Improved 9mm ammunition

revchuck said:

One point that is being overlooked is that self-defense ammo and hunting ammo have different objectives. While hunting ammo is designed to kill the game animal, self-defense ammo is designed to stop the bad guy from doing bad stuff ASAP. If the bad guy is shot and stops doing whatever bad stuff he was doing and lives and goes through the criminal justice system, the ammo has done its job. If he dies, so be it, but that's not the objective.

Click to expand...

Not really. Usually different bullets but same purpose. The objective when you squeeze the trigger is to place a bullet into the vitals, doing as much damage as possible (which doesn't matter according to "experts") and causing incapacitation as quickly as possible. Only difference is that in hunting you usually don't call an ambulance afterwards. Intent plays no role in terminal ballistics.

CraigC said:

Not really. Usually different bullets but same purpose. The objective when you squeeze the trigger is to place a bullet into the vitals, doing as much damage as possible (which doesn't matter according to "experts") and causing incapacitation as quickly as possible. Only difference is that in hunting you usually don't call an ambulance afterwards. Intent plays no role in terminal ballistics.

Click to expand...

Um, no. When I've shot game, I chose my loads and placed my shots to kill as quickly and humanely as possible. I don't want to incapacitate a deer. I've never shot a human, and I hope I never have to, but if I need to the loads I've chosen and my intended shot placement will be to stop the attack rather than to kill the attacker.

And to bring this around to the original topic, I'm comfortable using current 9x19 loads (Federal HST 124 gr. +P in my case) to do it.

Semantics sprinkled with horse hockey. Again, you're talking about intent, which has nothing to do with terminal ballistics. The target is the same. The heart/lungs or CNS.

So the target on an attacker is NOT the heart/lungs and/or CNS? We shooting knees now?

A 200lb deer is larger and requires more penetration than a 200lb man?

Kleanbore said:

I hate to put it quite this way, but your credibility and expertise in the field of hand-gun wounding mechanics remans unrecognized.

Click to expand...

No argument there.
However, I have seen 37 bow kill wounds between me & my wife, kids, several rifle wounds (.223, .243), blackpodwer (sabot 45 pistol bullet)
I've seen tissue wounds firsthand, shot placement and diameter are both factors when shock value is missing as delivered by a .243 rifle.

Handgun bullets make holes, the bigger the hole the more likely an attacker is quickly incapacitated, same shot placement and penetration.
Is there any dispute that larger holes are desirable in an attacker?

Broadheads do not create tissue destruction beyond what they touch, your "experts" probably think the same applies to pistol bullets.
I (a simple lay person) can differentiate a 25% increase in wound size when given the two to view.
Both of these are 4 blade Slick Trick entry holes, one was a 1'' diameter head the other was 1 1/4''
I'll bet even a trained medical professional could discern the difference, having both to view at the same time.

A 200lb deer is larger and requires more penetration than a 200lb man?

Click to expand...

A 200 lb deer isn't pointing a firearm at you and it doesn't have any hands or arms that you may have to shoot through for your bullet to reach and damage vitals.

Broadheads do not create tissue destruction beyond what they touch, your "experts" probably think the same applies to pistol bullets.

Click to expand...

Two completely different mechanisms of wounding: 1) broadheads cut soft tissues. Handgun bullets crush soft tissues.

A .45 bullet severs the aorta. A 9mm bullet severs the aorta. Which one is more effective? Will the larger diameter of the .45 bullet produce any practical difference in effectiveness? Will the rate and volume of blood loss be less with the 9mm?

The deeper a bullet penetrates the smaller the diameter of the hole it makes. Why? As the penetrating bullet slows it allows more time for soft tissues to stretch and "flow" around it as it passes through. The diameter of the permanent cavity is larger at the beginning of the wound track than it is near the end of the track.

Shawn Dodson said:

A 200 lb deer isn't pointing a firearm at you and it doesn't have any hands or arms that you may have to shoot through for your bullet to reach and damage vitals.

Click to expand...

Did you see this one?

JTQ said:

Did you see this one?

Click to expand...

You shot it with .45 ACP and premium defense ammo?

Shawn Dodson said:

You shot it with .45 ACP and premium defense ammo?

Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't shoot anything. However, the guy that shot it probably knows something about stopping a critter that can stomp or chomp you. With stuff that can stomp or chomp you, you've got to stop it right now. Choosing a round for blood trails is not the issue. Putting it down, right now is the issue, just like with people who are trying to hurt you.

A 1/16th of an inch doesn't matter when you hit your small target. If, however, you are a 16th an an inch away, it matters a hell of a lot. Just like the 9mm in the infamous Miami shootout, if it had just penetrated a little farther, it would have stopped the bad guy a lot faster.

As far as deer and other game animals are concerned, no hunter wants to chase or track a wounded animal, they want them to drop right away. And if that animal is dangerous, hunters REALLY want them to drop right away. And they use larger caliber rounds on the the dangerous animals.

Finally, if you stop someone by shooting them in the Central Nervous System, you are going to most likely kill them or paralyze them for life. If you stop them by dropping their blood pressure by putting holes in their vascular system, they will need an ER or they will die. Sure, there are psychological stops, but they aren't reliable. So we use handguns, which aren't phasers set on stun. They are deadly weapons.

481 said:

Something with a diameter of .375'' this time around would do quite nicely. /jocularity

Click to expand...

We can call it the ".38 NWRMITT (No We Really Mean It This Time)".

Shawn Dodson said:

Two completely different mechanisms of wounding: 1) broadheads cut soft tissues. Handgun bullets crush soft tissues.

Click to expand...

I know that, I've seen it.
I specified that handgun bullets like braodheads only destroy tissue they "touch" unlike a high power rifle which makes lungs into pulp.
Although mechanism of wounding different, similarity is no "temporary" cavity effect, comparison of permanent (crush/cut) damage from projectile easy.
My comment about pistol bullets not creating a "temporary" cavity effect is limited to 9mm/40/45 fired from a pistol.
Sabot 45 caliber pistol bullet with 100 gr. black powder behind it shot from a muzzle loading rifle impacting a deer 15 yards away makes lungs pulpy IME.
Likewise IMO 357 Sig and 10mm generate enough KE that the "temporary" cavity effect might not be so temporary.
Now as I've been reminded, I'm a "lay person" and my opinion about pistol bullets carries limited validity, so I have evidence to support my opinion.
Pic (which is no longer hosted) came from reply #48 in this thread, 10mm 135 gr. HP entry wound (fired from a pistol)
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/official-10mmauto-deer-hunt-story-thread.1373461/page-3


Tissue damage bigger than the permanent crush clearly visible around entry hole, pistol bullets don't cause temporary cavity damage mythbusted.

The goal of self defense is to stop (incapacitate) an attacker ASAP which I've stated several times in this thread.
I also have stated that larger bullet diameters are more likely to achieve that goal, assuming equal shot placement.
Hunting is about making a single shot that will kill the animal quickly, but lessons learned hunting (bigger is better) apply to self defense.

In the book Stopping Power chapter 32 page 321 John Farnham said this:
"Lethality is not, by itself, a critical factor. An effective handgun round, upon impact, promptly cripples the target. That capability is fundamental and foremost. Whether or not the person struck by the bullet(s) ultimately dies from the resultant wound(s) is not particularly important, although experience has shown that crippling ability and lethality are inexorably linked."

Tissue damage bigger than the permanent crush clearly visible around entry hole, pistol bullets don't cause temporary cavity damage mythbusted.

Click to expand...

The temporary cavity from an expanding handgun bullet in common combat calibers (the context we're discussing here) can indeed produce permanent disruption - however it cannot be depended on due to a variety of factors.

The increased damage shown in the photo happened because the intercostal muscle tissue occupies a small area between the ribs. The small amount of muscle tissue combined with it being restrained by the ribs and connective tissues did not allow it to stretch and absorb the temporary cavity. It relieved the stress of the temporary cavity by tearing and rupturing.

Liver, kidney, pancreas, spleen and brain tissues do not tolerate stretching well and can be damaged by the temporary cavity provided the temporary cavity is located along the wound track where these tissues are encountered by the penetrating bullet. Muscle, nerve, lung, blood vessel, and bowel tissues are elastic and and are able to tolerate being stretched by the temporary cavity with little more damage than bruising.

The reality is you cannot rely on a handgun bullet to damage anything other than what it physically contacts and crushes. With modern expanding ammunition there is very little practical difference in effectiveness between common combat handgun calibers.

CDW4ME said:

I know that, I've seen it.
I specified that handgun bullets like braodheads only destroy tissue they "touch" unlike a high power rifle which makes lungs into pulp.
Although mechanism of wounding different, similarity is no "temporary" cavity effect, comparison of permanent (crush/cut) damage from projectile easy.
My comment about pistol bullets not creating a "temporary" cavity effect is limited to 9mm/40/45 fired from a pistol.
Sabot 45 caliber pistol bullet with 100 gr. black powder behind it shot from a muzzle loading rifle impacting a deer 15 yards away makes lungs pulpy IME.
Likewise IMO 357 Sig and 10mm generate enough KE that the "temporary" cavity effect might not be so temporary.
Now as I've been reminded, I'm a "lay person" and my opinion about pistol bullets carries limited validity, so I have evidence to support my opinion.
Pic (which is no longer hosted) came from reply #48 in this thread, 10mm 135 gr. HP entry wound (fired from a pistol)
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/official-10mmauto-deer-hunt-story-thread.1373461/page-3
View attachment 763334

Tissue damage bigger than the permanent crush clearly visible around entry hole, pistol bullets don't cause temporary cavity damage mythbusted.

The goal of self defense is to stop (incapacitate) an attacker ASAP which I've stated several times in this thread.
I also have stated that larger bullet diameters are more likely to achieve that goal, assuming equal shot placement.
Hunting is about making a single shot that will kill the animal quickly, but lessons learned hunting (bigger is better) apply to self defense.

In the book Stopping Power chapter 32 page 321 John Farnham said this:
"Lethality is not, by itself, a critical factor. An effective handgun round, upon impact, promptly cripples the target. That capability is fundamental and foremost. Whether or not the person struck by the bullet(s) ultimately dies from the resultant wound(s) is not particularly important, although experience has shown that crippling ability and lethality are inexorably linked."

Click to expand...

Not sure what this proves since none of the internal organs are evident for examination.

It would have been interesting to examine the bullet's pathway through the internal organs and any damage proximate to the permanent channel that might've occurred in those tissues.

Dain Bramage said:

We can call it the ".38 NWRMITT (No We Really Mean It This Time)".

Click to expand...

I was thinking of ''.375 IMP'' (Idiotic Marketing Ploy), but your suggested moniker is much more cumbersome and therefore, more appealing. You win.

Shawn Dodson said:

The reality is you cannot rely on a handgun bullet to damage anything other than what it physically contacts and crushes. With modern expanding ammunition there is very little practical difference in effectiveness between common combat handgun calibers.

Click to expand...

You don't see how those two statements are at odds with each other? If statement #1 is correct then statement #2 cannot be. It's an argument that bigger bullets destroy more tissue.

481 said:

I was thinking of ''.375 IMP'' (Idiotic Marketing Ploy), but your suggested moniker is much more cumbersome and therefore, more appealing. You win.

Click to expand...

My .38 can be the standard caliber that we sell as the best thing since sliced bread. Then, gradually as people get used to it, we seed loudmou...uh...opinionated voices on the internet shouting that it's only for small wristed arthritics and will barely bruise a cat. Then we "magnumize" it as the .375, and lengthen the case, of course, because all those previous guns that we sold you are brittle pot-metal junk that will implode into another dimension if exposed within sight of the new arm-breaker. And of course, three digits show you really mean business.

CraigC said:

You don't see how those two statements are at odds with each other? If statement #1 is correct then statement #2 cannot be. It's an argument that bigger bullets destroy more tissue.

Click to expand...

Shawn's statements do not conflict with, and are not at odds, with one another. In fact, he said:

Shawn Dodson said:

The reality is you cannot rely on a handgun bullet to damage anything other than what it physically contacts and crushes. With modern expanding ammunition there is very little practical difference in effectiveness between common combat handgun calibers.

Click to expand...

As you can see he is not discounting the effect of larger expanded bullets, he is merely putting their relative effectiveness into perspective. (see underlined text)

His statements reflect what those qualified in the field (of terminal ballistics) have already determined to be the case.

Do larger expanded bullets damage more tissue that smaller expanded bullets?

Sure they do, but the difference, and any resulting effect, is marginal.

They are at odds and I disagree completely. The fact that statement #1 is correct makes any incremental increase in diameter/tissue damage all the more important. As I've said many times here, any study that concludes that there is little to no difference would have to be fundamentally flawed. Believe them if you like.

The area of a circle is given by multiplying pi times the square of the radius. The radius is squared, but since the radius is half of the diameter, any increase in caliber gets divided in half before being squared. So for frontal area we have:
9mm = .099 sq in
.40 cal = .13 sq in
.45 cal = .16 sq in

So we see that the 9mm has about 76% of the frontal area of the .40 and about 62% of the frontal area of the .45. Using the HST data provided by CDW4ME in the 2nd post of this topic as a decent example:
9mm = .37 sq in
.40 cal = .5 sq in
.45 cal = .59 sq in

So in this example we see the 9mm stays pretty much on par with the .40 and the .45 in expanded diameters as well with 74% of the .40's frontal area and 63% of the .45's. If we take the frontal area and multiply it by height we get the volume of a cylinder. Now here we are going to assume, theoretically, that each bullet reaches it's fully expanded diameter after two inches of penetration, and we are only going to calculate the would volume of the fully expanded projectiles:

9mm = 3.93 in cu
.40 cal = 5.28 in cu
.45 cal = 6.84 in cu

Again we find that the 9mm has about 74% of the .40's wound volume. But the extra inch of penetration the .45 provides in this case gives it a little more of an advantage over the 9mm, which comes in with 57% of the .45's wound volume.

Then we could continue this exercise by calculating average ammo prices and capacities, recoil levels, ect. We could also calculate the volume of an expanding 5.56 mm round or 12 gauge buckshot round for perspective. Of course we also have to remember that this is gel results, which represent a best case scenario. A real chest cavity is not a homogeneous substance.

MTMilitiaman said:

The area of a circle is given by multiplying pi times the square of the radius. The radius is squared, but since the radius is half of the diameter, any increase in caliber gets divided in half before being squared. So for frontal area we have:
9mm = .099 sq in
.40 cal = .13 sq in
.45 cal = .16 sq in

So we see that the 9mm has about 76% of the frontal area of the .40 and about 62% of the frontal area of the .45. Using the HST data provided by CDW4ME in the 2nd post of this topic as a decent example:
9mm = .37 sq in
.40 cal = .5 sq in
.45 cal = .59 sq in

So in this example we see the 9mm stays pretty much on par with the .40 and the .45 in expanded diameters as well with 74% of the .40's frontal area and 63% of the .45's. If we take the frontal area and multiply it by height we get the volume of a cylinder. Now here we are going to assume, theoretically, that each bullet reaches it's fully expanded diameter after two inches of penetration, and we are only going to calculate the would volume of the fully expanded projectiles:

9mm = 3.93 in cu
.40 cal = 5.28 in cu
.45 cal = 6.84 in cu

Again we find that the 9mm has about 74% of the .40's wound volume. But the extra inch of penetration the .45 provides in this case gives it a little more of an advantage over the 9mm, which comes in with 57% of the .45's wound volume.

Then we could continue this exercise by calculating average ammo prices and capacities, recoil levels, ect. We could also calculate the volume of an expanding 5.56 mm round or 12 gauge buckshot round for perspective. Of course we also have to remember that this is gel results, which represent a best case scenario. A real chest cavity is not a homogeneous substance.

Click to expand...

My compliments, Sir.
Until you posted this I was completely baffled.

Don't know the caliber/ammunition used, but I definitely would not want a slower incapacitation time than obtained here:


This is a Glock 19, shooter is LE, competitor and firearms instructor.
Takes 6 rounds of 9mm to stop skinny guy with knife.
I can't help but think a larger bullet might have been more quickly effective.


This immediate result is preferred if defending against lethal force, appears to be a 1911:

If we take the frontal area and multiply it by height we get the volume of a cylinder.

Click to expand...

This is a faulty calculation of permanent wound cavity volume because the diameter of the “cylinder” is not fixed from beginning to end, for reasons I described previously. Duncan MacPherson, in his book “Bullet Penetration”, determined that the bullet shape factor (phi) of an expanded handgun bullet is 0.82. The maximum diameter of the permanent cavity located at the beginning of the wound track is about 82% of the bullet’s expanded diameter and the permanent cavity decreases in diameter as the bullet penetrates.

Wound ballistics researcher Dr. Gary Roberts observed that most bullets recovered from bodies as a result of police action shootings show an expanded diameter that closely matches the diameter of bullets that are shot into ordnance gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth. These bullets do not expand as much as bullets fired into bare gelatin.

Years ago wound ballistics researcher Dr. Martin Fackler suggested performing a study in which shooters would fire at a life-size silhouette paper target that had a life-size depiction of major cardiovascular structures accurately located on the reverse side of the target (which would be unseen by the shooters). Then the bullet holes in each shooter’s target would be studied to determine if a larger caliber bullet would have made a difference by measuring those bullets that barely nicked or just missed a major cardiovascular structure. I conducted this study with my agency during one of our quarterly firearms qualification shoots. In talking with Fackler prior to our experiment he estimated that a bullet’s “effective diameter” (not expanded diameter) would have to overlap a major cardiovascular structure by at least 0.20” for it to crush open the wall. Officers in my department were armed with 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP duty handguns. We used Macpherson’s bullet shape factor of 0.82 to calculate “effective diameter” from the expanded diameter of our ammunition as tested in bare ordnance gelatin (which represents best case conditions for bullet expansion). Our data showed that a .45 ACP bullet would have the potential to provide a 3-5% increase in wounding effectiveness compared to 9mm. So for every 100 shots fired, in best case conditions for bullet expansion, a .45 ACP bullet might make a difference in 3 to 5 of those shots. Had we used expanded bullet diameter from gelatin tests involving four layers of heavy denim fabric instead of bare gelatin then the increase in effectiveness of .45 ACP versus 9mm would have been less.