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

[UrbanHermit]

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.

I'm not aware of any evidence that the 9mm offers superior terminal performance over the 380 in FMJRN form. In hollow point form it certainly does, and hollow points require both the velocity and weight the 9mm offers in order to perform properly, but in FMJRN form, a 35 caliber puncture wound is just a 35 caliber puncture wound no matter how much weight you put behind it. The energy would have to be increased radically to see any difference in tissue destruction without changing the basic bullet design.

 

[reddog81]

If you plan for minimum performance in the perfect situation, you'll get suboptimal performance when things aren't perfect.

The above quote is pretty much what it comes down to. A 67 grain 9mm round ball might go through a person with a gut shot but it might also deflect off the arm they are holding a gun in that’s shooting at you.

Just because a .22 caliber 30 grain bullet can be lethal, doesn’t mean it’s a good self defense round. There’s a huge difference between potential lethal rounds and rounds that will most likely incapacitate a person in one shot.

What testing have you done with Lehigh extreme defense rounds? I find it odd you discredit 100+ years of research in handgun rounds but then say some gimmicky round is a whole ‘nother thing.

 

[Kleanbore]

'm not aware of any evidence that the 9mm offers superior terminal performance over the 380 in FMJRN form.

You contradict yourself. You have already spoken of greater penetration.

Your conclusions did not influence the organizations hat sought more powerful chamberings in an era that preceded the adoption of HP bullets.

 

[UrbanHermit]

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.

That's probably the best answer I'll get.

I think it's probable also that, in an age when handguns only carried 5-6 rounds and had to be manually cocked for every shot, the recoil may not have been considered to be a serious issue. The modern obsession with recoil may be largely because modern semiautomatic pistols have the potential to maintain impressive rates of accurate rapid fire due to the way they mechanically function, and this potential can be squandered by recoil, therefore any increase in bullet weight must be justified. Historical shooters may have appreciated the redundant level of penetration of heavy bullets for those "just in case" scenarios and had little to gain by attempting to optimize the recoiling characteristics of weapons that had such slow rates of fire and limited capacity.

 

[UrbanHermit]

You contradict yourself. You have already spoken of greater penetration.

Your conclusions did not influence the organizations hat sought more powerful chamberings in an era that preceded the adoption of HP bullets.

Greater penetration does not automatically equate to improved terminal performance. If a bullet will already through-pass an adult male, increasing the penetration potential will obviously not accomplish anything but increasing the recoil and blast of the weapon. Unless serious barrier penetration is expected to be required, I don't see what is gained by going from a 380 to a 9mm if you're going to be stuck using fully jacketed round nose bullets.

 

[UrbanHermit]

The above quote is pretty much what it comes down to. A 67 grain 9mm round ball might go through a person with a gut shot but it might also deflect off the arm they are holding a gun in that’s shooting at you.

Just because a .22 caliber 30 grain bullet can be lethal, doesn’t mean it’s a good self defense round. There’s a huge difference between potential lethal rounds and rounds that will most likely incapacitate a person in one shot.

What testing have you done with Lehigh extreme defense rounds? I find it odd you discredit 100+ years of research in handgun rounds but then say some gimmicky round is a whole ‘nother thing.

I've shot about a dozen pork picnic shoulders with them in 9mm and 10mm. My opinion is that the Lehigh Xtreme defense bullet is superior to conventional hollow points in every way. They seem to cause similar tissue destruction, but have none of the issues that HPs do with reliable performance, soft tissue penetration, hard barrier penetration, barrel length, or any of myriad of other issues that hollow points have all due to the fact that HPs rely on expansion to work. Basically I like the Xtreme defense for the same reasons I like full wadcutters in revolvers. I think the design has the potential to phase out HPs in the near future as more experts notice it and appreciate it's advantages.

 

[Kleanbore]

Greater penetration does not automatically equate to improved terminal performance

In handguns, terminal performance is defined in terms of penetration, unless and until one factors in expansion.

If a bullet will already through-pass an adult male, increasing the penetration potential will obviously not accomplish anything but increasing the recoil and blast of the weapon.

True. But one should not assume such pass-through with a .380 on a consistent basis.

Unless serious barrier penetration is expected to be required, I don't see what is gained by going from a 380 to a 9mm if you're going to be stuck using fully jacketed round nose bullets.

What you see was not necessarily on the requirements list of the police and military from some 110 years ago and for some tome thereafter.

 

[UrbanHermit]

In handguns, terminal performance is defined in terms of penetration, unless and until one factors in expansion.

So if a bullet exits the bad guy and continues on for 300 yards, that will demonstrate superior terminal performance to a bullet that exits the bad guy and only makes it 100 yards after?

True. But one should not assume such pass-through with a .380 on a consistent basis.

Well, the 380 went through two of Paul Harrell's meat targets, that's all I know. I've never heard mention of the lack of penetration of the 380 in FMJ form being among it's weaknesses.

What you see was not necessarily on the requirements list of the police and military from some 110 years ago and for some tome thereafter.

Then what was? That was my opening question.

 

[Kleanbore]

So if a bullet exits the bad guy and continues on for 300 yards, that will demonstrate superior terminal performance to a bullet that exits the bad guy and only makes it 100 yards after?

Don't be silly!

Well, the 380 went through two of Paul Harrell's meat targets, that's all I know.

Alrighty then.

Now consider a bullet smashing through the ulna and the radius, losing significant energy in making the exit wound through the skin of the arm, entering the torso and breaking ribs, cutting muscle, and then penetrating far enough to damage something critical inside. Assume that the target is not naked.

Member reddog81 has already alluded to a similar case.

I've never heard mention of the lack of penetration of the 380 in FMJ form being among it's weaknesses.

I have.

If you do not know why .380 pistols fell out of favor for service and law enforcement use long before the advent of hollow point bullets, why are you arguing that they are as effective as the more powerful pistols that replaced them?

 

[UrbanHermit]

If you do not know why .380 pistols fell out of favor for service and law enforcement use long before the advent of hollow point bullets, why are you arguing that they are as effective as the more powerful pistols that replaced them?

Because I want someone to explain to me why this is wrong.

 

[Kleanbore]

Because I want someone to explain to me why this is wrong.

That does not explain your reasons for arguing.

You would have to ask people who made those evaluations back in the day, or maybe for today's militaries.

Start there, before promoting your own personal theories on why they were wrong.

 

[UrbanHermit]

You would have to ask people who made those evaluations back in the day, or maybe for today's militaries.

I was hoping some of those people would be here, or at least people who authoritatively know what those people would have said.

 

[Kleanbore]

I was hoping some of those people would be here, or at least people who authoritatively know what those people would have said.

There may be some chance, but it's unlikely

In the mean time, I suggest that you quit arguing the point without having that information.

 

[UrbanHermit]

There may be some chance, but it's unlikely

It's unlikely that there's someone here who studies the history of firearm technology who may know why there was a dramatic increase in the weight of handgun bullets in the late 1800s? Is there another forum where there may be a higher chance of encountering such a person?

In the mean time, I suggest that you quit arguing the point without having that information.

Which point exactly should I quit arguing? And also, for future reference, what are the rules as to which opinions can be expressed in this forum and which cannot, so that I don't make the same mistake again?

 

[Nuclear]

A combination of factors I would guess. You can only push a bullet so fast with black powder, and second, if you do push a lead projectile fast, the barrel will lead up fast. So the only way to achieve more penetration is with more mass. So you go with either a larger diameter bullet, or a heavier (longer) bullet for the same diameter.

 

[HB]

I’m pretty sure the .45 ACP was designed to mimic the .45 Colt. The .45 Colt and SAA were used to shoot horses as much as people.

I imagine the .38/200 and others followed same thinking. You never know what you’ll need to shoot through.

Personally I still like the 158 gr SWC in .38 for snubbies. Shooting trees, dirt, lumber, etc it seems the slow heavy 158 out penetrates 125s and it really makes the 380 look bad.

 

[UrbanHermit]

The .45 Colt and SAA were used to shoot horses as much as people.

Now that I'd believe. This sort of thing might have created a deeply entrenched philosophy in the tradition of bullet design.

 

[Kleanbore]

QUOTE="UrbanHermit, post: 11379473, member: 261915"]Which point exactly should I quit arguing?[/QUOTE]You are repetitively contending that more powerful non=expanding ammunition provides no advantage over less powerful ammunition of the same caliber, when historical developments indicate that the market believed otherwise.

....what are the rules as to which opinions can be expressed in this forum and which cannot, so that I don't make the same mistake again?

No rules, just very unhelpful.

 

[Kleanbore]

I've looked for information on the subject.

As I understand it, most paper C&B revolver cartridges issued during the Civil War had conical bullets. I do not know the reason why.

In Sixguns by Keith, Elmer recounts interviews with a couple of Civil War vets who said that according to their observations, round balls were more effective.

Much of what is written on that subject seems to be conjectural, and much speaks in terms of "stopping power".

Regarding the FMJ ammunition at and shortly after the turn of the century, WHB Smith described the 9MM Browning Long cartridge as having more power than the .380 ACP and less than the 9MM Parabellum. Whatever advantage were thought to accrue to the Long would have been discussed in European official circles in languages other than English.

The Swedish military and several others adopted Browning pistols in 9MM Long (9x20), but subsequently the Swedes retired theirs in favor of the Lahti pistol chambered for the 9MM Parabellum, and all others have switched to the 9X19.

On other thing: there is more to bullet design than sectional density.

The .38 Long Colt was initially designed to work in cartridge conversions of .36 Navy revolvers.

Round balls have very little surface area with which to bear on the cartridge case, and one might reasonably expect round balls to dislodge during recoil or even during shipping.

The .38 Long fell by the wayside very quickly after the introduction of the .38 S&W Special, and the .38 S&W fell out of favor no long afterward. I have never heard of anyone contending that the .38 Special has excessive penetration.

I hope this helps.

 

[ATLDave]

Among numerous other reasons, round balls suck in metallic cartridges. Tiny surface area for contact. Bad for moving under recoil in revolvers, worse for setback during feeding in semi-autos. Even if there were no external or terminal ballistic differences, this alone would be reason to never, ever use round balls.

 

[Kleanbore]

Among numerous other reasons, round balls suck in metallic cartridges. Tiny surface area for contact. Bad for moving under recoil in revolvers, worse for setback during feeding in semi-autos. Even if there were no external or terminal ballistic differences, this alone would be reason to never, ever use round balls.

I did allude to that.

Your post effectively answers the OP.

 

[ATLDave]

I did allude to that.

Your post effectively answers the OP.

I think there are bunch of other things that are not-right about the OP's line of thinking, but the incompatibility of round balls with self-contained metallic cartridges really means we don't even have to argue about that other stuff.

 

[tipoc]

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?

There have been some good posts here replying to your question and comments here so far. I can't add much without getting too verbose.
I'll point you to the book "American Rifle" by Alexander Rose which covers the development or rifles from the muzzle loading musket to the modern rifle and the changes in ammunition and powders for the same. It's a good and fun read and I recommend it to all.

The change was a evolutionary one.

The 45 round lead ball was done for rifles and handguns after the Civil War. To make a long and interesting story short and boring three things killed the round ball off between 1860 and 1900.
1. Minie ball ammo which was not a round ball but a cone. The longer length of the bullet engaged the rifling and made for a more accurate and faster bullets over a longer distance. They also discovered that by altering the rate of twist of the rifling in a barrel they could increase accuracy and distance over a variety of bullet calibers and weights. Increasing the length of the bullet also increased it's weight. Sectional density became a factor at that point.

https://gettysburgcompiler.org/2019/04/30/small-but-deadly-the-minie-ball/

2. The transition from muzzle loaders to breech loaders. This led to brass cased ammo and the round ball was done for, though the term "ball ammo" remained.

3. Smokeless powder. With black powder the main way to increase the power of a cartridge was to increase the load of powder. To do this a larger caliber was needed (or a longer bullet case and increase in overall length of the round). So because heavier bullets retain more energy over distance we had teh Sharps rilfe in the civil war firing and afterwards firing 45 and 50 caliber 400 and 500 gr. bullets that were accurate out to 1,000 yards. Far beyond what any round ball could do. The development of smokeless powder changed all that. It did not change the fact that large heavy bullets remain lethal and do what they do well...the old timers wern't wrong. It just change the amount of powder needed to do it and so opened the door for the next steps forward.

4. the 380 acp vs. the 9mm let's say both in ball ammo. One 90 gr. at less say 950 fps and a 9mm at 124 gr. at 1150 fps. With the 9mm you have greater momentum, this aids penetration. You also have greater energy which means the possibility of more damage (a more traumatic wound, penetration of bone, and of barriers, etc.). This is why we see many armies armed with the 9mm and none with the 380acp.

tipoc

 

[ATLDave]

The modern obsession with recoil may be largely because modern semiautomatic pistols have the potential to maintain impressive rates of accurate rapid fire due to the way they mechanically function, and this potential can be squandered by recoil, therefore any increase in bullet weight must be justified. Historical shooters may have appreciated the redundant level of penetration of heavy bullets for those "just in case" scenarios and had little to gain by attempting to optimize the recoiling characteristics of weapons that had such slow rates of fire and limited capacity.

Jeez, just noticed this. Nevermind that heavy bullets have less recoil for a given momentum than lighter bullets in non-compensated handguns. People in the practical shooting games whose ammo must meet a certain power factor generally favor using heavy bullets and a light load of powder precisely because this reduces recoil.

 

[FlSwampRat]

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.

Please keep in mind that "back when" humans were a small part of what might threaten someone. Large critters were more common, also if a rider fell off his horse and his boot got caught he might have to put it down or risk being dragged to death. If in that situation I'd want something to make a fast, clean kill rather than just scare the horse into either running or running faster.