Velocity Effect on Wounding

Status
Not open for further replies.
9

94045

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
1,565
The latest theories seem to be that velocities of less than 2200 fps have very little effect on wounding other than it's ability to drive expansion and penetration.

My question is:
If velocities less than 2200 fps have little effect on wounding why do you get a lot more tissue damage from a .35 Remington @ 2,000 fps than a .38 Special @ 800 fps?
 
94045 said:
The latest theories seem to be that velocities of less than 2200 fps have very little effect on wounding other than it's ability to drive expansion and penetration.

My question is:
If velocities less than 2200 fps have little effect on wounding why do you get a lot more tissue damage from a .35 Remington @ 2,000 fps than a .38 Special @ 800 fps?
Click to expand...

Because tissue damage increases with increasing velocity (all other parameters constant); however, amount of tissue damage is not a linear function of velocity.
 
94045 said:
The latest theories seem to be that velocities of less than 2200 fps have very little effect on wounding other than it's ability to drive expansion and penetration.
Click to expand...

The guys that think Jeff Cooper is G*d, ain't gonna like that!
 
More nonsensical conventional wisdom perpetuated by those who don’t actually do. There is markedly more damage moving from 1,300 to 1,600. Sorry for the oversimplification, but that 2,200 level is so well, random.
 
94045 said:
The latest theories seem to be that velocities of less than 2200 fps have very little effect on wounding other than it's ability to drive expansion and penetration.

My question is:
If velocities less than 2200 fps have little effect on wounding why do you get a lot more tissue damage from a .35 Remington @ 2,000 fps than a .38 Special @ 800 fps?
Click to expand...

It is not, 'no' effect, it is 'very little' effect. When you more than double the velocity, 800 fps to 2000+ fps, the effect will be quit pronounced! If you went from 800 fps to 1000 fps the effect would be very little. ;)
 
The latest theories seem to be that velocities of less than 2200 fps have very little effect on wounding other than it's ability to drive expansion and penetration.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard any such theory, and if I did wouldn't believe it.

Bullets are designed to work within specific ranges of impact velocity. If the bullet impacts at speeds too fast, or too slow for the design you may see reduced effectiveness.
 
Jim Rau said:
It is not, 'no' effect, it is 'very little' effect. When you more than double the velocity, 800 fps to 2000+ fps, the effect will be quit pronounced! If you went from 800 fps to 1000 fps the effect would be very little. ;)
Click to expand...

They said velocities under 2200 fps have very little effect. They didn't say small changes in velocity have minimal effect. I agree with your assertion that small changes have a small effect. Their assertion not so much.
 
94045 said:
They said velocities under 2200 fps have very little effect. They didn't say small changes in velocity have minimal effect. I agree with your assertion that small changes have a small effect. Their assertion not so much.
Click to expand...

A somewhat higher velocity at every penetration depth would make it more likely that significant blood vessels would be ruptured by a grazing bullet.
 
How much is very little effect?
Lets say that at typical handgun velocities <1,100 fps the only damage is what the bullet physically contacts.
Seems to me that at some velocity below the magic 2,200 an effect would be measurable.
I have an example where I documented damage greater than the expanded bullet diameter at just over 1,300 fps (at impact)
A 10mm 155 XTP that started at about 1,400 fps would be going about 1,300 fps at 18 yards (impact) according to calculator.
That bullet expands to about .65 but I documented holes in tissue (deer) of 1 1/4'' and bigger than a quarter which is .95
I suppose some might say that an extra .30 or more in damage was "very little effect" - but that is opinion.
My take away is that at an impact velocity of 1,300 fps or greater a handgun bullet may (can) damage tissue it doesn't physically contact.
 
think you're talking about the shock wave created as the bullet penetrates through a target. below 2,200 or there abouts - the shock wave is less likely to do permanent damage and tissue mostly springs back - at the higher velocities that shock wave created perpendicular to bullet penetration does serious tissue damage. This is basically why a .22 LR round that goes straight through a target will do one amount of damage, and a .223 round - same caliber that similarly goes through the same type of target, just nice through and through shots, the .223 will do more damage because of the intensity of the shock wave created. this is my sort of basic understanding of how it works. there are more variables at play though - so, it isn't just one variable determines damage. If I shoot a target with a 30-30 and a .32 ACP, well - if I cared about stopping a target like right quick, there would be no comparison. Even if the 30-30 cartridge was only fired at 2,000 fps, it will just do far more damage, more weight, more speed, more damage. don't let the physicists muddle common sense.
 
Velocity, expansion, penetration.
The actual understanding of just how truely easily susceptible the body, animal or human, is to damage makes velocity pretty mute. The difference between time to fatal is always placement. The caliber and use dictates needed placement and or use. (If you were to shoot a deer with a 22lr, the chest is not where placement is. Unless you just want to cause prolonged misery.) Range distance dictates more to effect per caliber and cartridge pushing it than velocity. A 22lr can shoot 100 yards but a 44 mag carries way better impact effect. So 22lr good for varmits but the 44 mag better for larger. 2 completely different velocities. Same range but totally different impact effects. What you use is determined by what on and how far.
 
The 2200 FPS threshold is a very over simplified way of explaining it. Mass and bullet shape also affect the way the projectile performs. They tested .177 BBs at over 4000 FPS and they just zipped right through the mediums. Even 5.56 at 3000+ FPS will show little outside the wound track wounding if the bullet fails to upset in the target and it zips through point first. Dr Roberts has stated that they've seen significant wounding outside of the wound track with hot 44 magnum loads. The 30-30 creates "rifle wounds" and is below 2200 FPS pretty early on in it's flight (on average).

You also have to take the statements in context of what the IWBA and FBI are using. They are talking about gun fighting, not the academic minutia. They dont care if a bullet causes bruising or minor tears of the tissue outside of the wound track. That's not going to be a reliable fight stopper, therefor it is labelled "not significant".
 
C-grunt said:
The 2200 FPS threshold is a very over simplified way of explaining it..
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, 2200 fps is an arbitrary figure commonly mentioned as a "rifle effect" threshold. Actually, 2200 fps FMJ from say, AK-47, is not likely to be more effective than a decent JHP from .40/.45 pistol -- unless it upsets or fragments thus causing destructive energy dissipation in the body outside of the otherwise caliber-wide wound track - that exceeds the elastic limit of surrounding tissue.
 
481 said:
What makes you think that there is a clearly defined limit at which velocity suddenly becomes more important in its effect on wounding?
Click to expand...

According to Fackler and subsequent research and studies, once a round's velocity goes above 2000 fps, the secondary wound channel damage (the effect of the bullet's travel through the tissue and internal structures) becomes more significant. But, as you imply, there is no clearly defined limit which a round must exceed if it's to be effective and cause greater damage. But higher velocity alone isn't going to stop a gun fight.

Most civilian self-defense rounds have velocities in the 900-1,500 fps range. Most military long guns fire rounds that travel at greater than 3,000+ fps. and that level of performance can cause substantial damage along the bullet's path. In military conflicts a badly wounded enemy must be given medical care by his or her fellow fighters, and anyone caring for the wounded is one less fighter. Because many military confrontations/battles are extended in nature, secondary wound channel damage may play a bigger role in weakening the enemy than most realize. I think the high velocity ammo is likely to be play a more important role in military conflicts than in civilian self-defense situations if self-defense shooters have higher velocity ammo.
​
In self-defense situations the main objective is to STOP the attacker as quickly as possible. That means you can't wait for the attacker to bleed out or to realize that he or she is badly wounded, Any extra times -- even if it's just a few minutes -- may give the attacker more time to kill you, even if they are suffering or dying. And while a higher-speed bullet can make the damage done by the bullet path significantly in the person shot, unless the shooter using the hotter high velocity ammo hits something critical (like the heart, the lungs, or some part of the central nervous system) the extra damage coming from the bigger secondary wound channel damage won't necessarily change the outcome of the battle.

A higher velocity round certainly isn't a negative, but it isn't a magic bullet, either. The shooter must still hit something critical to stop the attack quickly, and if he or she can't shoot that gun and round well, it may turn out to be less effective a than less potent round in the right handgun.
 
You have to assume good placement in order to make an actual and legit comparison.

I’ve killed a truckload of game with handguns, and velocity related damage is measurable. So much theory seems so arbitrary to me.
 
Last edited:
94045 said:
The latest theories seem to be that velocities of less than 2200 fps have very little effect on wounding other than it's ability to drive expansion and penetration.

My question is:
If velocities less than 2200 fps have little effect on wounding why do you get a lot more tissue damage from a .35 Remington @ 2,000 fps than a .38 Special @ 800 fps?
Click to expand...

Take the following with a grain of salt, because it's just what I've picked up from looking around the web.

From what I have gathered, the "2200fps threshold" is with regards to hydrostatic shock. A shockwave with enough power to have an effect on organs and the nervous system as it passes through living tissue. Whether the effect is temporary or permanent is hard to say because it is accompanied by another type of wounding, known as hydraulic shock.

Hydraulic shock is what we actually see as a wound channel. And this damage is cause by displacing tissue, which is a direct effect radiating from the bullet's path. It is caused by the bullet forcing this tissue aside as it travels, and probably also by that displaced tissue being forced into more tissue adjacent to it. The more forcefully the displacement occurs, the more damage is observed.

So whilst hydraulic shock would be caused by a bullet regardless of velocity, the damage done, and therefore the diameter of the wound channel will increase with velocity. Once a certain terminal velocity is achieved with the same projectile, there will also be hydrostatic shock.

For a given projectile, faster is better when it comes to tissue damage.

Again, this is just what I've picked up from Google searches. And it could be a load of B.S.
 
481 said:
OP: What makes you think that there is a clearly defined limit at which velocity suddenly becomes more important in its effect on wounding?
Click to expand...

Walt Sherrill said:
But, as you imply, there is no clearly defined limit which a round must exceed if it's to be effective and cause greater damage.
Click to expand...

It is very clear, Walt, that you got my point. :cool:
 
Ever been hit by a rock? Low velocity, low energy but enough to kill, maim or wound. I don't think one can compute how wounds incapacitate using any formula.
 
No one can can predict what a bullet will do once it enters the body in regards to stopping the target, unless it’s a CNS shot. And not every shot that stops a target in its tracks is a CNS shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Remember Cirillo's "Felon Grabber ammo?
Replies
2
Views
323
torqem
T
chopinbloc
  • Locked
What happens when you press a gun into an attacker's body?
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Deltaboy1984
Deltaboy1984
Skribs
Wounding mechanisms
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
Bfh_auto
B
MTMilitiaman
  • Locked
"Effective Range"
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
David Hoback
D
N
  • Locked
Wound Ballistics
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Newton
N
Back
Top