180 grain .357 loads

[Cosmoline]

It is certainly possible to dump enough energy into a person to kill them.

No, it isn't. It's possible to use the energy to do tissue damage which would then lead to death. But the type of tissue damaged and the extent of that damage is the key. A large exit wound increases the effectiveness of the tisssue damage by letting blood flow freely out of the body cavity. THis in turn leads to shock faster. Without the large exit wound the blood flow is limited to filling the body cavity. That's not good for the person, but it may give them enough time to kill you before the pressure builds enough to shut down their heart or the blood fills their lungs and drowns them.

Hunters have seen this millions of times. The game hit with a bullet that fails to penetrate will often live longer than one that has a nice big exit wound pouring blood. Human men are animals. The most dangerous of them all.

self-defense is NOT exclusively about which round is the "better killer".

Yes, it is. Lethal force means lethal force. The whole point is you have to stop them, and when lethal force comes into play it means you have to kill them in order to stop them. Again we've had long threads about this. Don't get too caught up in the "shoot to stop" mantra. If you really are facing imminent lethal force you'd better shoot to kill and you'd better have bullets that kill as quickly as possible. Otherwise it's your hind end. If you don't really need to kill them in order to stop them, then you don't really need to use lethal force.

 

[cherryriver]

Clothing

One factor that hasn't been much included is clothing. The bullet used for self-defense will almost always have to go through some amount of clothing. This can have a large effect upon any subsequent stopping power.
A friend is a supervisor for a large municipal police department in a city with a terrible reputation for high violent crime rates. He notes that they issue heavier bullets in the standard approved calibers during winter, and the lighter in the summer
As he dryly notes, his officers shoot someone almost once a month, so he gets to see plenty of results.
They do not allow 9mm any more for standard sidearms as a result of unsatisfactory performance. .40 is now the department standard and .45 is acceptable if qualified with.
Just some anecdotal observations.
Bill

 

[Cosmoline]

Fat is another factor, and a growing one Seriously, it's getting tougher to get penetration on large people. I know of one case where an Albanian pimp in Fairbanks shot a large client with a .357 Sig. and its 125 grain bullet. The bullet hit his gut square on and then got lost in the fat. It ended up tumbling through his fat and out the back, hurting the fellow but doing no significant damage to anything. The surgeons sewed him up and made sure it didn't get infected, but he came out of it a few ounces lighter and none the worse for wear.

When the 9x19, 9x17 and even .45 ACP were invented, men on average were physically both shorter and smaller than they are now. Most were well under six feet and had what we would consider small frames. If you don't believe me go look through assortments of army surplus clothes from WWI or WWII. Today it's not unusual to see confrontations with bad guys well over six feet and 250 lbs of mixed muscle and fat. It's one more reason in my book to load heavy.

 

[TX35]

cosmoline

We also KNOW that a larger exit wound will tend to increase blood loss from the body and bring shock on faster.

Grossly incorrect!! The size of the exit wound has absolutely ZERO to do with blood loss. A weapon hitting a major blood vessel (Venous/Arterial) will cause the blood loss. I've seen enough people having stab wounds to share this with you. Small hole, no exit wound with drastic desanguination inside the chest cavity. You would be suprised how much blood the chest can hold outside of the circulatory system.

 

[JohnKSa]

It's possible to use the energy to do tissue damage which would then lead to death.

You just said that dumping energy couldn't kill someone. You made this statement with absolutely no qualifications. Now you say an energy dump can lead to death if it damages tissue. Let's ignore, for the moment, that this is a direct contradiction to your previous post saying that dumping energy into someone can't kill them. How, pray tell, would you suggest that you dump 600ft/lbs of energy into someone without doing any tissue damage? Even against an assailant wearing body armor, 600ft/lbs of energy is going to do tissue damage--we've all seen pictures of the bruises (tissue damage leading to subcutaneous hemorhaging) that prove it.

...when lethal force comes into play it means you have to kill them in order to stop them.

That is absolutely incorrect and directly contradicted by widely available evidence. Virtually every day, we read about self-defense scenarios in which lethal force came into play and yet it was not necessary to kill the attacker in order to stop him. In fact, the situations where it is actually necessary to kill an assailant to stop him are significantly in the minority.

You have a lot of gun knowledge, but if you continue to state your opinions as fact--especially in the face of hard evidence to the contrary, you will destroy your credibility.

 

[Cosmoline]

that this is a direct contradiction to your previous post saying that dumping energy into someone can't kill them

Listen to me carefully. ENERGY does not kill. You can dump energy all day long. What matters is a specific type of tissue damage. Specifically, you want to maximize blood loss or get a lucky CNS hit. A bullet that uses its energy to blow a fist-size hole out the back after ripping through the body cavity is going to be more effective than a lighter bullet that opens up and stops mid way. The proponents of the second type of bullet claim it kills better because it's "dumping" its energy into the target. But nothing beyond the stop point of the bullet is getting damaged. The "dumped energy" is meaningless.

That is absolutely incorrect and directly contradicted by widely available evidence. Virtually every day, we read about self-defense scenarios in which lethal force came into play and yet it was not necessary to kill the attacker in order to stop him. In fact, the situations where it is actually necessary to kill an assailant to stop him are significantly in the minority.

If it wasn't necessary to use lethal force to stop the attack, then lethal force was not justified. Period. End of story. Go read your code.

The question of whether you can continue to use lethal force is separate. The justification diminishes with the threat, as force must match force. So you cannot kill a man once the threat has stopped. But at the moment you face imminent lethal force, you'd best be prepared to use lethal force in response. Using 125 grainers because they're less likely to be lethal is like aiming for his leg. It's a bad, bad, bad idea and shows you really don't understand how the justification works.

 

[Cosmoline]

Grossly incorrect!! The size of the exit wound has absolutely ZERO to do with blood loss. A weapon hitting a major blood vessel (Venous/Arterial) will cause the blood loss. I've seen enough people having stab wounds to share this with you. Small hole, no exit wound with drastic desanguination inside the chest cavity. You would be suprised how much blood the chest can hold outside of the circulatory system.

How many injuries have seen involving large exit wounds? Have you made a study comparing the speed of death with these and the speed of death with wounds involving bleeding only into the body cavity?

I've never claimed the absence of a large exit wound would render a wound non-fatal. But centuries of experience hunting other animals has shown that they tend to die faster if you can get your bullet to expand and produce a good exit wound for the blood to flow freely out of.

 

[JohnKSa]

If it wasn't necessary to use lethal force to stop the attack, then lethal force was not justified. Period. End of story. Go read your code.

That is true, but it is not what you said. You said:

...when lethal force comes into play it means you have to kill them in order to stop them.

That is absolutely incorrect as I pointed out. Just because it is necessary to "use lethal force" to stop an attack does NOT mean that "you have to kill them in order to stop them". In fact, the cases where it IS necessary kill someone to in order stop them make up a small minority of lethal force confrontations. That is not debatable, I have not seen even a single study that so much as suggests anything different.

A bullet that uses its energy to blow a fist-size hole out the back after ripping through the body cavity is going to be more effective than a lighter bullet that opens up and stops mid way.

This statement is FAR too general to be true. You can not make a sweeping statement like this and have even a ghost of a chance of it's being correct. Even if we limit the discussion to handgun bullets, this is still far too general to be correct.

ENERGY does not kill. You can dump energy all day long. What matters is a specific type of tissue damage.

You can not say on the one hand "Energy does not kill" and then say that "It's possible to use the energy to do tissue damage which would then lead to death.". The two statements are directly contradictory.

Kinetic energy is a scientifically defined and measurable quantity that measures the potential of a projectile to cause damage. Conversely, tissue damage as a result of a projectile impact is due to kinetic energy conversion/dump. Therefore attempting to separate energy from the tissue damage is scientifically bankrupt and leads to unavoidable contradictions.

 

[Cosmoline]

That is absolutely incorrect as I pointed out. Just because it is necessary to "use lethal force" to stop an attack does NOT mean that "you have to kill them in order to stop them".

You're welcome to try to use harsh language instead, but I'd advise against it. Lethal force means lethal force.

This statement is FAR too general to be true. You can not make a sweeping statement like this and have even a ghost of a chance of it's being correct. Even if we limit the discussion to handgun bullets, this is still far too general to be correct.

We know it's correct for all animals BUT humans. Unless you're going to tell me that a hunting round that fails to penetrate but "dumps its energy" in the bear is a better bet than one giving a large exit wound. So why wouldn't it be true for humans, who have the same basic systems and work in the same basic way? We're essentially upright pigs.

You can not say on the one hand "Energy does not kill" and then say that "It's possible to use the energy to do tissue damage which would then lead to death.". The two statements are directly contradictory.

Thre's no contradiction. The energy isn't doing the killing, but rather the part of the bullet that's moving through the tissue. In other words, "dumping energy" into the target is not the goal. The goal is to destroy key tissue. If the bullet still has enough energy left to leave a large exit wound, that's a good thing not a bad thing.

Are you really going to argue that a bullet which fails to penetrate clear through has somehow done *MORE* damage than one which punches out a large exit wound?

 

[MK11]

Depends on what it hits on the way out. A shot through the heart doesn't matter if it also goes out the back. Likewise, a through-and-through that doesn't hit anything doesn't mean anything.

NYPD isn't going back to 9mm ball and I bet they had a lot more through-and-throughs with that than the 124 grain +Ps they carry now.

 

[JohnKSa]

Lethal force means lethal force.

I'm not making any sort of endorsement of a particular strategy. I am pointing out that you made a comment that is not factual.

It is not factual because lethal force OFTEN ends a confrontation WITHOUT killing the attacker. In fact, that happens most of the time. Therefore it can not be correct to say that "...when lethal force comes into play it means you have to kill them in order to stop them. " Clearly, this can not be true since in most lethal force encounters the attack is stopped but the attacker survives.

Your statement says that when lethal force must be emplyed the attacker must be killed to stop the attack. BUT since it is true that many attacks are stopped by lethal force without the attacker being killed, your statement can not be true.

In the majority of successful lethal force cases the defender did not have to kill the attacker in order to stop him.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly.

We know it's correct for all animals BUT humans.

No, that is not correct. We do not KNOW any such thing. You may have convinced yourself that it is true, but there is evidence on both sides and much debate on this topic. This isn't so much a matter of your holding an invalid view (there IS evidence to support your view) it is a matter of your stating the THEORY that you endorse as if it were fact.

Are you really going to argue that a bullet which fails to penetrate clear through has somehow done *MORE* damage than one which punches out a large exit wound?

The amount of damage done by a projectile is dependent on MANY factors, and it is not possible to make an assessment of which projectile in your sentence has done the most damage. Your statement does not begin to contain enough information to make such an assessment. You have tremendously oversimplified a very complicated topic. That said, the view which you espouse is not uncommon, and, again, there IS evidence to support it. However, there is also evidence that contradicts it. Most importantly it is definitely NOT the only view with evidence to support it.

The energy isn't doing the killing, but rather the part of the bullet that's moving through the tissue.

An object moving through tissue does damage through the conversion of kinetic energy. Again, it is not possible to separate the energy conversion/dump from the damage being done. It is not scientifically supportable and attempts to do so can only lead to contradictions of known scientific fact.

 

[N3rday]

Okay...there are two things that incapacitate an attacker...Damage to the Central Nervous System, or rapid blood loss. THAT IS IT. Energy Dump is a myth, 'temporarity cavities' have negligible or no effect on stopping power, and overpenetration is WAY overrated in terms of importance in load selection.

Repeat after me:
CNS, Blood Loss.
CNS, Blood Loss.

note: Shock is also involved, but that's way psychological and depends more on the person you shoot and how they react to being shot. Unfortunately, you can't predict how a person will react to being shot. It's been observed that people only fall down when shot because they are predisposed to falling down when they are shot. Watch any movie or TV show. Ya get shot, ya fall down. Thus, the amount of incapacitation from shock depends a lot on what the victim thinks happens when someone is shot. Kinda like a weird terminal form of confirmation bias.

Here's an interesting read:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

edit: I'd also like to note that on some occasions an outer layer of clothing will prevent hollowpoint bullets from expanding. I'd assume the lighter the bullet, the easier it would be to prevent reliable expansion. In my mind, relying on a heavier, slower bullet to penetrate and create an entrance and exit wound is simply more predictable than hoping your bullet expands.

 

[_N4Z_]

***

that's a good read from firearms tactical.

i'll be sticking with my heavier .357 loads, ahhh thank you!

 

[Oleg Volk]

Energy used to deform bullet shape is "wasted" -- the less is spent, the better. Energy spent deforming or penetrating tissue is "not wasted".

 

[RyanM]

Bullet penetration is way too complex to boil down into energy, momentum, or anything else. And there are some weird things happening. For instance, temporary cavity is the result of transfer of momentum via exertion of force, yet the volume of the temporary cavity is proportional to energy.

According to MacPherson (who, as I've pointed out, is a rocket scientist who did equations which were used for many successful rocket launches by NASA), the amount of tissue crushed is dependent on bullet shape, bullet mass, and velocity. The relationship to mass is linear. Double the bullet mass is double the tissue crushed. The relationship to velocity is logarithmic. Double velocity means less than double tissue crushed, assuming everything else is identical. Bullet shape is just plain crazy, but makes very little difference. Relatively blunt roundnose bullets will crush about 83% of their diameter. Expanded hollowpoints, 91%. Full wadcutters, 100%.

"Energy transfer" is mainly expressed as temporary cavity size, since that's the only factor which correlates well with energy. By extension, tissue which is torn and shredded by fragmentation and/or stretching correlates with energy. But tissue crushed by direct contact with the bullet does not. And tearing of tissue doesn't become a factor until energy levels exceed about 800-1000 ft-lbs. Whether or not a sonic pressure wave caused by the temporary cavity is a factor in incapacitation is a subject of debate.

Also, whether the bullet exits or not is irrelevant. Exit wounds do bleed more than entrance wounds, but 99% of bleeding is going to be internal, not external.

The chances of a pistol bullet exiting, if it expands, is very low. A straight front-to-back shot through a 9" thick torso will only exit (barely) if it penetrates the equivalent of 14" or more of ballistic gelatin. It will only pose a downrange hazard if it penetrates the equivalent of 17" or more. Most personal defense ammo is in the 12" to 14" range.

If you believe that crushing large amounts of tissue is the best way to incapacitate at handgun velocities, you should use heavy expanding bullets at moderate velocities; 800-1000 fps or so. If you believe the temporary cavity is the most efficient way to incapacitate at handgun velocities, you should use higher energy expanding loads, as long as penetration is not compromised by using too light of a bullet. If you believe that both are important, heavy and fast is for you.

To conclude: Heavier is better. Bigger is better. Faster is better.

 

[Cosmoline]

It is not factual because lethal force OFTEN ends a confrontation WITHOUT killing the attacker. In fact, that happens most of the time. Therefore it can not be correct to say that "...when lethal force comes into play it means you have to kill them in order to stop them. " Clearly, this can not be true since in most lethal force encounters the attack is stopped but the attacker survives.

Just because lethal force sometimes fails to be lethal doesn't mean it wasn't justified. These rules swing in and out like clockwork, each triggered by key elements. You're disregarding these elements and jumping from one end of the encounter to the outcome. That's a fatal mistake. AT THE MOMENT when you are threatened with imminent lethal force, then under the rules you may use lethal force in return. That moment ends when there is no longer an imminent threat of lethal force. But for that moment lethal force means lethal force. The fact that sometimes the lethal force doesn't kill before the imminent threat is eliminated does nothing to change this. It certainly doesn't make it a wise decision to use what you deem to be less deadly projectiles when you're faced with imminent death.

Also, whether the bullet exits or not is irrelevant. Exit wounds do bleed more than entrance wounds, but 99% of bleeding is going to be internal, not external.

It's not the "external" bleeding of the skin tissue that makes the exit wound important. It is the fact that it tends to be large, uneven and allow for freer flow of blood out of the body--thus bringing on shock faster than a situation where the blood oozes inside the cavity alone.

No, that is not correct. We do not KNOW any such thing. You may have convinced yourself that it is true, but there is evidence on both sides and much debate on this topic. This isn't so much a matter of your holding an invalid view (there IS evidence to support your view) it is a matter of your stating the THEORY that you endorse as if it were fact.

So a century or more of hunting theory is wrong? Please cite any authoritative source that argues a bullet going half way into the bear or moose and STOPPING is going to be more effective than one which blasts clean through or as far through as possible. Because that is directly contrary to everything I've learned and observed.

 

[JohnKSa]

Bullet penetration is way too complex to boil down into energy, momentum, or anything else.

Agreed.

Heavier is better. Bigger is better. Faster is better.

Agreed again.

there are two things that incapacitate an attacker...Damage to the Central Nervous System, or rapid blood loss.

There are two things that we know for certain incapacitate an attacker... There is strong evidence that other incapacitation modes exist. The applicability of this evidence to handguns is debated but can not currently be dismissed.

Energy Dump is a myth, 'temporarity cavities' have negligible or no effect on stopping power

There is certainly one camp that believes these statements, but that does not make it the only valid view since there is credible evidence to support other views. Therefore, these statements can not be accurately be made as fact. Furthermore, as I have stated repeatedly on this thread, while energy can not be shown to correlate directly to tissue damage, the scientific definition of energy means that it can not be totally discounted as an important contributor--and further that tissue damage and energy are connected, however tenuously. And, that means that any view or statement that attempts to completely disconnect energy from tissue damage or that implies that energy is somehow mythical or irrelevant can not be completely accurate.

Just because lethal force sometimes fails to be lethal doesn't mean it wasn't justified.

I don't know where you got the idea that I said anything about justification or that my comments were about strategy or legality. You made a VERY simple statement with absolutely no qualifications to the effect that using lethal force meant you must kill to stop the attack. I pointed out that the statement was blatantly incorrect since there are many successful lethal force confrontations where it is not necessary to kill the attacker.

It certainly doesn't make it a wise decision to use what you deem to be less deadly projectiles when you're faced with imminent death.

Ahhh. I see where you're going now. But I never said that one should use "less deadly projectiles" only that one should keep in mind that hunting is exclusively about killing while self-defense is not. To prove this fact, I offer this incontrovertible statement.

If you shoot an animal but fail to kill it, your hunt has failed. If you shoot an attacker and he stops attacking, your defense is successful even if he survives.​

So a century or more of hunting theory is wrong?

First of all, there is not a direct correlation to hunting strategy and self-defense strategy. Second, this is more about making statements as if they are fact when, in reality, the statements are merely endorsing just one side of the debate. The reality is that there is more than one commonly accepted applicable theory with evidence to support it.

 

[N3rday]

I am 99% certain that temporary cavities have no effect on stopping power...human tissue is flexible enough so that temporary cavities (which are rarely over 10x the bullet's diameter) really don't do anything except displace tissue for a split second. It just moves right back into place afterwards, no damage done. The exception to this is in some non-stretchy human tissue of one organ in the body (I believe it's the liver).

So, other than the liver, temprary cavity is pretty much accepted not to have any effect on incapacitation. I didn't think this was disputed .

edit: I can't figure out if you're referring to 'energy dump' or the energy as it is used to drive a bullet through tissue. Either way, it's implausible to think that the 'impact' of a bullet has any real stopping power; Newton said so! =P

 

[JohnKSa]

I am 99% certain that temporary cavities have no effect on stopping power...human tissue is flexible enough so that temporary cavities...

SOME human tissue is very elastic, but it can be easily shown that some human tissue has very little elasticity. Several very large and vascular organs fall into this category--and the liver is not the only one although it is the one that IS most commonly mentioned.

Either way, it's implausible to think that the 'impact' of a bullet has any real stopping power

I agree. The 'impact' of a bullet is essentially negligible or the shooter would be in danger.

 

[RyanM]

It's not the "external" bleeding of the skin tissue that makes the exit wound important. It is the fact that it tends to be large, uneven and allow for freer flow of blood out of the body--thus bringing on shock faster than a situation where the blood oozes inside the cavity alone.

No, no. I mean that 99% of blood "lost" will remain in the body cavity, albeit no longer contained in the blood vessels. For instance, in the 1986 Miami shootout, Platt had about a quart of blood inside his chest cavity at the time of autopsy. He bled to death because that quart of blood, though still in his body, was no longer in a location where it could do him any good. Even if there had been an exit wound, very little of that blood would have made it out through that hole.

That's usually how it goes. Blood stays inside the body cavity, and very little leaks out. Sometimes there's more leakage post-mortem, if one of the holes is facing down.

-----------------

I am 99% certain that temporary cavities have no effect on stopping power...human tissue is flexible enough so that temporary cavities (which are rarely over 10x the bullet's diameter) really don't do anything except displace tissue for a split second. It just moves right back into place afterwards, no damage done. The exception to this is in some non-stretchy human tissue of one organ in the body (I believe it's the liver).

So, other than the liver, temprary cavity is pretty much accepted not to have any effect on incapacitation. I didn't think this was disputed .

If the temporary cavity is big enough, it will tear elastic tissue. The minimum for this is about 800-1000 ft-lbs on humans and human-sized animals. There's also apparently some evidence, according to Michael Courtney, that the blunt trauma caused by the temporary cavity will cause a compressive pressure wave with enough force to cause damage to the central nervous system, even if the temporary cavity itself does not intersect with any structures of the CNS.

 

[N3rday]

Have any links? I haven't heard of that or Michael Courtney, but now I'm interested!

 

[Cosmoline]

No, no. I mean that 99% of blood "lost" will remain in the body cavity, albeit no longer contained in the blood vessels. For instance, in the 1986 Miami shootout, Platt had about a quart of blood inside his chest cavity at the time of autopsy. He bled to death because that quart of blood, though still in his body, was no longer in a location where it could do him any good

\

That's a great example of what I'm talking about. Platt was hit with multiple .38's and 9mm's, most to his extremities not his chest. His heart/lung area was not perforated with a 180 grain HP .357 or similar projectile capable of blasting a large exit wound on the way out. If he had been maybe he would have died sooner. As it was he was still able to keep fighting until this coup de gras shot:

Mireles extended his gun through the driver’s side window and fired at Platt (Platt chest/spine wound J). The bullet penetrated Platt’s chest just below the left collar bone, traveled through the musculature of the shoulder and neck and stopped in the fifth cervical vertebra (C5), where it bruised the spinal cord. Dr. Anderson observes that the wound path of this bullet through Platt’s body could only have occurred if Platt were lying on his back on the front seat.

Mireless had a .357 revolver but was firing .38 +P's in it, not full magnums. A magnum load would have punched through C5 no problemo. Though in the end Platt had as you say bled enough through his lesser wounds that he died. Virtually any of his many earlier wounds would have stood a better chance of killing him or doing conflict-ending damage had the shooters been firing heavy expanding rounds out of their 9x19's and .357's and slugs out of the shotguns. The pellet wounds would have been a bone-shattering slug hole. Likewise, the tissue damage to Platt's arms and legs would have been more significant with larger rounds. Instantly lethal? Doubtful, but maybe it would have stopped them a bit sooner and saved lives.

That's usually how it goes. Blood stays inside the body cavity, and very little leaks out. Sometimes there's more leakage post-mortem, if one of the holes is facing down.

That's because most folks don't use the kind of loads I'm talking about for personal defense. They do use them for hunting, and the results there are often spectacular. Is a handgun ever going to equal a hunting rifle? No, but that doesn't mean we should give up and buy wee little bullets that stop half way through.

 

[RyanM]

Have any links? I haven't heard of that or Michael Courtney, but now I'm interested!

Do a search here for posts made by Michael Courtney. You'll find lots.

--------------------

Mireless had a .357 revolver but was firing .38 +P's in it, not full magnums. A magnum load would have punched through C5 no problemo. Though in the end Platt had as you say bled enough through his lesser wounds that he died. Virtually any of his many earlier wounds would have stood a better chance of killing him or doing conflict-ending damage had the shooters been firing heavy expanding rounds out of their 9x19's and .357's and slugs out of the shotguns. The pellet wounds would have been a bone-shattering slug hole. Likewise, the tissue damage to Platt's arms and legs would have been more significant with larger rounds. Instantly lethal? Doubtful, but maybe it would have stopped them a bit sooner and saved lives.

Actually, Platt died mainly from the shot fired by Dove extremely early in the fight. Stopped 1 inch away from penetrating his heart. If it had hit the heart, he would have bled to death a lot faster, internally.

Really, there is a ton of space inside the torso which blood can go into. It's very unlikely that an exit hole will facilitate blood loss at all, when you've got all this room in the thoracic and abdominal cavities. You could easily put a gallon of water into the average person's adbominal cavity and they wouldn't notice a thing, as long as it's sterile. That's really no exaggeration. People with pneumonia and other lung ailments can easily accumulate a quart or more of fluid in their lungs. There is a lot of room inside, and gravity will tend to pull blood towards the bottom of whatever cavity it's leaking into. If the hole is near the bottom, it'll leak out, but there's more than enough room in either cavity to bleed to death into, without a hole. People have bled to death within minutes due to ruptured kidneys or livers or other internal organs due to blunt trauma damage (especially the liver with car wrecks), without any hole at all to leak out.

Now, extremities, being more or less solid muscle, will bleed out faster if there are two holes to leak from. And the blood bearing organs themselves will leak blood into the body cavities faster if the hole goes all the way through them. But whether a bullet exits on a torso shot really doesn't matter a whole lot.

Look at it like this. You've got a gallon milk jug full of water balloons. You shoot it in the middle with whatever. Where's most of the water going to go? Out the entrance hole, out the exit hole, or to the bottom of the jug? (Assuming whatever you shot didn't split the jug into pieces). Human body is pretty much the same way. Humans aren't bags of blood. They're bags of bags of blood.

Also, exit wounds from handgun hollowpoints are often not very dramatic. Here's a photo of one. http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/FORHTML/FOR022.html

 

[MCgunner]

Quote:
Have any links? I haven't heard of that or Michael Courtney, but now I'm interested!


Do a search here for posts made by Michael Courtney. You'll find lots.

Be prepared for long threads a lots of opposing opinions.

Speakin' of bodily fluids bleeding internally (not that it has anything to do with bullets), I saw on TV where Keith Richards had to have a hole drilled in his head to relieve blood in his skull from a fall. He was climbing a coca nut palm in Tahiti or some stuff and fell. I don't figure there's much in that skull, could probably use my drill press and not cause any damage. Drugs probably burned up any brain cells that might have been.

 

[JNewell]

I am 99% certain that temporary cavities have no effect on stopping power...human tissue is flexible enough so that temporary cavities (which are rarely over 10x the bullet's diameter) really don't do anything except displace tissue for a split second.

You may be certain, and you may even be right, but how do you know? Can we prove it? The problem is that even on paper most of this topic isn't "science" (in the sense that it can't be quantified, demonstrated, repeated, etc.). Even if it were - in the lab - putting all the variables that arise into the mix in the field would negate all but the most general principles.

I think we do our individual homework and make our choices, revisiting them as we think appropriate in the future.