Are Popular Handgun Cartridges Less Effective Against Bodybuilders/Strength Trainers?

[macFarlaine]

I have found that most body builders are so muscle bound they have difficulty walking or moving quickly,so running away may be the answer.I don't know what a strength trainer is,we don't seem to use that term in the UK.I would of thought a well developed physically fit person would take more stopping,as would an unfit person filled with alcohol,drugs and burgers.

 

[Lazuris]

I recall an article several years ago in Men's health or so, and it was a story about an on duty officer that was shot in a vital area, chest, however survived due to rather large chest as he was a simi-pro body builder. He claimed that he lived due to his additional muscle mass.

 

[Brett Byers AKA Slow]

I have yet to see someone who looked like "the man of steel" be steel

 

[RP88]

even though I weigh 140lbs., I'm still in great shape and am a weight trainer. All I have to say is that tearing of or pulling of a muscle sucks and is quite painful regardless of how big you are--whether you're a lean kid like me or a big pro wrestler like The Rock. Even more painful are things like hernias or total muscular tears that are enough to put a football player on the bench for the rest of the season and require surgery. Even if a 9mm bullet werent to hit someone in a vital spot, but simply tore apart the first 1-2" of flesh and muscle in what you could figure is about a 2"-dia. area of wounded or shocked flesh, the pain is definitely going to be worse than something like a serious muscle tear and definitely enough to bring anyone to their knees in excruciating agony. A .357 is probably enough to hit a 350lb man in any vital without any problem, and subsequently knock him flat on his back with the impact force.

 

[Timthinker]

Macfarlaine, I should have distinguished the difference between the two. A bodybuilder is a person whose primary focus is to develop his muscles to the uttermost. Strength is not the primary concern, but rather physical development. A strength trainer is a person whose primary emphasis is upon strength first. Strength trainers tend to look like the old-time strongmen such as Arthur Saxon and W. A. Pullum, the latter being one of your fellow countrymen. Bodybuilders tend to look like Arnold in his prime. This is how I distinguish between the two groups but others may offer a better definition/characterization between these two groups.

Obviously, both groups tends to possess greater strength than the average person. In truthfulness, I did not realize this distinction until I began working out with weights some years ago. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

At this point in the thread, I would like to offer an explanation for why I post some topics that seem controversial. I have always believed that one purpose of life is to gain knowledge. Hopefully, others share this view. But the pursuit of knowledge sometimes causes me to question certain views, to "rock the boat" in my quest for knowledge. My goal is not to offend, but inquire about the truthfulness of a matter. I hope my fellow contributors understand my zeal for knowledge and will direct me into paths that benefit the entire community. Thanks.


Timthinker

 

[tipoc]

The following statements are "in general" true.

In general:

It's harder to bring down a bigger person with a shot or shots than it is a smaller.

It's harder to stop a trained athlete, of any type, than a person with no physical conditioning.

Gunshot wounds cause more damage in cold weather than in warm.

A person will sustain less damage from a gunshot wound when they are at rest than when they are flooded with adrenaline.

A person pumped full of adrenaline is harder to stop than a person without.

Some folks have continued to fight with bullets in their hearts while others have dropped with with a shot to the arm.

These things, and many others, are in general true. Unfortunately no one gets shot "in general". They tend to be shot in quite specific circumstances and react accordingly.

One other things is true, there are so many variables involved that specific conclusions are hard to come by. For example, if ya shot Payton Manning in the chest and blew his lung out would he drop or keep coming? Alot would depend on how pissed Payton was I figure and how ready he was to get shot.So much would depend on that that I'd be hard pressed to take a guess.

All this is one reason folks focus on solid hits with a round the shooter can handle in a gun fit to the task at hand.

Finally was the rep of the .45 Colt (or the .45 acp, 44-40, etc.) based on folks being smaller? Simple answer, no. The round was set to work on horses. Also stopped bears 150 years ago provided it hit them in the right place.

By the By... The tiger weighed 250 pounds. It was hit 3 times with 40S&W rounds. The one round that stopped it and that killed it was a shot to the brain.

tipoc

 

[Timthinker]

Tipoc, thanks for your posting. I did not know the .45 (Long) Colt was designed to stop horses. Also, I had no idea about the weight of the tiger, nor the number of rounds used to drop it. I would have guessed it weighed more than 250 pounds, but I am certain every detail of that shooting has been carefully analyzed. Much good, common sense was expressed in your response. Thanks.


Timthinker

 

[Shawnee]

Hi Timthinker...


You wrote... "Looking at these photos, I noticed that both the settlers and natives seemed smaller in stature and physique than some fellow lifters I know."

I haven't read this entire thread so someone else may have brought this point up already....

Those "smaller in stature" people of the 19th century had very different lives and diets. I read where it was estimated the typical man of the 1800s had a body fat content of about 8% - as compared to twice that much for today's "guy in great shape". Apparently when you read about some old cavalryman or prospector or farmer being "as tough as a blacksnake (whip)" the description isn't too far wrong. And when I read about some of the .50 and .60-caliber wounds (and medical procedures) survived by Civil War soldiers - and they went on to work some hardscrabble farm afterwards - I gotta think they were made of pretty stout stuff.
A little closer to home - my younger son is 5'6" and 140lbs, which is small compared to me. But he ranches for a living and he stands on the haywagon while I am up in the barn and he hands hay bales up to me - two at a time. After stowing 200 bales he's ready to go get another load and I'm ready for a 24-hour bath in Ben-Gay.
Also, there is a descriptive term common to the sport of Boxing called the "glass jaw" meaning someone who may be big but is easily decked. One of my best friends fit that description to a "T".
And then there are bull riders, the best of which are usually small and seemingly impervious to the destructive habits of 2000-lb. bulls.

So I have to think there must be something like a "vitality" or something that may be more important than size or muscle mass.

 

[tipoc]

The results on the autopsy of the tiger were released earlier this week and included the revised weight.

One of the reasons the U.S. calvary adopted and favored the .45 Colt was that it stopped horses. The idea being to hit them in the head. This also made it a useful stopping round on people. Didn't always work though.

tipoc

 

[Timthinker]

Let me add a bit of interesting historical information at this point. It was not until after the mid-19th century that men learned the secrets of muscle development as we know it today. Those secrets consisted of systematic, progressive exercises to build muscle, and with it strength. What many people do not realize today is that those early exercises in muscular development were derived from farming chores. Those familar with old-time strength training have heard of "the farmer's walk". Guess where that name derived.

Yes, as a former historian, I am have been acquainted with the reasons the average person of 100+ years ago was tougher than the average person of today. I do not dispute this as an historical given. What I refer to, and should have made much clearer, are men who possess both strength and endurance derived from serious strength training commitments. These people are not the "glassy jaw" types that Shawnee correctly referred to earlier. By the way, I like that term and have used it myself. I hope these comments spark an interest in the history of strength training from the late 1800s to the Great Depression. Individuals who study this topic may be amazed, as I was, by how much tougher those training regimens were when compared to the training procedures of today. Exploring that topic might dispell some of the misconceptions about building functional strength. Indeed, the "old ways" of using weights have begun to make a comeback in recent years. It is a fascinating topic. Thanks for enduring my preaching.


Timthinker

 

[Leitmotif]

Not to derail, but I suggest that Timthinker Google the term 'sesquipedalian loquaciousness'.

One of the biggest factors in taking someone down is the ability to overcome their pain threshold. I've seen knife fights where a scrawny guy was cut several times, but brought down a much larger person through sheer persistence.

That said, the ability to 'soak' the first shot is also a big psychological plus. A friend of mine was shot by muggers, one of whom promptly turned tail and ran when my friend's 160kg bulk kept coming and dropped the other mugger with a judiciously applied amount of manual force. (In simpler terms, he literally slapped the mugger off his feet.) My friend was shot in the chest and thus unable to pursue the fleeing bandit, and was hospitalised for a while, but he came out with only two bullets in him where perhaps he'd have been killed if he hadn't had the endurance to keep upright.

 

[Constantine-p89]

Aim for the face.

 

[45Badger]

Has Ahnold ever been incapacitated by handgun fire in a movie? I think not.

All you girly men should be afrraid of those little girly hand guns.

 

[wbh]

not to go completely off topic, but as an engineer, I have to correct this.

I believe it is FORCE = mass x velocity^2.

Actually, FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION

and while a smaller person (as per your Bruce Lee example) or a smaller round (9mm vs .45) will have less inertia as you stated, that does not have a direct impact on its force. Inertia is basically (without getting too technical) an objects ability to resist motion (or direction change while in motion).

again as per your Bruce Lee example, a man who's arm may have twice the mass of another's yet only accelerates half as fast will have exactly the same force as the smaller man with half the mass yet can accelerate his arm twice as fast.

there are a number of other factors that will come into play here, but assuming all other things to be equal, smaller size and faster acceleration does not always translate to increased force.

now back to your regularly scheduled thread....

 

[Sunray]

No amount of muscle is going to have the least bit of effect on a bullet. Smashing, cutting and otherwise destroying muscle tissue is what bullets do.

 

[RP88]

I guarentee that if you shot a linebacker with a 9mm or bigger--assuming he's not on some sort of adrenaline-releasing stimulant like crack or meth--and shattered a muscle, smashed a bone, or hit an organ anywhere on his body, that he would be in an immense amount of pain and slow down and lose full mental clarity immediately if not stop and go into physical shock and panic. Even with some sort of adrenaline or drug-strength advantage, the odds are very well against Payton Manning.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

How many times have heard of people surviving all sorts of seemingly fatal shots? Headshots, lung shots, etc. The issue isn't will bullets kill bigger, stronger guys. They will. Bullets can kill everyone. Thats why they're the equalizer. But the question is are larger people effected, in any degree, less than smaller people.

I would say yes. I don't want to be accused of being some sort of internet tough guy or anything, but I may be coming from a different (and equally biased) point of view, as I'm a larger guy. 5'8, 235lbs, bench 325lbs and, if I remember the last measurement, had a chest that was like 48inches. And in my martial arts experience, guys who are bigger and, importantly, harder (muscle density) can absorb more and stronger punches and kicks. Muscle density also contributes to less shock and energy dispersion through the body. A tightly clenched stomach will feel localized pain, an unclenched stomach will allow more of the force to ripple through the body.

Harry Houdini (in great shape) was killed by a punch to an unclenched stomach that contributed to a ruptured appendix. Not dying immediately, he allowed the same person to punch his then clenched (muscle density increased) stomach, and didn't even flinch.

Also bear in mind that larger people have different shapes. They may have larger torsos covered in more muscle, but their organs are still about the same size. Especially in people who have muscle on the frame, it may just be harder to identify/hit vitals. You might assume you're placing good shots, but really missing the targets.

Continuing, there is plain and simple more tissue to travel through. So a lot of things will come into play involving the bullet and velocity. An extremely obese person might be better off as they'll have several more inches of fatty tissue to protect them before the vitals are in danger. However, they may be more apt to feel shock patterns and suffer internal disruption from the impact, as fat is easily moved. One really effective I found in fighting overweight opponents in the ring was to kick up at their bellies and hit the fatty overhang, which they said was very painful as it sent the force waves through them rather than letting the muscles under the fat absorb the hit.

So in my opinion I think someone who is DENSER will have a MEASURABLY different tissue damage from a bullet.

This in no way means they are bullet proof, nor does it necessarily imply a greater survival rate, though that could be the case for some wounds.

If you took a skinny guy, a fat guy, and a body builder, and shot them all in the same place with the same round, I wouldn't be surprised to see each of them have a different wound, with the degrees of severity being at least somewhat favorable to the larger guys.

 

[stevereno1]

it's hard to build up the muscles in the face or in front of the sternum. It is of little consequense if the suspect is well muscled or not. I have however, heard of a fat man surving a gut shot cause of the fat in his mid section.

 

[jame]

While the pure physics of mass vs. force can be calculated, I think that we have forgotten about what it is that drives the living being to survive. What is the inate, primal fire that keeps life moving? It's different in all of us.

Why do some whitetails run for many yards after a heartshot?

Why do "tweakers", that are obviously in poor physical condition keep moving after a mace, tazer, or bullet strike?

Just a little bit of human muscle really doesn't amount to any more that firm Jello.

Just my .02

 

[foob]

Just a couple of weeks ago we were amazed that a .40 S&W was able to stop a 350# tiger. I work with a couple of guys who had brief NFL careers that weigh more than the tiger. If you were to remove the tigers claws and muzzle it. I think it would be a fair fight between the tiger and my friends. When I see guys like this it does make me rethink my handgun choices.

You are nuts to think a tiger with trimmed claws and muzzled will be a fair fight. The tiger will kill any human just by swatting him enough times.

A chimpazee probably can kill any human pretty easily, an NFL pro may last a few seconds more.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_001b.html

The only thing going for a human is his intelligence. Or what seems to be intelligence. A single bullet can kill an elephant, I hope you ain't betting on any human taking them on with fists.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

When someone earlier talked about big muscle guys/body builders getting knocked out in a bar fight, that actually has very little to do with them and a lot to do with the other guy.

A true knock-out can really only be achieved in 2 ways: Concussive force to the brain or Denial of blood to the brain. You can't build muscle on your face and head, infact, people with low body fat have thinner faces, and thus less padding over the bone. A knockout punch can be delivered to the jaw, temple, back of the head, or any where on the head that allows sufficient sharp bone to bone contact. This works by shocking the head and snapping the brain against the skull. KO.

The second blood-stoppage knockout is done by striking the sides of the neck, either one, and momentarily stopping blood flow to the brain. Much harder to do, but not uncommon.

A third Knock Out isn't technically a KO, but rather a gut punch delivered as someone is breathing in or letting their muscles go lose that causes the lungs and diaphragm to contract, which generally results in a fall down without loss of consciousness.

The first two can happen to anyone, regardless of muscle. The later is harder to achieve against larger guys.

 

[Timthinker]

Delete this post.

 

[trickyasafox]

Just throwing this out there-

Steroids have influenced a lot of people in my life very personally. I have never taken any kind of steroids, but I know more than I'd like to admit that take them with great frequency.

I'm 6'4 290-300lbs (depending on the day) one guy I used to bounce with was about 6'00'' and 300lbs GASSED OUT OF HIS MIND (meaning on heavy steroids)

I was in the cellar of our bar with side walk access- He lifted me out of it with 1 arm- to shoulder height- without trying. a 1 arm, 300lb row to shoulder height.

Some people in the last generation may have been tough as nails, but you give a genetically gifted adult male a steady diet of test, tren, and some other home made pharmaceuticals and you will meet people who truly are superhuman.

This is not to say that all big people in shape are on steroids, but they aren't uncommon either. My argument is- dump the male hormone of testosterone into your body at 700 -800 % of its normal level, increase insulin levels, and other fun hormones and then give them an adrenaline spike and watch the show.

I've seen car doors ripped off, 200lb men thrown OVER a vehicle, and a plethora of other freak show activities. Hell the world record bench press is over a 1000lbs now, and the raw record is well over 700. Squatting over 1000 isn't even uncommon at a lot of serious gyms.

Muscle doesn't make you bullet proof- but i still don't want to mess with some of these guys. Now before I hear about martial arts- let me tell ya- if someone is bigger and faster then you- G-d be with you. I don't care what you know, if they are a superior athlete, you gotta get lucky or they gotta get dumb or both.

not trying to ruffle feathers, but just pointing out my opinion and personal experience. Other people have made some great valid points too, but we are entering an age where the upper caliber of athletes are far greater than that of the everyday person.

 

[Timthinker]

Much has been discussed here about handgun stopping power. I hope the new thread I opened on the statistics of handgun stopping power addresses the concerns all our contributors have express so far. My expectations are that discussions there will also prove animated. I really do appreciate all viewpoints on these conservations since ever contribution forces us to address issues we might ignore otherwise. Thanks again.


Timthinker

 

[jmr40]

Quote:
Just a couple of weeks ago we were amazed that a .40 S&W was able to stop a 350# tiger. I work with a couple of guys who had brief NFL careers that weigh more than the tiger. If you were to remove the tigers claws and muzzle it. I think it would be a fair fight between the tiger and my friends. When I see guys like this it does make me rethink my handgun choices.

You are nuts to think a tiger with trimmed claws and muzzled will be a fair fight. The tiger will kill any human just by swatting him enough times.

A chimpazee probably can kill any human pretty easily, an NFL pro may last a few seconds more.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_001b.html

The only thing going for a human is his intelligence. Or what seems to be intelligence. A single bullet can kill an elephant, I hope you ain't betting on any human taking them on with fists.

Actually, there are many, many, documented cases of humans fighting off large predators and winning with their bare hands or at most a knife. And this was with animals having their claws and teeth. A camper here in North Georgia beat a 230# bear to death this summer with only a stick of firewood after it attacked his young son.