9mm vs. 38 Special

Status
Not open for further replies.
You probably won't be attacked by bison in Michigan.

However, you might be attacked by someone wearing a thick leather jacket...

And you'll be using a round at what hunters consider "black poweder velocity" to defend yourself. That's probably the best real-world data you can find, since we don't live in a society where we routinely shoot people.
 
Nah.

My wife went to school at U of M and has relatives in that area.

I've never even been to Detroit, but nothing she's told me about it has made me too eager to vacation there -- except the novelty of seeing places even worse than LA in the 70s when I was a kid in the area.:D

Now a lot of the rest of Michigan sounds really nice, though.
 
How many inches you nudge the bison has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with dropping it, unless you are talking about clubbing it to death (not recommended). That's what people have so utterly wrong about bullet energy. You're not trying to nudge something to death.
Click to expand...

That would be entirely correct if you were to substitute the word momentum for energy (not that very many people have hung their hats on momentum as a measure of effectiveness), and it would then state my point very well indeed.

Since you concede that the scalability is highly nonlinear (vaguely an oxymoron, but I'll take the dubious wording at face value), and that things change when organs explode, Roy Weatherby's experiments can coexist with .45-70 bison hunting without any contradiction.
Click to expand...

It ain't a concession that the scalability is highly nonlinear, it's the crux of the matter. Momentum is directly proportional to velocity (a linear relationship). Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity (an exponential relationship). I was not implying that the physics is not scaleable when organs explode; I was referring to the possibility that the game might disintegrate. Not sure that's relevant.

Same thing with aerodynamic drag: within a fluid, it's going to take a lot more to stop a bullet going 1,200 FPS than one of the same weight going 900. How much effect the shock might have is open to question, but the penetration will be a lot greater (same as stopping the faster car--distance has to do with the kinetic energy), and assuming the bullet does not pass through the target, it should therefore be more effective. It's also the energy that will drive expansion.

Roy Weatherby's successful rounds come out of the muzzle at Mach 3 or higher. His one-shot drops of big game with tiny bullets at very high velocities were affected by creating a shockwave strong enough to explode the animal's vascular system.
Click to expand...

While the energy vs. bullet weight argument often brings up the experiences of Weatherby and Keith (or Lazzeroni and Lott, for younger people who maycare), let's not forget that the effectiveness of higher velocity rifle rounds was noted long before Roy ever started reaming chambers. consider the .30-30 vs. the .32-40; the .30-40 and later .30-'06 vs the .30-30 or .303 Savage; and the .300 H&H. At what point the impact begins to explode the vascular system vs. simply hindering its function (and that of the neurological system) through shock, I don't know. It as long been noted that the effectiveness of a high powered rifle, unlike that of an arrow, accrues from energy in addition to laceration, and that doesn't require a bullet that travels at 3,300 FPS.

That was my point from the start: the handgun rounds in question do not go fast enough to make this relevant.
Click to expand...

Actually, I though your point was that one should base conclusions on momentum.

However, as one who carries a .38 Special, I am not concerned about the higher energy of a 9mm, except to the extent it may result in over penetration and thus become a liability.
 
That would be entirely correct if you were to substitute the word momentum for energy (not that very many people have hung their hats on momentum as a measure of effectiveness), and it would then state my point very well indeed.
Click to expand...

Not true. Momentum is a pretty good indicator of how far a bullet will travel inside a target, and what sorts of obstacles it will be able to break through before it stops. It is not a complete measure of "effectiveness"; it's just a more meaningful measure of one component of effectiveness than energy is.

It as long been noted that the effectiveness of a high powered rifle, unlike that of an arrow, accrues from energy in addition to laceration, and that doesn't require a bullet that travels at 3,300 FPS.
Click to expand...

If you read old accounts of hunting, you will read about many shots commonly being used to bring down one animal with the rounds you listed.

Roy Weatherby showed how he could drop big game, DRT, with a single little bullet going really fast.

The difference comes from Weatherby's VERY high velocities, and little else.

But even if you're using .30-06 as an example, a deer load is something like 150 grains going 2910 at the muzzle -- still well above the range of numbers we're talking about.

Actually, I though your point was that one should base conclusions on momentum.
Click to expand...

Only instead of energy, at handgun velocities.

I was not implying that the physics is not scaleable when organs explode; I was referring to the possibility that the game might disintegrate. Not sure that's relevant.
Click to expand...

It is relevant. When organs explode (or game explodes), that takes a good deal of energy.

This will work, as Roy Weatherby demonstrated.

The energy required is far outside the parameters we're discussing -- because a mammal like a man or a deer can withstand a shockwave up to a certain threshold which is far above the energy of the hottest 9mm available.

Let me expand;) on "nonlinear": I mean stretch-stretch-stretch doesn't drop an animal. Stretch-stretch-stretch-POP! drops an animal in Roy Weatherby's world.:)

My point is that there's a very important dichotomy.

Below a particular threshold of bullet velocity (and energy), energy means very little. Bullet momentum means more, because it is a better indicator of the bullet's behavior on target.

Above a particular threshold, that does change. But we're not anywhere near that threshold.
 
Momentum is a pretty good indicator of how far a bullet will travel inside a target,
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe that with a little study, you will come to the conclusion that, in an ideal fluid (probably including gelatin), energy is a far better indicator, given the same bullet construction, design, and sectional density. Simple physics. Essentially the same as drag and dynamic braking.

...and what sorts of obstacles it will be able to break through before it stops.
Click to expand...

At that point we depart from simple physics. It may well be (and it stands to reason to me, but you have the experience to judge) that a heavier bullet moving more slowly, with the same energy but with higher momentum, will be able to go through bones more effectively. I don't know, but the guys with the big guns in Africa might.

When organs explode (or game explodes), that takes a good deal of energy.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Below a particular threshold of bullet velocity (and energy), energy means very little. Bullet momentum means more, because it is a better indicator of the bullet's behavior on target.
Click to expand...

Second point first: One more time, unless the issue is penetrating bone, the only way momentum enters into the picture (other than in terms of recoil) is in how much velocity is imparted to the target--how much the target is "nudged," in your words--and I believe that is meaningless, and you've said so too.

Regarding energy: Assuming the same sectional density and bullet construction, energy will drive penetration, except possibly in the case of bone. As I understand things, penetration, and wound channel diameter will be critical.

...a mammal like a man or a deer can withstand a shockwave up to a certain threshold which is far above the energy of the hottest 9mm available.
Click to expand...

Could be, and it makes sense. Is there empirical data to prove that the shock is not debilitating? You sure don't have to explode any organs to do damage.

You can knock a man out with a blow to the ribcage without breaking anything. How much energy is involved? Might the effect of an expanding bullet hitting near an organ or nerve be temporarily damaging?

I won't argue the point when it comes to a 9MM, but I really don't know, and I do think that a hot .357 from a long barrel is probably a different story.

By the way, I retired my 9MM some time ago, because it will only function reliably with ball ammunition. Neither the energy nor momentum in a bullet that has passed through the target is of any use to me.
 
You can knock a man out with a blow to the ribcage without breaking anything. How much energy is involved? Might the effect of an expanding bullet hitting near an organ or nerve be temporarily damaging?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. "Wild Bill" Hickock favored the 1851 Colt Navy revolver in .36 caliber I believe. He's said to have claimed that he always tried to hit a man as close to his navel as possible because it seemed to take the fight out of him very quickly. A man that calculating and cool would be a dangerous man to face.
 
If one has a mass (like a bullet) moving along at a certain speed and one then doubles that velocity, the kinetic energy (ft lbs) is quadrupled as a result.

Check out the following example:
A 9MM 125 gr bullet moving at 1175 fps has 383.3 ft lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle while a .38 SPL 158 gr bullet going 900 fps developes only 284.24 ft lbs.

If only I there was a Model 10 chambered for 9MM....
 
Last edited:
Those figures I posted don't ignore anything. In probable self-defense situations (at short, short range,) bullet drop, air drag and such are all almost too small to measure, much less worry about.

This post was about 9MM vs. .38 SPL. Is it still?
 
Last edited:
The divergence between theoretical physics ("ignoring the effect of...", "assuming that the target behaves like a fluid," etc.) and the real world has been bothering me.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there.

If you look at ballistic gel tests, a light .380 looks a lot like a heavy .45ACP. Yeah, they look a little different, but not MUCH different.

Nobody who has hunted with handguns or other low-velocity firearms (not to mention a good number of dead US soldiers buried in the Philippines) would equate this appearance with reality.
 
Those figures I posted don't ignore anything. In probable self-defense situations (at short, short range,) bullet drop, air drag and such are all almost too small to measure, much less worry about.
Click to expand...

True. I was referring to the discussion of the effects of energy on effectiveness after the bullet enters the target.

This post was about 9MM vs. .38 SPL. Is it still?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the discussion about terminal ballistics would apply to other comparisons.
 
The question I raised was, simply, "Does pushing a 125 grain .35" bullet a couple hundred FPS faster REALLY make it that much more effective?"

That's a terminal ballistics question if there ever was one.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
9MM vs .38 Special
Replies
21
Views
3K
Gordon
Gordon
P
  • Locked
.357 magnum vs. .38 special +P
Replies
13
Views
2K
golden
G
C
  • Locked
.38 Special
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
147
Views
12K
SeanSw
S
A
  • Locked
9mm all that much better than .38 special?
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
ilmonster
I
B
  • Locked
9mm vs. .38 and case volume - what gives?
Replies
23
Views
3K
Jim Watson
J
Back
Top