Anyone else begrudgingly packing a 9mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
I carry a 9mm BHP.
I can and do shoot other pistols chambered for different cartridges, but I am the most comfortable, confident and fluent with that one in particular.
I’d only begrudgingly carry something else!

here’s a good video I stumbled upon this evening that is germane to the conversation
 
Just for giggles and grins.
Here is a 41 Mag JHP round that I fired at a 70s vintage Ford Bronco that knocked me out into a guy's yard.
It went through the rear mounted spare tire, tailgate, seat back, and wound up in the dashboard radio.
Capture-zpsc4534470.jpg
I made a tie tack out of it and still wear it. Use to tell people, we don't need bulletproof vests. Our ties are all we need.
 
Nope, it actually supercedes my other options of 380acp, 38spc, 357mag, 40s&w, 45acp and 10mm for daily carry.

9mm with the new bullet technology (that is afforded all calibers) is as close to the perfect balance of capacity, performance, and shootability.
 
Ironicaintit said:
I carry a 9mm BHP.
I can and do shoot other pistols chambered for different cartridges, but I am the most comfortable, confident and fluent with that one in particular.
I’d only begrudgingly carry something else!

here’s a good video I stumbled upon this evening that is germane to the conversation
Click to expand...


Interesting stuff (I found and read the transcript instead).

CB: When I’ve brought this up in the past, the question I’ve always been asked is, “If two handgun bullets have similar performance in gelatin but one bullet has a lot more muzzle energy than the other — what happens to that excess energy? If it’s not translated into penetration and expansion, where does it go? Shouldn’t it somehow cause the bullet to do more damage to the tissue?”

JB: It seems to be obliterated or washed away by the elastic capacity of our tissue.

I really wish someone would ask these ballistic experts if that extra energy has any temporary effect on the subject's central nervous system. But no one ever seems to, and I suppose they really wouldn't know anyway (not being doctors of internal medicine and all).

It'd be great to know if the .357 mag 125gr HP was actually the exceptional LE cartridge it was known to be, or if it was all just the loud noise and bright flash that made the suspects stop fighting. If that's all it was, maybe we just need to make 9mm with a bigger flash and a louder bang. Then we could stop attackers more efficiently with fewer shots.
 
WrongHanded said:
Interesting stuff (I found and read the transcript instead).

CB: When I’ve brought this up in the past, the question I’ve always been asked is, “If two handgun bullets have similar performance in gelatin but one bullet has a lot more muzzle energy than the other — what happens to that excess energy? If it’s not translated into penetration and expansion, where does it go? Shouldn’t it somehow cause the bullet to do more damage to the tissue?”

JB: It seems to be obliterated or washed away by the elastic capacity of our tissue.

I really wish someone would ask these ballistic experts if that extra energy has any temporary effect on the subject's central nervous system. But no one ever seems to, and I suppose they really wouldn't know anyway (not being doctors of internal medicine and all).

It'd be great to know if the .357 mag 125gr HP was actually the exceptional LE cartridge it was known to be, or if it was all just the loud noise and bright flash that made the suspects stop fighting. If that's all it was, maybe we just need to make 9mm with a bigger flash and a louder bang. Then we could stop attackers more efficiently with fewer shots.
Click to expand...

That's a good question. The answer to it lies in understanding that "muzzle energy" (kinetic energy) is not the same as "momentum".

Muzzle energy is only one indicator of a bullet's potential, but it's a poor one if only because people don't understand what "energy" means...and what it doesn't mean.

Energy is mass times velocity squared. Momentum is mass times velocity. Increasing the velocity of a projectile radically increases it's energy. But increasing the velocity of a projectile does not increase its momentum at nearly the same rate.

This is why muzzle energy is so misleading. How misleading? Well, if you double an objects velocity, you double its momentum. However, its kinetic energy increases as a square of it's velocity...which means a factor of 4 increase. Which sounds more wicked in terms of presumed capability? Kinetic (or muzzle) energy does, doesn't it? After all, it's a MUCH bigger value for the same change in velocity, right?

To get a feel for what momentum means, it's "mass in motion". Adages such as "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" and "an object at rest tends to remain at rest" derive from this. Essentially, "mass wants to keep on doing what it's doing". THIS concept is important for penetration, not "energy".

Yes, of course an object in motion has kinetic energy. But it's momentum that makes bullets penetrate and cause damage. Because objects in motion wanna stay in motion.


NOW...where does all that energy go? Ultimately, it gets dissipated as heat energy through friction. It imparts some momentum to the surrounding medium (such as ballistic gelatin) which then goes on to translate into heat through friction losses, and directly from friction itself acting on the projectile. The energy is not "obliterated or washed away by the elastic capacity of our tissue", it's converted to heat energy. (The good ole First Law of Thermodynamics). What this really shows, conceptually, is that all that "energy" is not really as important as the "momentum".

Does this help to get a grasp on the difference between kinetic energy and momentum with respect to terminal ballistics?
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
That's a good question. The answer to it lies in understanding that "muzzle energy" (kinetic energy) is not the same as "momentum".

Muzzle energy is only one indicator of a bullet's potential, but it's a poor one if only because people don't understand what "energy" means...and what it doesn't mean.

Energy is mass times velocity squared. Momentum is mass times velocity. Increasing the velocity of a projectile radically increases it's energy. But increasing the velocity of a projectile does not increase its momentum at nearly the same rate.

This is why muzzle energy is so misleading. How misleading? Well, if you double an objects velocity, you double its momentum. However, its kinetic energy increases as a square of it's velocity...which means a factor of 4 increase. Which sounds more wicked in terms of presumed capability? Kinetic (or muzzle) energy does, doesn't it? After all, it's a MUCH bigger value for the same change in velocity, right?

To get a feel for what momentum means, it's "mass in motion". Adages such as "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" and "an object at rest tends to remain at rest" derive from this. Essentially, "mass wants to keep on doing what it's doing". THIS concept is important for penetration, not "energy".

Yes, of course an object in motion has kinetic energy. But it's momentum that makes bullets penetrate and cause damage. Because objects in motion wanna stay in motion.


NOW...where does all that energy go? Ultimately, it gets dissipated as heat energy through friction. It imparts some momentum to the surrounding medium (such as ballistic gelatin) which then goes on to translate into heat through friction losses, and directly from friction itself acting on the projectile. The energy is not "obliterated or washed away by the elastic capacity of our tissue", it's converted to heat energy. (The good ole First Law of Thermodynamics). What this really shows, conceptually, is that all that "energy" is not really as important as the "momentum".

Does this help to get a grasp on the difference between kinetic energy and momentum with respect to terminal ballistics?
Click to expand...

That's a great explanation and I appreciate you taking the time to write it. However, it doesn't entirely address my question.

You're saying that the energy is ultimately dissipated as heat through friction. I believe that is partly true. But it's also dissipated my movement of tissue (or gel) in the form of the temporary wound cavity. Now obviously tissue (and gel) has a threshold for elasticity, beyond which it will tear. And I understand that we are not meeting that threshold with pistol bullets.

But, if we dump a significant amount of energy (let's say 450ftlbs for example) into the human torso, the way it is dumped makes a difference. In the professional boxing world, fighters can hit with between 450 and 1050ftlbs of energy. From a hit to the torso, that energy is dissipated into the body, but cause no wounding damage. This is obviously radically different than a tiny metallic projectile dumping energy at very high speed.

But what I want to know is, what is the difference in effect? If someone is punched by a boxer with 450ftlbs of energy, and then subsequently dies from blood loss, the coroner is unlikely to find much evidence of the effects of that punch. But surely it did have an effect on the victim's ability to fight after being hit. So when we look at a shooting victim on the coroner's table and see a gunshot wound, that's what killed them. But did the energy transfer from that bullet have any effect on preventing the victim fighting back, like a punch would have?

These are two extremes, I understand. But the issue of the temporary effect of energy transfer from a projectile upon the human body does give me pause. No we can't measure it. But does it do something that compromises the ability of the victim to function, other than the physical wounding damage observable after the fact?

Here's the reference of the boxing energy: https://www.connectsavannah.com/savannah/the-true-force-of-a-boxers-punch/Content?oid=2133328
 
WrongHanded said:
That's a great explanation and I appreciate you taking the time to write it. However, it doesn't entirely address my question.

You're saying that the energy is ultimately dissipated as heat through friction. I believe that is partly true. But it's also dissipated my movement of tissue (or gel) in the form of the temporary wound cavity. Now obviously tissue (and gel) has a threshold for elasticity, beyond which it will tear. And I understand that we are not meeting that threshold with pistol bullets.

But, if we dump a significant amount of energy (let's say 450ftlbs for example) into the human torso, the way it is dumped makes a difference. In the professional boxing world, fighters can hit with between 450 and 1050ftlbs of energy. From a hit to the torso, that energy is dissipated into the body, but cause no wounding damage. This is obviously radically different than a tiny metallic projectile dumping energy at very high speed.

But what I want to know is, what is the difference in effect? If someone is punched by a boxer with 450ftlbs of energy, and then subsequently dies from blood loss, the coroner is unlikely to find much evidence of the effects of that punch. But surely it did have an effect on the victim's ability to fight after being hit. So when we look at a shooting victim on the coroner's table and see a gunshot wound, that's what killed them. But did the energy transfer from that bullet have any effect on preventing the victim fighting back, like a punch would have?

These are two extremes, I understand. But the issue of the temporary effect of energy transfer from a projectile upon the human body does give me pause. No we can't measure it. But does it do something that compromises the ability of the victim to function, other than the physical wounding damage observable after the fact?

Here's the reference of the boxing energy: https://www.connectsavannah.com/savannah/the-true-force-of-a-boxers-punch/Content?oid=2133328
Click to expand...

"movement of tissue" is "transfer of momentum", which I addressed in the second to last paragraph above:

"It imparts some momentum to the surrounding medium (such as ballistic gelatin)..."

Yes, there is also energy transfer when that happens...kinetic energy, in fact, because you're causing the ballistic gel to move. And the movement of that gel? It translates into heat through molecular friction.

And your example of the boxers is no different in terms of momentum and energy transfer. The tissue damage potential, however, is radically different because the mass of the fist has a much larger surface area and therefore transfers momentum (and energy) over a much wider surface impact.

What you're doing here with that particular example is a comparison of apples and oranges. Yes, both are "fruits", but they each have different physical characteristics.

Also, people trying to equate "physics" with "physiological" are often mislead to think they are equivalent. They are not.

Physics, in this case, is a study of the transfer of energy and momentum. Physiological studies, however, is a study of the effects of these forces on the human body. That's different.

And again...don't confuse "energy transfer" with "momentum transfer", nor the differences in physiological damage which can be caused by two extremes such as a small, high-density bullet traveling at high speed vs. a large, low-density fist traveling at low speed.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
"movement of tissue" is "transfer of momentum", which I addressed in the second to last paragraph above:

"It imparts some momentum to the surrounding medium (such as ballistic gelatin)..."

Yes, there is also energy transfer when that happens...kinetic energy, in fact, because you're causing the ballistic gel to move. And the movement of that gel? It translates into heat through molecular friction.

And your example of the boxers is no different in terms of momentum and energy transfer. The tissue damage potential, however, is radically different because the mass of the fist has a much larger surface area and therefore transfers momentum (and energy) over a much wider surface impact.

What you're doing here with that particular example is a comparison of apples and oranges. Yes, both are "fruits", but they each have different physical characteristics.

Also, people trying to equate "physics" with "physiological" are often mislead to think they are equivalent. They are not.

Physics, in this case, is a study of the transfer of energy and momentum. Physiological studies, however, is a study of the effects of these forces on the human body. That's different.

And again...don't confuse "energy transfer" with "momentum transfer", nor the differences in physiological damage which can be caused by two extremes such as a small, high-density bullet traveling at high speed vs. a large, low-density fist traveling at low speed.
Click to expand...

I guess what my wondering is comes down to this:

We see a gel block move dramatically after being impacted with a JHP. If that level of impact happened immediately adjacent to a person's solar plexus (by the wound channel passing close by), could it knock the wind out of them? If it happened directly adjacent to their spine, could that have an effect on their spinal cord? If so, could those effects prove physiologically debilitating in the moment? And if so, could a greater amount of energy have more of an effect, or an effect from a greater distance within the body?

I'm not expecting a solid answer on those things. I suspect there isn't one. But if there were, I would really like to know.
 
We are getting into things too complicated to try to cover here. The physics is straightforward, though of en misunderstood. The materials properties enter into it. And there is the medical side.. Who here understands that subject?

The penetrating bullet tears flesh and bone. It does so when the force per unit area exceeds the various compressive, shear, and/or tensile strengths, as applicable, of the body parts affected. Force is a function of mass , velocity, and time.

As the FBI report says, "kinetic energy does not wound". But KE is in fact a function of the mass and velocity we just mentioned.

The kinetic energy that is lost as the bullet slows in the body is converted into heat energy.

People always seem to want to introduce the subject of momentum (mass times velocity) into the discussion. When two or more unconstrained objects collide, momentum is conserved; that ia the total momentum of the system remains the same after the collision(s) as before. Visualize a softball thrown at a soccer ball that is hanging from a string. But if the object that struck cannot move, and a bullet enters it, that neat law of physics does not apply.

It is a mistake to say that penetration is "caused" by momentum. When we crush or tear gel, flesh, or bone, force per unit area over time is the determinant. And those are based on mass and velocity and on the "pointiness" of the penetrating object.

Both KE and momentum are function of mass and velocity Does penetration correlate better with velocity, or the with square of the velocity?

It depends.

The penetration of arrows going into a bale of straws correlate pretty well with velocity, and therefore with momentum. Those arrows are moving and being deflected deflected by straws that are largely unconstrained--they are put in motion. Wen a projectile moves through something that is largely water, the mechanics correlate very directly with velocity. But when we are tearing and breaking materials, that's a different story.

It gets more complicated if some of the KE of the projectile is used to make it expand.

But--if the bullet goes in far enough in the right place, none of that matters anyway.

So much for the materials properties and the physics., With regard to the physiology, one would have to have a rather deep knowledge of neurology to analyze the subject.
 
Kleanbore said:
With regard to the physiology, one would have to have a rather deep knowledge of neurology to analyze the subject.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Which is why I don't attempt to state such potential physiological/neurological effects as fact. I have no idea. But I do have a great deal of curiosity about it.
 
WrongHanded said:
I guess what my wondering is comes down to this:

We see a gel block move dramatically after being impacted with a JHP. If that level of impact happened immediately adjacent to a person's solar plexus (by the wound channel passing close by), could it knock the wind out of them? If it happened directly adjacent to their spine, could that have an effect on their spinal cord? If so, could those effects prove physiologically debilitating in the moment? And if so, could a greater amount of energy have more of an effect, or an effect from a greater distance within the body?

I'm not expecting a solid answer on those things. I suspect there isn't one. But if there were, I would really like to know.
Click to expand...

The answer to this is "meh".

Ballistic gelatin approximates the average density of human tissue but not its structure, stratification, elasticity, etc. It's real purpose is to establish a standardized approximation for use in terminal ballistics performance evaluations. This allows people to make meaningful, and replicateable, performance evaluations and comparisons on limited characteristics without having to deal with dozens of other variables which vary too much to factor out.

So you can't directly equate the effects on a one-to-one basis between gel and real tissue.

So yes... bullet passage thyroid geek abs tissue WILL cause gel/tissue movement/displacement. But how this happens in tissue may vary radically in shake, direction of propagation, speed, and effect.

Now, the general effects that people refer to as "hydrostatic shock" doesn't happen at a velocities capable by almost all handguns and many rifles. And even so, it's an unpredictable phenomenon at best. It is certainly one that cannot be counted upon reliably.
 
Kleanbore said:
But if the object that struck cannot move, and a bullet enters it, that neat law of physics does not apply.
Click to expand...

Can you explain this more?

What is an example of an object that cannot move?

If a bullets enters an object, wouldnt it need to create an entry opening if the opening wasnt already there and the volume of the bullet would displace other matter that was already there?
 
danez71 said:
What is an example of an object that cannot move?
Click to expand...
A big tree stump. A lamp pole. A wall. If a projectile enters either one and stops within, momentum is not conserved.

danez71 said:
If a bullets enters an object, wouldnt it need to create an entry opening if the opening wasnt already there and the volume of the bullet would displace other matter that was already there?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Kleanbore said:
A big tree stump. A lamp pole. A wall. If a projectile enters either one and stops within, momentum is not conserved.
Click to expand...



Yes.
[/QUOTE]

All of those things are movable.

It's that the object as a whole wasn't substantially moved by the force of the bullet because it was easier for the bullet to move matter to create the opening and also displace the matter inside for the bullet to occupy.



Therefore, "that neat law of physics" still did apply. Correct?
 
I don't understand all the physics and maths. I carry a Kel Tec PF9 in the handlebar bag on my bicycle, right next to the pepper spray. I don't begrudge it. I do carry a Colt LW Commander in .38 Super when out and about driving or on foot in town.
 
I’m totally lost on the whole physics conversation, but will say I respect and appreciate the poster’s grasp of it. Seriously, those are well considered and explained posts.

My approach reflects my personality. I like things that are simple and effective. K.I.S.S. is my zone.

The questions I ponder when selecting a defensive firearm are things like…. Will it propel bullets deep enough to punch holes in vital organs? Does the projectile have a track record for reliable expansion? Does it work in my pistol? Can I carry a bunch of bullets? Things like that.

Traditionally, American citizens select handguns similar to those used in law enforcement according to Mas Ayoob. I think that’s probably an accurate statement. And currently that’s mostly pistols in 9mm. I find that interesting given all the options, and figure there’s a good reason they’ve chosen it.

The 9mm fits the bill for me. But we’re free to carry whatever we want, and carrying anything beats not carrying at all.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Ballistic gelatin approximates the average density of human tissue but not its structure, stratification, elasticity, etc. It's real purpose is to establish a standardized approximation for use in terminal ballistics performance evaluations. This allows people to make meaningful, and replicateable, performance evaluations and comparisons on limited characteristics without having to deal with dozens of other variables which vary too much to factor out.
Click to expand...

Worth repeating.

Too many people on each side don't understand this and consequently don't understand what the gel tests can and can not tell us.
 
bdickens said:
Worth repeating.

Too many people on each side don't understand this and consequently don't understand what the gel tests can and can not tell us.
Click to expand...

Very true. But also (from my personal experience) too many people who do know this, seem to think the person they are talking to (occasionally me) is an ignorant moron who doesn't understand the difference between a block of gelatin and the complex biological system that is the human body.

So I guess we've got ignorant people who don't know the difference. And arrogant people who think no one but them does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

brutus51
  • Locked
Self defense handgun choices and why.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
8K
Kleanbore
K
brutus51
  • Locked
So what's your favorite CCW?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
5K
Autodidactic
Autodidactic
M
  • Locked
converting .22TCM to 9x23 winchester
Replies
18
Views
2K
Jdcujo
J
R
  • Locked
.38 Super Experiences/9mm 1911 Experiences
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Peter M. Eick
P
Old Dog
  • Locked
"Putting down the man gun"
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
144
Views
15K
Deer_Freak
D
Back
Top