Does Caliber Even Matter? Allow Me To Ponder Out Loud.

[cslinger]

Let's assume for the moment that most handgun ammunition is pretty anemic in the whole scale of things, barring stupid monsters like the .500, .454, BFRs in 45-70 etc.

Lets also assume that bullet technology has created very effective loadings for just about all the major calibers. Effective meaning that they all compare pretty well in the handgun range of power. We will assume major calibers to mean anything .380ish and up.

All that being said if you are shooting a high quality round(s) into an assailent should we not see results that are pretty similar no matter what kind of handgun we are using?

Possible results being as follows.

1-Fear stop. Assailent runs away without a shot or simply at the sound/flash etc. of being shot at. Caliber does not matter, psychological win.

2-Psychological stop. Assailent is hit and goes down not because they are truely immediately physically incapacitated but because they simply believe they are done for because they have been "shot". Caliber not likely to matter another psychological win.

3-CNS hit. Lights out. Spine/brain etc. Caliber not likely to matter here either as any high quality defensive ammo is likely to be able to penetrate and make a CNS hit if the shooter does their part/gets lucky etc.

4-Assailent continues to fight with multiple non CNS wounds. Assailent is either well trained, chemically altered or extremely motivated. In any of these cases handgun calibers is likely not to matter much as there is much evidence of people like this being shot with rifle or shotgun rounds and continuing to fight for a bit.

So barring any small differences (.45 will make a slightly bigger hole then 9mm hence more blood loss etc.) it seems to me like caliber is kind of a moot point for all intents and purposes. There may be benefits in terms of penetration of barriers, capacity, pschological advantage to the shooter etc. but it seems to me the most important thing in a defensive handgun should be reliability first, fit second, proficiency/accuracy third and caliber dead last.

Now I am speaking as a civillian, Joe Blow, self defense standpoint. I am not assuming military body armor etc. Yes one could encounter body armor clad goblins but for arguments sake I am speaking of the most likely situations encountered.

Now I am not some mallninjasealteam666copswampwater operator just a shooter who has had experience with lots of firearms. I am simply pondering out loud and I might very well be completely and utterly wrong but allow me to ponder....so discuss, please.

Chris

 

[real_name]

I'm sure this will degenerate into a caliber war that .45 will win (again) but here's my couple of pennies...
I carry .380, .40 or .45, I do not feel that any of them are an automatic shut-off switch for bad situations, but I do not feel I am better off without them.
I paid my money and I take my chances. I have enough swagger to have got this far in life, and hopefully enough discretion to make it twice as far. (I at least plan to out live my dogs.)

Caliber doesn't matter to me, training does, confidence does, shot placement does, situational awareness does, overall health and fitness does, but at the end of the day one round of .22lr in the eye from him might beat 10 rounds of .45 in his general area from a panicking, out of breath, untrained and barely focused me.

So I vote no, caliber matters less than we all think.

 

[WESTTX357]

I think that caliber matters but second to shot placement .

 

[gbran]

Don't forget other factors, such as the cost of the handgun or how tacticool it looks. A $2,800 tricked out 1911 will surely stop someone quicker than a cheap Hi-Point and really cool mean looking guns should also do a better job. Crapola, you gotta know that when a guy whips out an expensive piece, he must really mean business (talk about psych). Oh, and don't forget those sneaky little pocket pistols that can be hidden til the last minute.

 

[KC&97TA]

The old saying, " you don't hurt them if you don't hit them " is a huge factor...

There are many storys of men hopped up on drugs, who were shot several times before hitting the ground dead with hand gun rounds. Now if they were hit with 12 gauge slugs instead of 9mm, I suspect they'd have gone a little faster. I've seen Iraqi's shot with 5.56mm and still move a bit, but they seem to drop dead when hit with 00 buck and slugs at close range, that's pretty good experiance, proveing that the bigger the hole the faster they go down.

IMHO: when chooseing a defensive pistol/shotgun/rifle, choose the biggest caliber; you can control, recover from quickly and shoot accurately... then practice with it as much as you can afford to. That's a big decision.

I prefer .45acp, in a 1911 4" as my CCW, ever look down the barrel of a .45acp? It looks like a hand cannon when you're on the wrong end of it. Which is why hollow points generate more damage that a ball round, in all idealistic testing.

EDIT: it's not the size of the hole and the bleeding factor, it's the hydrostatic shock of the round entering the body, that causes shock and trama, so I'm taught and so I teach.

 

[Fu-man Shoe]

I for one would generally tend to concur with that position,
in that I think caliber would likely not be the decisive factor
in a CCW related self defense shooting.

 

[nhhillbilly]

Caliber

First things first. You are the weapon and everything else is a tool to meet your goals. We have seen grandmothers beating off attackers with just sticks. But having a reasonable size handgun with the willingness to use it when you have to is the most important. My criteria is the round must pentrate at least 10 inches in gelaton that is covered with blue jean type of material. I feel 38 special, 9mm is my mimumal to carry. I currently carrry a Glock 23 in 40 SW.

1) it is issued to me so if I lose it after a use of force incident no big deal.
2) It is reliable and fairly accurate.
3) I can shoot it well enough.

I have carried 38 specials on duty up to 45 acp. Never felt under gunned except if I knew I might need a firearm I grabbed my long gun. That being said most of the critical incidents I have handled over the years I did not have the time to grab the long arm and ended up using my side arm at it was there.

 

[cslinger]

As far as hydrostatic shock is concerned I don't believe there are any pistol rounds traveling fast enough to make this a huge factor. Again I may be wrong in this regard but I didn't think this became a real factor until moving up to rifle ballistics.

Chris

 

[3rdpig]

I'm not going to respond to #'s 1 & 2 as there's no single answer that applies to everyone you meet. Some will be deathly afraid of guns, and others will not. Some might run at the sight of a 1911 but laugh at a Baby Browning. To try to quantify something like that is, IMHO, next to impossible. And for #2, who knows? Each person will be different. Relying on them to see blood and faint is foolhardy.

Moving on to #3, getting a CNS hit requires two things, placement and penetration. Caliber doesn't play a role in placement, but most mouse guns will not have enough penetration to reach vital organs or the spinal cord. I say this and I carry a .380 daily. Add heavy clothes, leather jackets, extra layers of clothing or fat and bones, and you've got penetration problems with anything smaller than 9mm. Even 9mm will have penetration problems with lightweight, frangible bullets at high velocities. Stay with the heavier bullets or FMJ in the smaller calibers and you'll achieve the best penetration their capable of. You MUST achieve a minimal level of penetration or all you can do is dish out nasty but non lethal wounds that give little hope of quickly stopping a serious attacker.

Once you get into the more powerful calibers, 9mm +P and up, you can start using frangible bullets and still get enough penetration. Cartridges in the Magnum class like 10mm and .357 give you all kinds of options, hollow points that also offer deep penetration, soft points that penetrate deeply and expand well, solid bullets that can defeat hard cover and still penetrate well.

Your #4 is another scenario that's hard to quantify, different people have different thresholds of pain, some might be drunk, some stoned, some so angry that nothing short of a killing shot will stop them. The harder you hit these people, the quicker they'll stop fighting. And the quicker they stop fighting, the higher your chance of getting out without lethal wounds.

The big calibers offer you options. Power is not a replacement for shot placement or training. But they hit harder, penetrate heavy clothing and cover like no minor caliber can.

My main carry gun is now a 10mm Glock 20. It was a .40 Glock 22, but the 10mm does everything the .40 can do and more in a package that's only slightly bigger and it carries just as many rounds onboard. So why not? I lose nothing and gain a great deal.

So you ask why I carry a .380 every day as well? For the same reason I also have a subcompact Glock 26. Because I can't always have the full sized 10mm pistol, and it's better to have any gun then no gun at all. I carry the best one circumstances allow, but the only time I'm totally without any gun at all is when the law proscribes it and they have the means to detect it. And I go to places like that seldom and leave as soon as possible.

So after all that, the answer is still what it's always been. Carry the largest gun the circumstances allow, in the most powerful caliber you can place your shots with consistently. Anything less is lowering your odds of survival.

 

[44AMP]

To a point

You are correct, BUT....in your situations 1-3 yes. In #4 not quite.
Agreed, caliber is not as important as bullet placement. No argument. However caliber can play an important part. Bigger bullets tend to work better. There are no absolutes. You mention cases of multiple hits from rifles/shotguns not stopping people. Yes, it happens. Seldom, but it happens. That's why the stories keep coming up. It does happen. But it is not the usual result.

Today, science has leveled the playing field in bullet design and construction more than at any time before. But a .380 still does not have quite the average effectiveness of a .45, even today. A lot closer than ever before however. Statistics indicate the 9mm being about on a par with the .45 in street performance (with the best ammo).

For many years we heard that 9mm hollowpoints would be as effective as a .45. The problem was we didn't have 9mm HPs that worked reliably. Today we do.

Caliber matters when all else has gone wrong. Nothing is going to reduce the size of the bullet on it's way to the target. It will always be as big as it is. If it expands, it works better, but if it doesn't, if it started out big, it is still big.

With non-incapacitating wounds, blood loss is what shuts down an attack. Big bullets demonstrate a general tendancy to be much more effective than the relatively small difference is size would indicate.

Not an absolute, just a tendancy. More often than not. And in any situation plausible in my life, I want every advantage (real or imagined) that I can get. As a civilian, defense shooting is a case of gravest extreme. For me, I will choose fewer bigger rounds over more smaller ones, because that is what my experience has given me confidance in.

That being said, every situation is different, and your needs are quite likely to be very different from mine. If one needs concealability as a foremost requirement, then a smaller caliber becomes the most viable choice. I would still recommend the largest caliber that fits your need.

After all, if caliber didn't matter at all, why are there so many?

 

[Zundfolge]

I think that caliber matters but second to shot placement .

I agree, however the more energy the bullet dumps into the target the larger the "one shot drop" area becomes.

With a .22lr you would have to be VERY precise, whereas with a .700 Nitro Express you could hit pretty much anywhere in the torso.


HOWEVER, I believe the power range in most "self defense" class pistols (.380 to .45acp to .357mag) is close enough that the point is moot (that said I still want to carry a 10mm).


Now in regards to "1-Fear stop." a larger, meaner looking gun will increase the "fear factor" (and I believe stainless steel guns have a slight advantage here as they look larger in low light).

Similarly, for "2-Psychological stop." the louder bang of a larger caliber might add to that psychological effect.


Plus there's the psychological effect on the shooter ... if you feel more confident that your choice of caliber is more likely to stop than a "lesser" caliber (yeah, I'm lookin' at you .45acp cult members) you're likely to perform better as a shooter.

After all, if caliber didn't matter at all, why are there so many?

[cynic]Marketing[/cynic]

 

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

I've never shot a human... Hope I don't have to. Wife's got an SP101 or Colt Cobra in the nightstand. She's very proficient with a 38spl with good ole Win 158gn Silver Tip HP's or 125gn Remington Golden Sabre HP's. I've taught her that shot placement is key to staying alive. But don't hesitate. Although she can trim an Alder tree with pistol She knows to shoot for center mass. Caliber does matter, in that I've given her a pistol and defensive round that she can handle. Will, 38spl get the job done? At close range. You bet.

I pack a 1911 in 45acp. Sometimes a 38, Sometimes a .357. They'll all get the job done.

I have to believe that a human can handle more than small vermin. Especially an amped up human. For instance... We had to kill a mature Opossum a while back. OK, Nothing more needed than a .22. Right? By the time I emptied the cylinder of my Single six in .22mag, it was evident from the snareling and aggresive charges by the overgrown rat that I needed something bigger. All well placed shots. One head shot. Now, I guess their brain isn't all that big, and the heart must also be small. Lungs? Hell, there was blood everywhere. .357 was handy, so I finished him off. I have to figure that .22 against a human, unless the hits are to the spine, heart, or brain, that a human would still be able to advance after getting shot with .22.

Also shot a big.. Big Racoon.. This varmint took more than 20 rounds from a 22. As it dropped out of the tree, it actually ran towards us. Even after an abdomin shot from a .44mag. (he was moving all over the place) Yes, he perished.

I've shot Deer with .357 and .44mag at close range. The non kill shots, the deer did run a bit, to stumble, then allow a followup shot. Others fell in thier tracks. I suppose the same could hold true for a human. If it's not a kill shot, I fully expect that an amped up perp would advance.

So, if it's not a kill shot, does caliber matter? I have to believe that in many cases, yes. A .22 to a quad, or even a .38 or .40 for that matter, my not disable the perp enough to slow them down 'enough'. A magnum or a .45 should create more tissue or bone dammage, most likely disabling the perp.

Shooting wild game, I have certainly seen 30-06 at long range against Black Bear fail to do the job with well placed bullets. (although I've also seen 30-06 also be very effective at long range..) One particular time when I shot a Bear, Heavier bullets and shorter distance were deffinately needed. Magnum caliber wouldn't have been turned down.

I know I referenced .22. But I put .32acp, .380, -pretty much anything smaller than .38spl, in the, Not in my nightstand list. Sure, they'll all kill, but not quick enough for me. Although a 9mm is technically more powerful than a .38spl, I'm not a 9mm fan.

Is it the goal, to 'kill', the perp? With todays laws, I gotta figure you're better off if the bastard's dead. Then he can't sue you.

Put me on the 'caliber matters' list.

-Steve

 

[the naked prophet]

1-Fear stop. Assailent runs away without a shot or simply at the sound/flash etc. of being shot at. Caliber does not matter, psychological win.

I think the bigger the hole in the end of the gun, and the bigger the gun in general, the more likely the bad guy is to be scared and run away. Not a big difference, but could be important.

2-Psychological stop. Assailent is hit and goes down not because they are truely immediately physically incapacitated but because they simply believe they are done for because they have been "shot". Caliber not likely to matter another psychological win.

A hit is more likely to have a psychological impact if the noise is louder, and especially if they feel the hit more. A small caliber FMJ (required for penetration as opposed to a JHP that would expand and not reach a vital organ) might sail through the bad guy creating a tiny hole, but not cause the feeling of being "punched." A JHP that expands rapidly would add to the feeling of being "punched" or struck, more than just pierced. And in order to get sufficient penetration, a larger caliber is able to have more expansion = more punch. And the more the bad guy feels the hit, the more likely he is to be psychologically impacted.

3-CNS hit. Lights out. Spine/brain etc. Caliber not likely to matter here either as any high quality defensive ammo is likely to be able to penetrate and make a CNS hit if the shooter does their part/gets lucky etc.

A larger caliber bullet is more likely to hit a CNS junction both because of the greater diameter and because of greater penetration. A smaller caliber may need to be FMJ to achieve the necessary penetration, and that further decreases the wound diameter. You specify .380 as your minimum, but there are precious few loads that expand AND penetrate 12 inches in gelatin. A 9mm +P, though the same diameter, can drive a much heavier bullet to higher speeds, allowing deeper penetration with more expansion - more probability of a CNS hit. A .45 would be even better, larger diameter and more weight both increasing the wound volume and therefore probability of a CNS hit. HOW MUCH the probability increases is questionable. I think the difference between .380 and 9mm is quite large, but between 9mm and .45 isn't quite so night-and-day.

4-Assailent continues to fight with multiple non CNS wounds. Assailent is either well trained, chemically altered or extremely motivated. In any of these cases handgun calibers is likely not to matter much as there is much evidence of people like this being shot with rifle or shotgun rounds and continuing to fight for a bit.

In this case, no, you're not going to stop the guy with one or two hits (barring lucky CNS hits), regardless of caliber. However, I have no doubt that a .45 JHP that expands and penetrates all the way to the skin on the other side of the bad guy is going to be more effective than a .380 that expands to .42 and penetrates 10 inches. Neither will be instant, but the .45 will be faster - those extra 4-5 seconds might mean the difference between a few bruises and a severe beating.



No, caliber isn't a huge choice. Once you have a bullet that is heavy enough and fast enough to both expand 1.5xcaliber and penetrate 12+ inches, the difference between calibers is minimal (in terms of performance against unarmored humans).

 

[SaxonPig]

1. No gun you can hold and shoot in one hand will have any real "knock-down power."

2. A hit in a vital area with any projectile will usually achieve the desired results. You just want to make sure that the projectile has the mass and velocity to penetrate the target. Head shots are a bad idea in most cases because the rounded surface and thickness of the skull protects the brain (as nature inteded it do) and even .45 bullets have been known to skip off or fail to penetrate the skull. On body shots you need enough penetration to reach the vitals. The .22 and .25 may fail if heavy clothing is worn or if bone is struck.

3. Assuming penetration into soft tissue, the actual caliber of the projectile almost becomes moot. I have spoken with several experienced surgeons who worked trauma and all said that when examining gunshot wounds they were unable to discern a difference between a .32, a .38 or a .45 caliber wound. One MD said that .22 wounds were smaller and identifiable and he once saw a man shot with a full-house .44 magnum and it looked a little worse than other pistol wounds. But mostly they looked similar whether made by a .38 Special, a 9mm or a .45 ACP which he said were the three most common wounding calibers he'd seen. Handgun bullets tend to slip through tissue rather than punch it and it closes up behind the projectile as it passes so the size of the bullet doesn't seem to matter much. There has been talk of a temporary wound cavity but I'm not sure how this may translate into stopping effectiveness. I personally believe that higher velocity does more damage than does more bullet mass. Note how much more damage a 150 grain .308 bullet at 2600 FPS does than a 230 grain .45 bullets at 800. Of course, rifle velocity cannot be achieved in a pistol, but I prefer the 115 9mm at 1300 FPS to the 230 .45 at 800 FPS. But that's just my preference.

I've only seen one man get shot and it was with a .45 Colt 1911. Man took four solid hits to the torso and didn't fall until the last one struck him. He was a slightly built man of 130 pounds or so and continued to function for the 10 seconds between the first and last shot. I was unimpressed by the legendary stopping power of the .45 after witnessing that event.

This is one of those debates that will never end. My suggestion is carry what makes you feel comfortable and don't worry about what another man packs as his choice in defensive weaponry. It's far better to carry what you shoot well rather than what shoots hardest.

 

['Card]

I think caliber matters, but I don't think it's as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

On the recieving end, I don't feel like the target individual is going to notice much of a difference between (for example) a 9mm or a .45.

On the shooting end however, I do feel like confidence is very important. It's a lot like fishing, to be honest. One guy who's confident in a certain lure will catch a lot of fish with it. The same lure in the hands of a fisherman without that confidence, and he won't catch a thing. Confidence isn't always logical or even reasonable. It operates in the region of faith and belief, and isn't always influenced by facts, numbers and evidence.

And I'm not saying anything critical with that statement. I'm the same way. While I know in my head that a 9mm would be more than adequate for the job, I still carry .45 because my heart simply has more confidence in it.

 

[Bobo]

I you could realistically assign a "percentage of importance" to each element of a typical self-defense situation, I believe "caliber" would receive a very low percentage of importance compared most of the other considerations.

 

[oldgold]

Wow, great thread. No flames just intelligent discusions. Makes me want ot add my thoughts. Just my opinion.

In my area I know two people who have had the missfortune to have killed bad guys. One shot his g-friends x-husband in her house when the x came in firing with a shotgun. One shot from his .380 and x was DOA instantly.

The other was a druggist in his store who shot a gun toting would be robber. Two hits from a .38 special ran the robber off only to die about two blocks away.

Thirty years ago I decided I needed a handgun to carry for various reasons. I looked at and shot everything I could. I decided on a Browning High Power. It pointed naturally and hit where I wanted it to. I figured two quick shots with a 9mm would serve better than one slow hit with a .45
Fortunately I've never had to test that idea.

I still carry that High Power today even though I've got several other options now. I've added Crimson Trace laser grips only for the H.S. factor.
H.S. factor= Fear-stop. Short for perps reaction when business end is pointed his way,,,,,,,,H#ly Sh#t . [Actually got that responce when a bad guy said he was gonna kill me and I introduced him to Brownie].

As said earlier, hydrostatic shock is a big factor but most hand guns can't reach that threshold. From shooting a lot of four legged critters with most everything it's my opinion that it takes an impact velocity above 1250fps. This is within reach of the 9mm with +p+ ammo and right in the ballpark for the .357.

I guess I'll have to say put me in the shot placement category.
Thanks for the great thread.
Goldy

 

[Srigs]

Bullet penetration and placement are the most important.

My wife shooting the 10/22 out of a 22" barrel might do the job of my 40S&W as long as she gets penetration and hits the right spot. Will I turn in the the 40 for a 22LR rifle? No but two should do the job.

A home invasion in Minnesota @ 10 days ago was stopped by the 73 year old owner shooting the 17 year old perp in the hart with a single shot 22LR rifle and he fell down the stairs dead. He had bullet penetration and placement that saved his life!

 

[JohnKSa]

Caliber does matter, but not because of the minor differences in terminal ballistics (assuming we're limiting this discussion to typical handgun self-defense rounds). The primary PRACTICAL effects of caliber are platform size, recoil and capacity.

 

[ravencon]

I like this way of thinking. My wife can sell her gas guzzling Suburban (which she uses to tow her horse trailer) and buy a Honda Civic.

 

[JohnKSa]

The idea that the performance differences (related to terminal ballistics) within the service pistol class are even REMOTELY analogous to the performance differences between a very large SUV and a subcompact car is not based on anything approaching reality.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Different calibers for different purposes of course. Game (depending on size and type) may require heavier caliber weapons to take them down. This can be applied to humans too.

Humans however dont really need more than a .38spec unless they are hopped up or rather determined. That being said its all moot because I intend to empty the magazine or cylinder. And despite what people may .22LR is lethal especially when 10 rounds are placed in a 2 inch group.

 

[Biker]

If I have a choice between being shot by a 22 or a 45, I'm gonna take the 22.
All things being equal, a bigger bullet makes a bigger hole. Why is that so hard to understand?

Biker

 

[Lupinus]

Of course, shot placement does count. A .22 caliber hole in someones heart or brain is going to stop them and very likely kill them a lot more surely then a .500 to the big toe on their left foot.

But you can't simply go X means more then D when X and D are so closely related and rely so much on each other. If caliber truely didn't matter we would all be carrying .22's, .32's and other calibers that are now either more or less outdated or considered underpowered for self defense.

A well placed shot from an underpowered round may not be substantial enough to stop a threat, say a well placed .22 unless it happens to be to the head. Sure it may kill or put them down, but when? Before or after they have shot me, stabbed me, killed me?

On the same note a poorly placed shot from a 10mm may kill or put down the threat, but when? Agian, before or after I am dead or beat to hell and in the hospital myself?

To me they are on more or less equal footing and I think you should carry the biggist meanist caliber you can control. If you can control it you can learn good shot placement and the stronger the faster and more effectivly it will do the job. I don't see carrying a .380 if you can comfertably control a .45. I will also state agian that in a life or death situation "perfect" goes out the window. You wont be asuming perfect grip, sight picture, breathing. No, you will likely be busy trying to figure out if yes you really did just **** yourself getting a reasonable sght picture etc and firing till the threat is stopped. So to me, I want as much a margine of error as possible. I don't want to be releying on perfect and want a caliber that I can get as far away from perfect as possible and still will, within reason, do the job. I say strongest caliber as you can handle for that simple reason, margin of error.

 

[Sharps-shooter]

This is the best thread I've ever read on caliber. I'm a big old redneck, and I like me some big-bore guns. When I buy a gun, the most important things to me are, in order of importance:

1. How much do I think my brothers will be impressed by it
2. How long do I think It will last
3. How well will it do what I want

Caliber comes into play only as part of that last consideration. For a handgun for self-defense, #3 could be subdivided into many, many, sub-considerations. Caliber is one of them, but honestly, it's not on the top of the list for me personally.

I have never shot a human being, though I have seen a couple shot. I grew up in a very rough area, with lots of violence, and I have travelled extensively in third world-countries. And so far, I've never needed a gun. I have, however, been shot at numerous times, and have been held at gunpoint, both by criminals and by military/police of various states. So, I feel qualified to speak about the "psychological win" factors mentioned above. Two things-- 1. being shot at can be shocking and scary, but much more so if you weren't expecting it.

2. When someone holds me at gunpoint, I don't notice what kind of gun they're using. I notice if it is a handgun or a long gun, but not the caliber. In one instance I remember that it was a revolver, in another, I am unsure if it was a revolver or a semi-auto pistol. I know that at one instance I had a former Soviet military rifle at my chest, for a few minutes while some stuff got sorted out, but I couldn't tell you whether it was an AK or an SKS, even though the rifles look dissimilar and I am familliar with both (I assume it was one or the other only because I know the milicia of that country was using both, at that time).And I could swear that a state agent in one country was carrying something in 12 gauge with a drum magazine attached, though I am unsure that such a firearm exists. So I wouldn't count on anybody saying "woah, a .45!", as opposed to "woah, a gun!", when one gets pulled in a sitch.

A few left-over observations: I have read in a few places on this forum that a bullet may or may not expand, but it won't get any smaller. This is not necessarily true. If it hits something like a windshield, part of it might get broken off.

Also, I have read a lot about hydrostatic shock versus blood loss. is this well founded in some sort of documented science, or is it speculative?