Ballistic ft/lbs vs Diameter of Bullet

[JohnnyFlyGuy]

Let's try this again...Hi!

What is more lethal?

44 Mag loaded hot and heavy from Buffalo Bore out of a 7.5" barrel of a Ruger Red Hawk?

Or...357 Mag in a rifle loaded hot and heavy from buffalo Bore from a Marlin 1894C?

I would like to know which one would be more lethal...I have read that the ft/lbs don't tell the whole story because it doesn't take into account things like bullet diameter which creates the wound channel. This is to shoot NOT a bear, thanks.

 

[wgaynor]

This will come down to matter of opinion and ideas of shot placement. No way one can be proven to be more deadly over the other.

 

[Sam1911]

You really can't make any useful and valid statement either way.
Which ever one hits something important.

Assuming they hit exactly the same spot, and that spot is the brain or some other critical structure, it would be a wash. If by chance, you need a certain level of energy to get the bullet to penetrate to that vital spot, the .44 would probably work better, but the question of penetration vis-a-vis sectional-density enters into it, and a .357 Mag is a great known penetrating round.

From the view of the question of momentum, and the ability to crush tissue and break heavy bone, the greater mass of the heavy .44 slug would work better, probably, but it all comes down to what structure you're trying to hit, what it will take to damage it sufficiently, and whether or not you actually can hit it.

 

[MrBorland]

I'll vote for the .44 revolver. Ballistics aside, in an emergency situation where milliseconds count, the revolver ought to be quicker to deploy and get follow-up shots off if needed. 'Course, that assumes a basic level of proficiency with one's chosen platform. Bear spray seems worth consideration, even if one has that basic proficiency.

 

[mavracer]

Need to know the exact path the bullet will take as there are way too many vairiables.
Does the larger round come close enough to cut that vein that the smaller one passes by or could the extra velocity cause extra damage to the many small capilliarys in the lungs?

 

[CraigC]

I covered this in the 5th post in the other thread.

 

[JohnnyFlyGuy]

Thanks CraigC...I did see that but I guess I missed it the first time as the last thread was getting off topic.

Let's suggest there is a ManBearPig (half Man, half bear, and half pig...LOL)...and it has the skull of a Bear...(When I tried to ask specifically about a bear people didn't want to answer the question and started acting like they were all annoyed by the question) what would be better to the head a 357 out of a rifle or a 44 mag out of a revolver???

LOL! I can't believe it is so hard to just get a simple answer about a specific question. I know about bear spray but I have also heard that bear spray can really just piss a bear off...so sue me for wanting to inquire about which will be more likely to penetrate a bear skull 357 mag rifle or 44 mag revolver??? ANYONE have an answer that does not resonate with annoyance, arrogance, or ignoring the question all together??? LOL WOW this is difficult to get an answer. I am not looking for bears I simply have this set up, am planning on going camping in grizzly country, and want to know which gun to fire first for the most likelihood of stopping a grizzly, ManBearPig, yeti, or Ted the neighbor next door who wants my wheat thins! BELIEVE ME IF I HAD ACCESS TO A 45/70 or an 50 BMG I WOULD USE IT! LoL!

 

[Sam1911]

I can't believe it is so hard to just get a simple answer about a specific question.

Well, for at least the last 100 years folks have been arguing heatedly about this exact question without coming to any sort of consensus. High speed, low mass -vs.-- low speed high mass, hydrostatic shock, Taylor Knock Out score, Fackler, Marshall & Sanow, all the great gun and hunting writers for ... well forever, really. Tons of theory. Thousands of test animals perforated. Thousands of eye witness testimony. Thousands of pages of print typed out to explain it all. NO clear answer.

You're asking whether someone with a rifle shooting a faster, lighter bullet will kill a bear more effectively than someone with a handgun shooting a heavier, slower bullet.

There is NO clear answer to your "simple" question. At all. Might as well forget about looking at the question that way.

 

[back40]

johnnyflyguy, plenty of people have answered without taking an attitude, but you seem to be overlooking the fact that there is no definitive answer. therefor, you can ask 'til you're blue in the face and no one will be able to answer to your satisfaction.

i and others have said, if you are proficient with it, carry the .44. but shot placement is crucial with either. if the .44 is too much gun for you to be able to hit reliably with, then take the carbine.

 

[harvester]

Take em both on your outings. Keep 44 handy on your hip and rifle for distance use. It is hard to hit accurately ( for most people) with a handgun but quite easily done with a rifle.

 

[Sam1911]

if the .44 is too much gun for you to be able to hit reliably with, then take the carbine.

Or if you are not so proficient with a handgun that you can hit a softball-sized target repeatedly while it's charging at you wrapped up in a huge angry, pile of hide and muscle, with teeth and claws...maybe take the carbine.

 

[BlindJustice]

K.E. / Ft Lbs versus Momentum
the first uses velocity squared X bullet weight
the calc. is velocoity X bullet weight

So, Energy, Momentum & Taylor Knock Out Factor* Calculator

*T.K.O. takes into account bullet diameter.

http://www.n4lcd.com/calc/

Example A.
.357 Mag out of a 94C carbine
Let's add 425 FPS to the advertised pistol velocity
of 1375 fps for a 158 gr. = 1899 FPS

Example B:
.44 Mag 6" Model 629 @ 1470 FPS

The above calculator gives:
---------------- A --- B --------
Energy -- 1,136 --- 1,151
Momentum-- 40 ------ 50
Taylor K.O. - 14 ------ 21

You can juggle the inpouts as much as you want
but I'll take the bigger bullet/bore TIA
with the momentum, and bigger inpout wound hole

R-

 

[jmr40]

The one that penetrates the deepest and breaks the most body parts. This is more a function of bullet construction than anything else. Bullet diameter just isn't that important in modern guns. Back in black powder days with round balls the only way to make a bullet heavier was to make it larger in diameter.

With modern bullets LONG bullets penetrate much better than SHORT bullets. Heavy is only important within the same caliber. A 220 gr 30-06 will out penetrate a 150 gr 30-06 bullet and a 240 gr 44 mag by a large margin because the bullet is much longer. And then there is bullet construction. Some bullets break up quickly on impact, others stay together and penetrate deep.

There is also a lot of luck involved. There is no guarantee that even a 458 mag will stop an attack before you are injured or killed even with full penetration. A 22 that breaks the neck or goes in the brain will drop anything in its tracks. At one time the worlds record grizzly was taken with 1 shot between the eyes with a 22 LR. That record stood for a long time. WD Bell killed over 1,100 elephant, most with a 7X57 Mauser.

Bullet construction and placement trump everything.

 

[Sam1911]

Awesome! We have a TKO fan!

Anyone want to chime in from the Hydrostatic Shock camp???

 

[JohnnyFlyGuy]

Blind Justice...YOU DUH MAN! Thanks for the very informative information! I love that calculator!

 

[19-3Ben]

Or if you are not so proficient with a handgun that you can hit a softball-sized target repeatedly while it's charging at you wrapped up in a huge angry, pile of hide and muscle, with teeth and claws...

Wow. I've never heard it described like that, but that's got to be the best description I've heard!

As for which is better for your specific purpose, as others have said, it's really six of one, half dozen of the other. I went for the carbine, because it could share ammo with my handguns. Since it was a tie, I let logistics be the tie-breaker.

 

[19-3Ben]

Blind Justice...YOU DUH MAN! Thanks for the very informative information! I love that calculator!

He's ok, but "DUH MAN" is a bit extreme. TKO has been debated and discredited many times. That's why Sam1911 made the joke about hydrostatic shock. It's another of many theories and ways to quantify things for which numbers are inapplicable.

I'm going to try to be as blunt as possible... THERE IS NO ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

There are tons of bogus theories, and lots of conjecture, but there is no answer. If you simply take it as a given that one of those theories is correct, and you want to make your decisions based on that, go for it. But just realize that none of these theories can be substantiated.

 

[JohnnyFlyGuy]

Ben...which would you pick up if you were a 100% accurate gunslinger? The 44 mag revolver or the 357 Mag rifle and you could just walk up to it and needed to put it out of its misery because let's say it was immobile, but still dangerous, and you only had one shot. So you would get about a foot away from its head...which would you pick??? LoL!

 

[Barry the Bear]

I subscribe to the " a hole is a hole" theory.

 

[19-3Ben]

which would you pick???

Whichever one was most accessible at the time. I don't foresee there being any practical difference so long as I'm not using lightweight loads in either platform.

 

[Sam1911]

Thanks for the very informative information! I love that calculator!

If you're looking for a mechanistic answer, Taylor's musings will give you one worth every penny you paid for it and then some!

If you're really searching for a way to pick one choice to carry with you, flip a coin (or use the TKO calculator), accept whichever answer it gives you (which one really doesn't matter) and go practice, practice, practice. And then do absolutely everything the NPS guide book tells you to avoid an encounter with a bear.

Ben...which would you pick up if you were a 100% accurate gunslinger? The 44 mag revolver or the 357 Mag rifle and you could just walk up to it and needed to put it out of its misery because let's say it was immobile, but still dangerous, and you only had one shot. So you would get about a foot away from its head...which would you pick??? LoL!

In that case, it wouldn't matter. A .22 would probably do it.

If I had practiced enough with both to prove to myself that my skills with each were equivalent -- absolutely, with a timer and pass/fail tesing -- I'd pick the handgun because it is easier to carry and I'd be more likely to have it with me.

The fact remains that very few shooters -- relatively -- have put the tens of thousands of rounds downrange to be able to state, with anything more than braggadocio, that they are so proficient with a handgun. Honestly, they're just harder to hit with unless you've dedicated large portions of your life to their mastery.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

There are too many variables to consider here, most especially when you compare different calibers of bullets to start with. It's kinda like comparing apples and oranges.

If you started off with at least one equal point, and I would argue very strongly for bullet diameter being that equal point, then you can vary other factors around that common denominator and come up with coorelations that have more meaning. One such example would be, say, the .380 bullet and the 9mm bullet. Both are 0.355 inches in diameter. Discussions comparing the two will thus have more meaning because you can vary other factors between the two bullets (such as mass, velocity, bullet type) and be able to come up with something that directly coorelates between the two performances.

Outside of shot placement, penetration is the single biggest factor when determining "lethality". And both of these particular "loads" (insofar as you've described them both as "loaded hot") are more than capable of penetrating very deeply. In fact, since both loads would very likely penetrate entirely through the average human body wherever it his, this would tend to render most comparisons of "lethality" as moot.

All that said, since the bullets from both will very likely pass completely through most human bodies, the one that is designed and engineered to cause a larger diameter wound would be the one that would likely be "most lethal". Given equal bullet designs, this means the larger diameter of the .44 Magnum would win out over the smaller diameter .357 Magnum.

 

[Dave T]

Sam1911 is making the most sense here but that isn't what the OP seems to want to hear.

I'm willing to bet more money than I can afford that almost every one posting on this thread (and many others) will be better off (more accurate) with the carbine than the handgun. And since you have to hit the intended target for the "ballistics" to even come into play, the carbine is the winner.

Dave

 

[Zaydok Allen]

This is really entertaining purely for the wide range of comments, and I just keep laughing.

I do feel a bit bad for the OP.

I think the bottom line without getting into bullet placement or velocities and all that, you need penetration on a grizzly bear. From a handgun caliber, you really want to look at hard cast bullets to get penetration, so we will assume that expansion really isn't a goal hear.

Between a .44 out of a revolver, or a .357 from a carbine, assuming the same manufacturer of both cartridges, you are likely to get more impact energy, and penetration from a heavier bullet. At the very least, it will make a bigger hole. As many have stated, hitting a charging bear in a vital area like the head or heart will be very difficult, so my take is that better penetration and a larger hole will lead to faster bleed out, and hopefully imobilization before you are permanently maimed. The chances are slim though.

So, IMO, you are better of with the revolver in .44 mag if you are equaly proficient with it as you are the carbine. Just my take on things. Other's will undoubtedly feel different, like last time....

So yeah, pretty much what Craig said in post 5 of the other thread.

 

[BlindJustice]

FWIW/FYI - My close range long gun is a
Marlin 1894 20" vvl. 45 Colt w/heavy loads

Thought Taylor was the bigger ( weight & diameter )
scale from observations in Africa not hydrostatic
shock like Evans and Mashall.

As far as penetration, use heavy for the caliber/.
quality constructed bullets.

shrug

R-