.30 Carbine vs .45 ACP?

[RPRNY]

No, he's correct. Bullets moving significantly in excess of 2,000 FPS produce wound channels much larger than the bullets themselves, as tissue is displaced further and faster than it's elastic limits. The less elastic the tissue, the greater the effect. Bullets at handgun velocities will produce a wound channel little wider than the slug itself, save for hits on completely inelastic tissue like the liver.

No, he's not. This is unsupported urban myth. Again, show me the liquified puddles of tissue (formerly animate) that were shot with the 5.56. I've shown you data - you've given unsupported opinion asserted with a degree of rather unpleasant arrogance. That does not fact make. Velocity can help mitigate the compromises arising from use of smaller calibers but, omnius paribus, there is no substitute for cubic inches.

More fact:

The other popular contemporary misconception results from the belief that the rapid "transfer" of the kinetic energy of the bullet thereby kills instantaneously through "hydrostatic shock". This term gets used rather loosely to describe quite a lot of things, including some actual wound mechanics, but for the sake of the following discussion I confine my reference to purported effects induced far from the wound cavity that are attributable to a "shocking effect" ascribed to certain bullets or loads.

I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscientific slang. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of muscle tissue has been measured to be about 5150 fps, and that of fatty tissue around 4920 fps (A Cavitation Model for Kinetic Energy Projectiles Penetrating Gelatin, Henry C. Dubin, BRL Memorandum Report No. 2423, US Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, December 1974). Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps. Unless the bullet can penetrate faster than the inherent sound speed of the medium through which it is passing, you will not observe a shock wave. Instead, the bullet impact produces an acoustic wave which moves ahead of the penetration. The initial acoustic wave causes no damage (it has been observed in testing passing harmlessly in advance of the bullet's path).

Supported by source:

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html

The OP's question was about "stopping power". Larger holes stop better. If you would like to move the discussion on, having conceded that fact and dropped your assertions about high velocity smaller caliber bullets making larger holes than larger caliber bullets through "hydrostatic shock", then, as I have noted above, we can discuss the benefits arising from use of a smaller caliber firearm (diminished recoil, limited collateral damage, weight savings, trajectory/accuracy improvement etc.) and the compromises arising therefrom.

 

[adelbridge]

kinetic energy = mass X velocity^2

velocity or mass argument is really one in the same. If you look at the ballistics table of different weights of any standard loading (not subsonic or managed recoil) of a given cartridge there is going to be relatively little change in energy in ft lbs.

 

[MachIVshooter]

show me the liquified puddles of tissue (formerly animate) that were shot with the 5.56.

Where did I say "liquified puddles of tissue"?

Don't try to attribute statements to me that I have not made. It's disengenuous.

The other popular contemporary misconception results from the belief that the rapid "transfer" of the kinetic energy of the bullet thereby kills instantaneously through "hydrostatic shock".

I also never said "kills instantaneously" or used the words "hydrostatic shock". I'm not a Michael Courtney disciple.

Bullet impacts do, however, create hydraulic pressure as they displace the medium they're travelling through, whether it's water (witness exploding milk jugs) or soft tissue. The amount of damage resulting is dependent on the amount of pressure (higher velocity rounds generate more) and the particular tissue (the water content and the elastic properties). Some tissues, such as muscle, absorb the pressure rather well and have high elastic limits. other tissues, like the liver or spleen, do not stretch much and are easily torn apart by the pressure. The result in these inelastic tissues is partial or total destruction of the organ and blood loss from the vessels that were feeding that organ.

Larger holes stop better.

No one is disputing that. What you don't seem to understand, though, is the mechanism by which the hole is created. Low velocity rounds crush and tear tissue they contact directly; High velocity rounds create hydraulic pressure that damages tissue not directly contacted by the projectile.

I'm not going to sit here and list out dozens of articles & treatises just so you can stick your fingers in your ears while telling us that all these people are wrong. Believe what you wish, but the difference in wounding between high and low velocity rounds is well established, and many of us have witnessed it first hand.

 

[RPRNY]

I'm not going to sit here and list out dozens of articles & treatises just so you can stick your fingers in your ears while telling us that all these people are wrong.

The rapidity with which you have moved from unpleasantly assertive to aggressively defensive does as little to support your position as does your lack of any evidence to support your claim. You do not intend to "sit here and list out dozens of articles & treatises" because they do not exist. Who are "all these people" that I am allegedly wronging?

You have painted yourself into a corner and do not like it there. I understand, but aggression will not alter your circumstance. There is no Hydraulic Shock in tissue. Highly elastic muscle and fatty tissue develop large temporary wound channels from high velocity small caliber bullets. Those temporary wound channels close behind the bullet and while the tissue is bruised, it is not irreparably damaged. What you "witness" when hunting is the effect of high velocity small caliber bullets that are well designed and impact at optimal velocity mimicking the effect of larger caliber bullets through expansion and fragmentation. That is to say, you "witness" a small caliber round expanding in size and having a tissue impact similar to a larger caliber bullet that may not, due to lower impact velocities or bullet design, expand at the same rate.

Hydraulic pressure in the case of high velocity bullets impacting tissue is a myth unsupported by science. Energy transfer from high velocity projectiles is not of a greater order of magnitude than energy transfer from a lower velocity projectile. See adelbridge's formula posted above. That a smaller caliber projectile impacting at a higher velocity can do damage that mimics a larger caliber bullet that does not expand as much is a reflection of effective bullet design compensating for smaller caliber; it becomes bigger and makes a hole more similar to the larger caliber projectile.

Now, either concede the facts or produce "dozens of articles & treatises" to support your assertion, as I have done.

 

[Robert101]

RPRNY, just take a look at why a cartidge like the 270 Winchester (it has a .277" diameter bullet) is so effective on large game. Small caliber, high velocity and it creates a lot of tissue tearing/damage due to the conditions presented by MachIV.

 

[RPRNY]

Robert,

Again, with respect, no, the .277" bullet does not achieve its effectiveness through "hydraulic pressure". It achieves it through several factors. A flat trajectory may allow more accurate shot placement. High velocity allows a correctly designed .277" bullet to both penetrate and EXPAND, thereby creating permanent wound channels similar to larger caliber bullets that may not expand at the same rate.

I do not debate the effectiveness of well designed smaller caliber bullets impacting at optimal velocities. As a strong partisan of the 6.5x55mm cartridge, it would be illogical of me to do so. The point at issue is "stopping power" of various cartridges. The fact is that, bigger holes stop better by destroying more tissue, blood vessels and CNS. High velocity, small caliber bullets can be designed to expand, fragment and mimic the effect of a larger caliber solid or low expansion bullet, but there is no magic high speed shock wave tissue pummler effect.

As I noted earlier, this is why the 5.56 Nato round is designed to yaw on impact, thereby creating a larger wound channel than if it did not, thus increasing its debilitating or killing effect. If the "hydraulic pressure" myth were true, there would be no need for the yaw design, the 5.56 projectile would hydraulic shock all of its targets into pulpy messes. This is why "dum-dums" are banned and FMJ ammunition is required by the Geneva Conventions, because expanding ammunition creates, especially through fragmentation, much more devastating and less survivable wounds than FMJ bullets (but Napalm and Cluster Munitions are okay, go figure?).

Bigger holes are better. Small caliber bullets can be designed to produce larger than caliber holes (the yaw of the 5.56 Nato round, the expansion of a .277" hunting bullet) in tissue but they cannot be made to produce hydraulic shock in tissue because the impact velocities required to do so exceed the muzzle velocities of any rifle ever produced.

 

[56hawk]

You have painted yourself into a corner and do not like it there. I understand, but aggression will not alter your circumstance. There is no Hydraulic Shock in tissue. Highly elastic muscle and fatty tissue develop large temporary wound channels from high velocity small caliber bullets. Those temporary wound channels close behind the bullet and while the tissue is bruised, it is not irreparably damaged.

Have you actually read the documents you posted links to? From the Mechanics of Handgun Wounding:

All handgun wounds will combine the components of penetration, permanent cavity, and temporary cavity to a greater or lesser degree. Fragmentation, on the other hand, does not reliably occur in handgun wounds due to the relatively low velocities of handgun bullets. Fragmentation occurs reliably in high velocity projectile wounds (impact velocity in excess of 2000 feet per second) inflicted by soft or hollow point bullets. In such a case, the permanent cavity is stretched so far, and so fast, that tearing and rupturing can occur in tissues surrounding the wound channel which were weakened by fragmentation damage. It can significantly increase damage in rifle bullet wounds.

Note the size of the permanent cavity in the diagram:

 

[56hawk]

From the Annals of Emergency Medicine Volume 28, Issue 2:




Note the low velocity larger caliber bullet has a very small permanent cavity compared to the high velocity small caliber bullet.

 

[General Geoff]

scientific evidence for hydrostatic shock

According to this paper, while most tissue is too elastic to be permanently damaged by it, neural tissue is quite susceptible to it, and can indeed cause brain damage and quicker incapacitation from transmitted pressure through major blood vessels from a COM hit



FWIW I'm not convinced either way, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. From MachIV's earlier comment about not being a Michael Courtney disciple, I get the impression that these findings have somehow been debunked. I'd like to hear more about it.

 

[RPRNY]

Have you actually read the documents you posted links to? From the Mechanics of Handgun Wounding:

Yes, I have. Have you read my posts?

From your quoted text in Mechanics of Handgun Wounding

Fragmentation occurs reliably in high velocity projectile wounds (impact velocity in excess of 2000 feet per second) inflicted by soft or hollow point bullets. In such a case, the permanent cavity is stretched so far, and so fast, that tearing and rupturing can occur in tissues surrounding the wound channel which were weakened by fragmentation damage. It can significantly increase damage in rifle bullet wounds.

The permanent cavity wound you reference is achieved through expansion and fragmentation of bullets thus designed, not "hydraulic pressure". Thank you for adding further specific support to my position.

 

[56hawk]

From Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/mechanics.html:

Hydrodynamic pressure causes damage from the pressure induced radial velocity extending from the stagnation point at the point of the bullet in its axis of travel to the outer edges of the bullet. The tissue velocity is zero at the infinitessimal point of the bullet nose, where the hydrodynamic pressure has its highest value. The velocity with which the tissue is displaced by this pressure is a function of the angle between the axis of penetration and the bullet nose (see the figure below). If the angle is small, the radial displacement velocity is small. For this reason, a larger diameter, flatter expanded bullet is more effective in producing cavitation from hydrodynamic pressure than a smaller diameter, steeply sloped bullet shape. Because the tissue displacement velocity is also proportional to the penetration velocity, the permanent cavitation can be much larger than the actual diameter of the bullet. This is how a .50 inch (13 mm) diameter expanded bullet can create a 1.5+ inch (39 mm+) permanent hole in game.

 

[56hawk]

Yes, I have. Have you read my posts?

From your quoted text in Mechanics of Handgun Wounding



The permanent cavity wound you reference is achieved through expansion and fragmentation of bullets thus designed, not "hydraulic pressure". Thank you for adding further specific support to my position.

I never mentioned "hydraulic pressure". However, regardless of what you call it. A high velocity bullet will make a bigger hole than a low velocity bullet. Can you show where this is not true?

 

[firesky101]

And yet neither of the rounds from this thread exceed 2000fps. They both achieve the wounds they do through standard penetration and expansion. Perhaps if you would like to 5.56 bash you could start another caliber war elsewhere.

 

[General Geoff]

All else being equal, a larger diameter projectile has more stopping power.

All else being equal, a higher velocity projectile has more stopping power.


Both statements are true. It doesn't matter whether "hydraulic pressure" or "hydrostatic shock" is the reason behind higher velocities causing more tissue damage or larger holes, or fragmentation, expansion, penetration, or yawing.

 

[RPRNY]

General,

That was a good read and its authors certainly set it up as a challenge to the myth of hydrostatic shock.

But my take away was that they proved neural tissue is more prone to damage arising from temporary wound cavity creation than non-neural tissue. That does not prove the existence of hydrostatic shock, it proves, and I do not contest the truth of this, that neural tissue is more fragile and easily damaged in gunshot wounds than is non-neural tissue. That is to say in more simple terms that bruising to neural tissue is more damaging than bruising to muscle tissue. I agree, but found no evidence that they were able to show hydraulic shock in tissue causing the creation of permanent wound channels. "Neural tissue in subjects penetrated by gunshot is more likely to be damaged than other types of tissue" does not equate, IMHO, to "high velocity bullets create hydraulic pressure in tissue that leads to larger permanent wound cavities than expansion and fragmentation account for".

It doesn't matter whether "hydraulic pressure" or "hydrostatic shock" is the reason behind higher velocities causing more tissue damage or larger holes, or fragmentation, expansion, penetration, or yawing.

It does when the assertion is made that it is as a result of some ill-defined and unsubstantiated claim of "hydraulic pressure" or "hydrostatic shock" that smaller caliber, high velocity bullets can achieve results similar to larger caliber bullets. They do not. They achieve it by expansion, fragmentation, and penetration paths (yaw) that have the effect of a larger caliber bullet.

As to the (incorrect) allegations of "5.56 bashing", please support your claim. I have not bashed any caliber. I have used the 5.56 Nato round to illustrate the fact that a high velocity, small caliber FMJ round achieves its effectiveness not through this mythical "hydraulic pressure" but through design (yaw) that has the effect of mimicking a larger caliber round in the creation of a permanent wound cavity.

At no point have I suggested that small caliber, high velocity rounds "suck" or are inadequate. Issue was taken with my having pointed out that such bullets are effective because their design and velocity work together to achieve what larger caliber bullets that may expand less achieve: large holes in tissue. There is no hydraulic pressure wave traveling through tissue and causing the level of damage required to "stop" the target (although I will concede that the General's study does support the view that bruising neural tissue is more incapacitating than bruising non-neural tissue). Velocity does not "stop". It aids in the expansion, fragmentation and penetration of smaller caliber bullets, allowing them to emulate what larger caliber, lower velocity, lower expansion bullets do - create large wound channels that destroy vital tissues.

 

[CraigC]

For stopping power the ft/lbs is what you have to look at. Speed alone means little.

Increase the number of ft lbs USED in the target

Good Lord, I was going to type up a lengthy response but all this nonsense with folks continuing to support energy as an indication of a cartridge's effectiveness is so out-dated and is an indication that the one repeating it has no understanding of how bullets work on live tissue. I don't have the stomach for any more of it.

Bottom line is that there are few absolutes. Energy is meaningless. What a given bullet does when it impacts a given target at a given velocity, how large a hole and how deep is what matters and energy does not tell us anything useful.

Yes, a smaller, higher velocity bullet 'may' produce a larger wound channel but it does so at the expense of penetration. A rapidly expanding bullet is also rapidly shedding velocity as well as losing its sectional density and therefore its propensity to penetrate. There are no free lunches. Yes, a larger bullet WILL produce a large wound channel and one of tough construction and high sectional density will penetrate deeply. The big difference is that while a smallbore high velocity bullet 'may' do a fine job if everything goes according to plan, larger bullets "do their thang" with boring regularity.

 

[56hawk]

And yet neither of the rounds from this thread exceed 2000fps. They both achieve the wounds they do through standard penetration and expansion.

30 Carbine does exceed 2000fps, but not by much:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/553131/cor-bon-dpx-hunter-ammunition-30-carbine-100-grain-barnes-triple-shock-x-bullet-lead-free-box-of-20

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/370106/hornady-steel-match-ammunition-30-carbine-110-full-metal-jacket-steel-case-box-of-50

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/243889/prvi-partizan-ammunition-30-carbine-110-grain-round-nose-soft-point-box-of-50

 

[tyeo098]

.50BMG
Big. Fast.

/thread

 

[HoosierQ]

While I am not answering your question, toward the end of making a choice consider this: There a literally millions and millions of individual carbines in .30 carbine out there. They are all pretty much the same gun mind you...but there are millions and millions of units extant. .45 ACP carbines while perhaps a little more common than hen's teeth, exist is far fewer numbers, exist in a some rather odd platforms which, when available are expensive (Thompson clones) or were never very big sellers (camp carbines etc).

So, strictly from the standpoint of practicality, .30 carbine is...well, pretty much the 20th century carbine.

 

[HOWARD J]

Lots of good stats on how great a certain bullet performs
NOW
Make sure that you get lots of range time so you can hit & stop the BG

 

[R.W.Dale]

We put a lot of thought and effort into discussing the differences in terminal ballistics from various SD calibers. But the fact remains that no matter what cartridge you use shooting someone is always going to be a pretty effective at getting them to leave you alone.




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complaints about

 

[RavenTai]

I see and hear all the time how .30 Carbine really isn't an effective cartridge, even with JHP's.

When compared to full power riffle cartridges such as its contemporary the 30-06 in the M1 Garand (2610 lb'), the 30 carbine (880 lb') is a poor man stopper, if I were facing a wave of well armed heavily clothed north Koreans on a multi hundred yard battle field I would certainly want the M1 Garand not the m1 carbine. this is where the 30 carbine got some of its bad rap. and in that case it was deserved, it was sometimes not the right cartridge for the job at hand to disastrous results.

Funny how a 357 out if a 4" barrel is an 'effective stopper' while the 30 carbine is "marginal" despite having more energy.

you can look at that same fact another perspective, the 30 carbine is a riffle cartridge that barely makes more power from a 18" barrel (880 lb') than a .357 (700 lb') can do in a much smaller handier easier to conceal 4" barreled package, in an 18" barrel .357 can push a 158 grain bullet to 1721 FPS for an energy of 1,040 lb', It is too bad the .357 mags rimmed cartridge does not adapt well to semi auto use, that would leave no niche at all for the 30 carbine.

The high praise .357 receives for its high power comes with the unspoken caveat "for a hand gun" it is one of the better performers in a category of weak firearms.

 

[MachIVshooter]

RPRNY, you say:

The permanent cavity wound you reference is achieved through expansion and fragmentation of bullets thus designed, not "hydraulic pressure". Thank you for adding further specific support to my position.

While the article you reference says:

Fragmentation occurs reliably in high velocity projectile wounds (impact velocity in excess of 2000 feet per second) inflicted by soft or hollow point bullets. In such a case, the permanent cavity is stretched so far, and so fast, that tearing and rupturing can occur in tissues surrounding the wound channel which were weakened by fragmentation damage. It can significantly increase damage in rifle bullet wounds.

Like I said, cherry picking data you like, ignoring the rest.

You have painted yourself into a corner and do not like it there.

Hardly

Now, either concede the facts or produce "dozens of articles & treatises" to support your assertion, as I have done.

You provided a couple, not dozens. But here ya go:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/korea/recad1/ch4-2.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf

I really don't understand how you can witness the effects of ballistic projectiles on liquid or viscous mediums, SEE the pressure that is created expanding/rupturing the structure or container, yet contend that there is no hydraulic pressure associated with bullet wounds. It just baffles me. All ballistic impacts on these liquid or viscous mediums will generate hydraulic pressure as they rapidly displace what they hit. The faster the round, the greater the pressure. In wounding, if the pressure generated creates a temporary cavity in excess of the tissue's elastic limits, you will have a permanent cavity that is some portion of that temporary cavity after the in-tact tissues shrink back down around it. And once more, because the higher velocity rifle rounds generate more pressure, they generate a larger temporary cavity, which will result in a larger permanent cavity. The amount will depend on may specific variables, but it is well understood that the approximate threshhold where the permanent cavity created by hydraulic pressure-generated cavitation begins to occur in living organisms is 2,000 FPS.

Where not talking about the contentious theory of hydraulic pressure propogating in the blood vessels and having some remote incapacitating effect via petachiae and hemhorrage in the brain. We're talking about the very real effects hydraulic pressure stretching tissues beyond their elastic limits and creating a wound larger than the bullet itself.