Why were historic/conventional handgun bullets designed to have such high sectional density?

[UrbanHermit]

From the late 19th century until today, handgun bullets generally have high SDs around .14 -.18. 158 grain 35 caliber bullets, 250 grain 45 caliber bullets, etc were and are the norm. Even a 115 grain 9mm is substantially heavier than a 9mm round ball, which is only like 67 grains or something like that.

This makes sense if you are using modern hollowpoints; the bullet must have the weight to keep penetrating after expansion. But before the HP era, I don't understand the rationale for these bullet weights, because, as far as I know, even round balls at normal handgun velocities will penetrate more than enough for any combat usage. I've also heard several reports that "cap and ball" revolvers can demonstrate accuracy comparable to modern handguns.

Given all of this, I'm confused as to what early ballisticians and bullets manufacturers were trying to accomplish by going to these heavy bullet weights, and why these designs endured for so long. It seems as though a 45 caliber round ball would have been as good as anything if HPs weren't available. I wouldn't feel the need for anything heavier for it's size unless I was going to handgun hunt grizzlies or something. I don't think people did that back then. Was there some kind of military doctrine in vogue that I don't know about that required handgun bullets to be able to shoot through multiple people with a single shot or something?

Can anyone more knowledgeable than I shed some light on this?

 

[sequins]

They work better and are more accurate. Even without JHP technologies more good is better, no? If you could go to an outfitter and buy good lead balls or better FMJ which would you buy?

 

[JTQ]

Was there some kind of military doctrine in vogue that I don't know about that required handgun bullets to be able to shoot through multiple people with a single shot or something?

Not very likely. Overpenetration is probably the most over rated concern in personal defense cartridge selection. It is not very likely to happen, and a miss is significantly more likely. In addition, most uses of personal defense firearms (not LE use) are probably in low density areas.

Take a look over in the revolver sub-forum and find out what those guys that hunt human size game, such as deer or hogs, etc., and figure out what bullet they are using.

 

[JTQ]

They work better and are more accurate.

Yes, the heavier bullet is typically a longer bullet and has more surface area to engage the guns rifling.

 

[UrbanHermit]

They work better and are more accurate. Even without JHP technologies more good is better, no? If you could go to an outfitter and buy good lead balls or better FMJ which would you buy?

I'd buy the balls, because they'd poke the same size hole with less recoil.

 

[UrbanHermit]

Yes, the heavier bullet is typically a longer bullet and has more surface area to engage the guns rifling.

Maybe, but I've seen several photos over the years of cap and ball revolvers making groups similar to modern handguns. It seems unlikely to me that increased accuracy would a significant motivation to use bullets that are literally double the weight of balls for a given caliber.

 

[JTQ]

There are still cap and ball black powder revolvers available if you're convinced that's the way to go.

Most folks have moved on to more modern designs and don't miss the old stuff, except for novelty sake.

 

[UrbanHermit]

There are still cap and ball black powder revolvers available if you're convinced that's the way to go.

Most folks have moved on to more modern designs and don't miss the old stuff, except for novelty sake.

Why use a bullet heavier than a roundball in typical handgun calibers if it won't expand and it's purpose is only to penetrate a human at handgun distances? I could understand using wadcutters, as they destroy tissue better than LRNs, but it seems must folks in the old days didn't and just used LRNs.

 

[Kleanbore]

[QUOTE="UrbanHermit, post: 11379053, member: 261915"Maybe, but I've seen several photos over the years of cap and ball revolvers making groups similar to modern handguns.[/QUOTE]With what ammo?

 

[UrbanHermit]

[QUOTE="UrbanHermit, post: 11379053, member: 261915"Maybe, but I've seen several photos over the years of cap and ball revolvers making groups similar to modern handguns.

With what ammo?[/QUOTE]

Lead round balls. I was really into these weapons as a teenager when I wasn't old enough to buy handguns but could have legally bought one of these. I never got around to it because I was always broke, but I did do lots of research on them, and never got the impression that they were inherently less accurate than any other handguns. I remember seeing countless reviews of Pietta and Uberti percussion revolvers that suggested that the accuracy of these weapons was what one would expect from handguns in general.

 

[unclenunzie]

My understanding is that the elongated bullet with heavier weight shoots flatter at a given velocity than round ball. Read about the Minie ball.

 

[film495]

It was kind of a trial an error era, see what worked and just keep doing that. They must have observed the effectiveness on game, and decided that was the way to go, or it penetrated some number more of pine boards - as I think that was an old way to determine how effective a cartridge was.

 

[UrbanHermit]

My understanding is that the elongated bullet with heavier weight shoots flatter at a given velocity than round ball. Read about the Minie ball.

Do you think that would make any tangible difference at handgun distances?

It's possible that historical people had a different conception of what a handgun should be capable of than modern people. I've heard that the Colt Walker and Dragoon series revolvers were intended to be able to kill a horse at 100 yards. Perhaps this philosophy is what lead to the widespread adoption of extremely heavy pistol bullets. That's one theory anyway.

 

[UrbanHermit]

It was kind of a trial an error era, see what worked and just keep doing that. They must have observed the effectiveness on game, and decided that was the way to go, or it penetrated some number more of pine boards - as I think that was an old way to determine how effective a cartridge was.

I just wonder what experiences or observations lead to the consensus that a pistol bullet needed to have penetrative capability far in excess of what was needed to lethally wound a human foe. I believe even the roundballs used in the civil war would usually through-pass most men.

 

[film495]

John Browning's first handgun cartridge the .32 ACP - 71 grain, SD .105

my guess is with the success of the Winchester rifle designs he could have designed just about anything he wanted, and that is what he came up with around the turn of the last century

the little I know about some of the early rounds, is there was always a call for more power or stopping power or more effectiveness, whatever you wan to call it. .38 Special got a +P hotter loading, and .357 was developed from it. .45 ACP got developed because the military found other cartridges falling short of how they wanted a handgun to perform. The .45 ACP from my understanding was designed basically to simply drop someone in their tracks in a war/military setting, not just to kill them, but to take them out of the fight completely and immediately.

again, I don't know a ton, but have read that it used to be thought of that a large caliber and heavy bullet moving on the slow side, was best for a handgun before the era of hollow points kind of changed the equation. Somewhere in the middle there - there were magnums and +P loadings, and the reality is they are just not rifles.

 

[JTQ]

I just wonder what experiences or observations lead to the consensus that a pistol bullet needed to have penetrative capability far in excess of what was needed to lethally wound a human foe.

It not to lethally wound a foe, it is to stop a foe. Shooting somebody who dies three days later, but continues to fight right now, isn't to your advantage. Getting somebody to stop right now is the goal.

They used round ball because that was all they had and they didn't know any better. When something better was invented, they went to that.

 

[UrbanHermit]

John Browning's first handgun cartridge the .32 ACP - 71 grain, SD .105

my guess is with the success of the Winchester rifle designs he could have designed just about anything he wanted, and that is what he came up with around the turn of the last century

the little I know about some of the early rounds, is there was always a call for more power or stopping power or more effectiveness, whatever you wan to call it. .38 Special got a +P hotter loading, and .357 was developed from it. .45 ACP got developed because the military found other cartridges falling short of how they wanted a handgun to perform.

again, I don't know a ton, but have read that it used to be thought of that a large caliber and heavy bullet moving on the slow side, was best for a handgun before the era of hollow points kind of changed the equation.

You're right that many older cartridges did use bullets that would be considered lightweight by modern standards. I think this is why the 380 was popular for so long; until the development of HPs, there would have been little if any advantage to going up to the 9mm. A .355 FMJRN bullet weighing 95 grains and travelling 950 fps will likely demonstrate similar performance on a human target as a .355 FMJRN bullet weighing 124 grains and travelling 1200 fps will, but with less recoil and the ability to function in a blowback pistol. There was a Paul Harrell video where he demonstrated that a normal 380 FMJ round could potentially through-pass two human bodies back-to-back.

This begs the opening question of this post, which is why the latter style of ballistics were even developed in the first place. In the case of the 9mm, I've heard several theories, such as armor penetration, flat-trajectory at extended ranges etc. Are they true? I don't know.

If I lived in the frontier era, I would not see any reason to carry a .45LC with 230 or 250 grain bullets. I think 185 grain bullets or less would have been just as effective and demonstrate less recoil and blast. I'm wondering what potential experience could change my mind.

 

[UrbanHermit]

It not to lethally wound a foe, it is to stop a foe. Shooting somebody who dies three days later, but continues to fight right now, isn't to your advantage. Getting somebody to stop right now is the goal.

They used round ball because that was all they had and they didn't know any better. When something better was invented, they went to that.

How is a heavier bullet in the same caliber going to be any better? Increasing bullet weight improves penetration, but if penetration is already sufficient, what is the benefit of increasing bullet weight even further?

I do not believe a 45 caliber 230 grain LRN bullet will be any more effective on a human target than a 45 caliber round ball or bullet weighing 185 grains or less at the same velocity. I believe the only way to improve performance would be to change the bullet geometry to a HP, wadcutter etc, go to a larger caliber, or increase energy to rifle levels.

 

[Koroner]

Its not about "poking holes".

The bullet is a messenger. The message it carries is energy. If it passes through a target then some of the message is lost.

When a bullet remains in the target then all of the message is delivered. It doesn't just poke holes that can sever major blood vessels, the energy manifests itself in hydrostatic shock that disrupts tissue. Often this is the prime injury and requires a surgeon to remove the damaged tissue to avoid necrosis.

As mentioned earlier a round used in combat needs more than lethal capability. It needs to transmit enough energy to immediately disable the enemy's ability to fight back.

 

[UrbanHermit]

Its not about "poking holes".

The bullet is a messenger. The message it carries is energy. If it passes through a target then some of the message is lost.

When a bullet remains in the target then all of the message is delivered. It doesn't just poke holes that can sever major blood vessels, the energy manifests itself in hydrostatic shock that disrupts tissue. Often this is the prime injury and requires a surgeon to remove the damaged tissue to avoid necrosis.

As mentioned earlier a round used in combat needs more than lethal capability. It needs to transmit enough energy to immediately disable the enemy's ability to fight back.

The general consensus today, supported by FBI research, is that energy alone is not a relevant factor in handgun wounding potential. Not only do handguns lack the energy to stretch tissue beyond capacity like rifles, thereby tearing it, but also, the round-nosed bullets that have been and are standard among military and police (less so nowadays) lack a mechanism for transmitting energy to the target (they penetrate too easily and suffer little turbulence on impact.)

My own humble tests on meat support this conclusion. I have never observed a difference in destruction that could not be linked to the diameter of the handgun projectile alone. The only exception to this is the Lehigh Xtreme defense bullets, which is a whole 'nother thing.

 

[JTQ]

How is a heavier bullet in the same caliber going to be any better? Increasing bullet weight improves penetration, but if penetration is already sufficient, what is the benefit of increasing bullet weight even further?

I do not believe a 45 caliber 230 grain LRN bullet will be any more effective on a human target than a 45 caliber round ball or bullet weighing 185 grains or less at the same velocity. I believe the only way to improve performance would be to change the bullet geometry to a HP, wadcutter etc, go to a larger caliber, or increase energy to rifle levels.

Its not about "poking holes".

The bullet is a messenger. The message it carries is energy. If it passes through a target then some of the message is lost.

When a bullet remains in the target then all of the message is delivered. It doesn't just poke holes that can sever major blood vessels, the energy manifests itself in hydrostatic shock that disrupts tissue. Often this is the prime injury and requires a surgeon to remove the damaged tissue to avoid necrosis.

As mentioned earlier a round used in combat needs more than lethal capability. It needs to transmit enough energy to immediately disable the enemy's ability to fight back.

Fella's, the shallow penetration stuff went out the window back in the 1980's.

If you stand somebody in front of you at 10 feet and shoot them in the chest, you may shoot right through them. Of course you can't always count on the exchange to have the opponent square in front of you at 10 feet. Perhaps it may be farther or perhaps their arm may be in the way or any other potential barrier to the opponents torso. If you plan for minimum performance in the perfect situation, you'll get suboptimal performance when things aren't perfect.

For UrbanHermit, as I mentioned earlier, swing over to the revolver sub-forum, and ask MaxP or CraigC what they use to shoot stuff. They use revolvers all the time and can probably talk to the effectiveness of round ball vs conical bullets.

 

[film495]

I do not believe a 45 caliber 230 grain LRN bullet will be any more effective on a human target than a 45 caliber round ball or bullet weighing 185 grains or less at the same velocity. I believe the only way to improve performance would be to change the bullet geometry to a HP, wadcutter etc, go to a larger caliber, or increase energy to rifle levels.

the heavier round will be less affected by the target - meaning it's velocity will remain more consistent. at the same velocity, the heavier round will maintain it's nrg better - and thus have more nrg to transfer to the target from entry to exit. I think this is often seen by evidence of a larger exit wound.

 

[UrbanHermit]

the heavier round will be less affected by the target - meaning it's velocity will remain more consistent. at the same velocity, the heavier round will maintain it's nrg better - and thus have more nrg to transfer to the target from entry to exit. I think this is often seen by evidence of a larger exit wound.

I don't believe this creates any tangible difference in handgun rounds using non-expanding round nose bullets.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think this is why the 380 was popular for so long; until the development of HPs, there would have been little if any advantage to going up to the 9mm.

Were that the case, European police departments and military organizations would not have insisted on loads more powerful than the .380--9MM Browning Long, 9 MM Police, and 9MM Parabellum.

 

[IlikeSA]

Think about the evolution of bullet design and rifles. In the 1840s-50s, they went from a round ball muzzle loaded smooth bore to a muzzle loaded rifle (the Mississippi rifle). In the 1850s a man by the name of Minie invented a new rifle bullet, which would expand at the base and fill the rifling, while loading faster than a patch fitted round ball. They found this Minie bullet to be far more accurate for the speed of loading than round ball. There were more accurate rifles and more accurate bullets (Whitworth rifle) but speed of loading wasn't there. They needed a rifle the common soldier could shoot.

This technology carried over to revolver bullet development. When cartridges were developed in the late 1850s and early 60s for lever action rifles like a Henry or Sharps, they had heeled bullets like a modern 22, and you can't do that with a round ball. This carried over to cartridge loaded centefire and pin fire handguns.

Moving to the period of time you asked about, the late 1800s, that was just the way things were done due to tradition and technology. Velocity was not fast for a bullet, and the only constant you had and have is weight. Weight of bullet is what penetrates and better maintains its momentum over longer range.