The Caliber Wars! Myths Vs. Reality.

The largest PWC that I see mesured for a 357 sig is 6.0 cu inches, while that is impressive for it's bore, it is not larger then the the premium loads for the .45 ACP. Have you found any that will surpass 6.32 Cu inches? If you have any studies that show a direct relationship between TWC and PWC show it, otherwise quit quoting what is contrary to what every other study has concluded. There are radical examples of differences in bewteen the TWC and PWC of bullets of different speeds and different calibers.

How are you determining the width of the PWC, then? You keep saying how you're not determining it, tell me how you are.

TWC and PWC Are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL MOST OF THE TIME.

Click to expand...

False. As has been said numerous times by others. TWC is based on energy expenditure. PWC is based on the tissue crushed by the bullet. A wider, slower bullet will have a bigger PWC, while a smaller, faster bullet will have a higher TWC. I am assuming, of course, similar bullet construction. A fragmenting bullet moving at 3000 FPS will obviously have a bigger PWC due to exceeding the elastic limit of the tissue. But if you're comparing pistol rounds, my statement is correct.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you're ignoring 90% of the stuff I'm saying. Read it all, not just snippets here and there. You're coming to conclusions about what I'm saying that I'm not saying. I'm using a lot of conditional modifiers because nothing that I'm saying is 100% true 100% of the time.

Click to expand...

You're ignoring what 90% of the other posters in the thread are saying. Just because I don't comment on everything, doesn't mean I didn't read it.

Part of the issue is that you're operating from the premise that TWC matters in pistol caliber. So anything you say comparing TWCs is ignored, and a lot of what you say is stuff that I have never heard anywhere else, that you do not cite. That which you have cited has been refuted in other articles (which have been cited).

Jath said:

if those .45 loads truly do have a larger PWC than the .357, I'm sure their TWC is as large or larger than the .357's as well. Find a slow motion video showing the .45 round your talking about and you'll probably see I'm right. You can't say that all .45s have the same TWC. They don't have the same PWC do they? So if you can prove that the PWC is larger while the TWC is smaller than .357's respective cavities, show it, otherwise quit quoting what is contrary to what is correct. What everyone else has concluded is not always right. Not everyone is a freakin' college educated expert. Some still believe that hot water freezes faster, and a bigger bullet = more damage.

There are radical examples of differences in bewteen the TWC and PWC of bullets of different speeds and different calibers, but that doesn't change the direct correlation between the two.

I have shown you mine, show me yours. You're ignoring the data. you're making up some imaginary reports if you can't show them to me. your evidence in anecdotal at best right now.

Click to expand...

No the 45 ACP load only had a 25.4 cu in TWC and the 357 sig had a much larger 45 cu inch TWC yet the 45ACP had a larger PWC explain that to me. High speed rounds almost always have vastly larger TWC then heavy slow calibers, that is a well know property of terminal ballistics. My source for these loads are both from Marshall and Sanow, Street Stoppers. They used the FBIs method of mesuring PWC.

Skribs said:

As has been said numerous times by others. A wider, slower bullet will have a bigger PWC, while a smaller, faster bullet will have a higher TWC. I am assuming, of course, similar bullet construction. A fragmenting bullet moving at 3000 FPS will obviously have a bigger PWC due to exceeding the elastic limit of the tissue. But if you're comparing pistol rounds, my statement is correct.

Click to expand...

A tumbling bullet like the Five-seveN S4M creates 4+ inch permanent wound channels and that is a 28 grain bullet.

A 4 cu inch PWC is not impressive by modern handgun round standards, I have seen all the tests for the 5.7 and none has left an impressive PWC, though their TWCs can be quite impressive for such a small round.

I should have specified that I wasn't including the 5-7 in that, since I have specified before that the 5-7 is one of the few pistol rounds that reaches those rifle qualities.

You're also introducing a different type of bullet, as I mentioned somewhat when I mentioned a fragmenting bullet. Tumbling, fragmentation, expanding, etc. will all have an effect on PWC. However, two rounds that expand to the same size and do not fragment or tumble will have similar wound profiles. Two rounds that tumble similarly should also have similar profile.

Weather or not you agree with the way they messure their handgun one shot percentages, the lab tests are crediable, and well documented. That is why I am quoting their lab results and not their subjective data. I may have lost credability with you, but since it is a well establised fact that you ignore everything with a factual basis, that does not bother me one little bit. PLEASE OH PLEASE find me a real detalied ballistics study showing that I am wrong.

You're being just as stubborn as I am, Jath. The difference is, everyone else is agreeing with me. You also haven't answered a lot of questions that have been posted, or managed to refute comments that other posters have made.

1. You have failed to prove that PWC and TWC are directly related. Many others have either used basic understanding of terminal ballistics or specific numbers to prove you wrong.
2. You haven't cited a source that a pistol round will cause the flesh itself to become projectiles, a statement you made above.
3. When you have been proven wrong, you've glossed over it and said "it doesn't matter."

I'm not surprised that what I say won't get a response from you, since things I've said haven't gotten a response that actually answers questions I've posed. You've instead brought in more incorrect information and ignored my questions, and you've tried to say "you're wrong" without ever proving that you're right.

I've sourced the comments that needed sourcing, and you've moved on to make other claims without sources. When I ask for your source, you are unable to produce one, and instead make more unsourced claims. The time you did use a source, you were unable to explain how the source backs up your argument, or another source proved yours wrong.

As an aside, I've noticed you only have 49 posts in this forum, and 37 of them are in this thread, vehemently defending the pictures you originally made. Is it that important to you that your work transposing the TWCs onto an inside-out-man is approved that you're going to argue with everyone here so hard?

OUTDATED?!?! Do you really think that 10% ballistic gel (or soft tissue) behaves any differently then it did in 2006? Where the heck are these studies that you are talking about? Are you talking about those half A$$ backyard tests that lack any and all scientific mesurments? I have studied this for longer then you ever dreamed of (possably before you were born) and I have seen no evedence of any substantial widening of PWC at handgun speeds especaly deeper in the wound canal where it matters most. The lowest speed at which I have ever seen substantial widening of the PWC was at 2000fps with expanding bullets. To get impressive PWC improvement you really need about 2500-2600fps. At 3000fps+ you can get nasty PWC expansion hence the 243 can make for an effective deer thumper dispite it's small caliber. Even something as stout as a 12 ga HP foster slug shows no sign of stretching the TWC beyond it's elastic limits, not even at the point of expansion. The TWC can bruise soft tissue outside the PWC that is a well established fact, but that should never be confused with PWC because it does not cause rapid loss of blood pressure like a real PWC does. I know exactly where you are coming from with your argument, I used to be on the same side of the fence as you, but the more I reserched it the more I realized how wrong I was.

And in fact, you Kachok, and Skribs are the ONLY two included in the everybody that disagree with me.

Click to expand...

Really? We're the only people who disagree with you? I probably missed some, but...

Andrew Wyatt, Post #3 (since you double posted for #2), disregards TWC.
Loosedhorse, Post #5, disregards TWC.
Pyro, Post #9, speculates on just how accurate gel testing is.
Jerkface11, Post #11 (ironic), pointed out that the tests seem backwards.
Ducman69, Post #14, pointed out other factors that he thinks are more important.
Frozen North, Post #16, pointed out that handgun knockdown power is a myth.
45_Auto, Post #18, pointed out that TWC in a handgun is not powerful enough to cause permanent damage.
Strykervet, Post #22, says that TWC is based on velocity and PWC is based on caliber.
Bigfatdave, Post #39, says no handgun caliber will provide a reliable involuntary stop, and disagreed with some of your data.
Glockbite (unfogged), Post #54, had a disagreement in the specific rounds you chose to link.
GLOOB, Post #61, disagrees with your theory that TWC is the most important factor.
Maple City Woodsman, Post #81, disagreed with your comments regarding the effectiveness of LEOs.

If you can't even get that right?

Oh, by the way...

So I'm done with you. Nothing else you say will get a response from me.

Click to expand...

Your post #109, I made post #111, and then you responded in post #112.

I'm sorry, but your honesty and your analysis skills are REALLY lacking based on what I've shown in this post. If you say that only 2 people disagreed with you in this thread and I show you there are at least a dozen in addition to the two you mentioned, there is something seriously flawed in your methodology.

In the world of ballistics like everywhere else there is no free lunch, if you want a bigger hole you can do it either with a bigger bullet or alot more powder and pressure, both increase recoil and the latter also increases muzzle blast. If you could cram enough powder in the 5.7 to make it perform like a 5.56x45 the kick and blast would be far too harsh to use in a lightweight handgun. I hate to burst anyones bubble but neither the 5.7x28 or the 4.6x30 will ever be the anwser to stopping power in a handgun, the energy/momentum figures won't even match the 9mm and that is not even taking into account important factors like caliber and sectional density. The 9mm +P load with only a 4" barrel can excede the energy of any production 5.7x28 with it's carbine length barrel. Compare carbine to carbine and the 9mm simply blows it away, nearly doubling it's KE and the differnce in momentum is off the charts.

Bigfatdave, Post #39, says no handgun caliber will provide a reliable involuntary stop, and disagreed with some of your data.

Click to expand...

No, I pointed out that ALL of his "data" was from gel made for the purpose of making pretty highspeed video, not for the purpose of simulating human flesh.
I disagreed with ALL of his data.

And in fact, you Kachok, and Skribs are the ONLY two included in the everybody that disagree with me. No one else is disagreeing with me.

Click to expand...

LMAO!

Actually, Kachok and Skribs are the only two being halfway civil and trying to enlighten your young self. Very few people agree with you, we're all just watching your clown show here and throwing out a little bait to keep you going every now and then ....

I disagreed with ALL of his data.

Click to expand...

You mean the data's false? Or you disagree with his interpretation of the data?

You mean the data's false? Or you disagree with his interpretation of the data?

Click to expand...

I mean that his data is applicable to double-concentration gelatin ... and only useful for particularly dense people

(ah? ah? I made an awful pun up there, mostly on accident!)

My opinion is not scientific; as I know velocity is a bigger factor in energy than mass; but mass is a bigger factor in momentum. Tissue is not just meat, but meat, fat, and bone. Sometimes bone must be penetrated to reach vitals. There are many who consider energy the end all factor, but I consider mass a bigger factor in close range side arm defense; much much bigger, especially in the winter months with heavier clothing. Also, not all shots will be direct. The BG may turn quickly and it may need to go through an arm to reach a vital. I consider penetration the 2nd key factor after bullet placement.

Actually, 45_Auto, I think my last couple of posts almost gave up on civil.

Good point bigfat. I was mainly skimming through, and figured "some" was safer to say than "all." Although technically, you did disagree with *some* of his data because if I picked *some* of it you'd disagree with it

OK I have given up hope on Jath ever understanding what I am saying, but just in case anyone else doubts these tested principles of terminal ballistics lets take a close look at the PWC of the 5.7x28. To be more then fair to the little 5.7 this test was not done with a 4.8" barrel, or even the P90s standard 10" barrel, no to maximize it's potential this test was done with a 16" barrel at 2400fps. Please note that the inital PWC is very very small, then at about 2" we see a clear and defiend yaw of the bullet and because of it's 2000+fps speed and increased frontal area we see an aprox 3" long 1/2-3/4" wide cavity where the gel was actualy stretched slightly beyond it's elastic limit, becaue of the bullets low momentum and it acheving its natural base first orentation this cavity fizzles out far too quickly and the PWC goes right back to a smaller then pencil thin puncture. Despite this very small profile it only manages 9" of total penatration well below the recomended 12" minimum. Even if you could get 2400fps out of a 5.7x28 handgun I still do not consider this an impressive test result by any means. I think this test said it all, having an impressive TWC does not make for a large PWC even at near sniper rifle speeds. Compare that result to the 45 ACP next to it and try to explain how it is more effective. The 5.7x28 is hype pure and simple, it completly fails to meet the soft tissue terminal performance standards of already proven cartrages. Need I say more?

Kachuck, you are such a 5.7 troll... It's only because the firearm community is massively uninformed on the 5.7 that you don't get destroyed after each and every one of your purposefully misinformed posts..

And for the rest of the community that might have been confused by Kachuck's erroneous comments about the 5.7mm and 9 inches of penetration out of a 10 in. barrel...

Here is a video comparing the .45 with the 5.7mm. Both are fired out of a pistol. The 5.7mm's video is zoomed out so you have to rescale the damage when you watch. You will noticed that the 5.7mm makes a more dramatic impact on the gelatin than the .45.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwAbIdamK2A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BDpPlL6roI&feature=related


Here I have rescaled a freeze-framed screenshot of the .45 and 5.7.

.45


5.7

Also, anybody wanting to read some facts on the 5.7, please visit this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=611628

You'll notice that Kachuck is desperately trolling with misinformation in there as well.. For some reason he just can't stop attacking whenever the 5.7 is brought up. He's like a spurned woman that seeks vengeance.

Really?!? have you just skipped the last five fracking pages and decided to jump right back to the TWC bit again? Sure it can make a TWC just as large as a slow mo 230gr bullet. The TWC is more highly effected by the bullets impact speed, but the PWC is nowhere near the effect of the higher mass/momentum bullet, keep up with the topic of go away. Uninformed my A$$ I have read every ballistic study I could find on the 5.7x28, and already been through this with you once, if all you count is the TWC volume then you are the one that is uninformed, detailed sutdies have been done on this many times before. Look at the results for yourself and explain how on earth you expect that relativly small permanate wound to be as effective as the 45s. If you can honestly say that 5.7 out of a rifle length barrel damaged more simulated tissue then that 45 did out of a pistol, you either need your eyes or your head checked. BTW due to it's combonation of speed and frontal area a 115-124gr 9mm can make a larger TWC then either the 28-40gr 5.7 or the 230gr 45 ACP does that make it more effective then both of them?