I can shoot accurately and fast. I can get 50% more bang for my available time with a 9mm, and 50% more ammo for the weight.

That WAY outweighs the additional diameter of my impacts, if I were to carry a 45. Because 3 9mm bullets in a bad guy cause a hell of a lot more damage than 2 45's do, if they are all clustered center mass!

A 12 gauge is better, because then you get the equivalent of 15 9mm bullets out of a 3" 00 buck magnum round, with each pull of the trigger. But 00 buck penetrates REALLY far, and I won't use it for home defense because of that.

Orion8472
October 23, 2013, 11:22 AM
Thanks again, Trent.

I'm in the process of considering the sale of my Five Seven. I have a fair number of rounds, . . . and like the way it shoots [as well as its accuracy], but realistically, a 9mm loaded with Federal HST rounds [147gr] would probably be a "better choice". And practicing with the 9mm is quite a bit cheaper.

Having said that, I hope to never need to prove any of that. If I can get out of the situation, I will do so as quickly as possible. The LAST thing I want to do is to get into a gun fight.

Trent
October 23, 2013, 11:26 AM
Yeah, people tend to get hurt in gun fights. Best to avoid them altogether. :)

wally
October 23, 2013, 07:54 PM
This once again raises the question to me of higher velocity vs heavier bullet weight.

Bullet placement and adequate penetration trumps everything, especially with handgun rounds.

Study the Regan assassination attempt. An inferior caliber with two accidentally very well placed bullets were true one shot drops, while a poorly place round left Reagan not knowing he was hit until he saw the blood, but it still darn near killed him an hour later.

If you enjoyed reading about "Velocity vs Bullet weight. Here we go." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!