Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term

[Riktoven]

I thought we were talking about energy transfer and wounds not tactics so I fail to see the relavance of armed deer.

This forum is browsed by hundreds of people who are new to firearms. Some of them are just buying their first gun for self defense. They look to sites like this for information about what to put in their gun, and why.

The "handguns create grievous wounds" camp is going to have a lot of these people going out and buying ammo based on the energy value printed on the box, and that is stupid. One needs to consider a lot of things for defense, and tactics certainly outrank magic bullets on that list.

Having more energy is usually a good thing, but you CAN'T add more energy without adding more recoil too. Whether that recoil is worth the possibility of a magic stop is up to the individual shooter to decide. Given current bullet designs and MY ability to shoot +P 10mm versus a nice slow 9mm/.45 I can say for sure that I'm sticking with the slower rounds that I can put on target fast.

this is where it makes a difference that we are not shooting deer you see a man may/may not get hit in the lung and decide to drop the gun the more damage done the more likely this may happen.

Yes a man may/may not decide to drop the gun. At the point that a gunfight ensues, I don't see why I should be giving my target the option. I'm shooting until the SOB is dead. Period. Since we're talking about handguns, it's likely going to take more than one so I want the successive ones to be as fast as possible.

In less than 2 seconds I can have my pistol unholstered and have 6 rounds on target (9mm, I sadly don't own my own .45). If you are saying that in that same time span you can have 5 10mm+P rounds on target, then you sir are probably good to go. I could shoot a 10mm that fast, but not with a level of precision I'm comfortable with. If I could have the extra energy on target with the same speed and accuracy as you, I might be willing to consider the extra recoil to be worth the 'X factor' of getting a magic stop. I can't though, and I'm betting that most people browsing this site for information and suggestions haven't spent as much as I have on ammo and classes and probably can't either.

Until I can shoot COM and KNOW that this pressure wave thingy is going to seriously interupt brain signals, I'm going to stick to shooting until I get that spinal cord or brain. If you guys can design a bullet that will VIRTUALLY GUARANTEE a hit within an inch or two (or more) of a vertebrae will shatter it, consider me on board.

 

[MCgunner]

In less than 2 seconds I can have my pistol unholstered and have 6 rounds on target

Well, if you can do that, you can win a Bianchi cup shoot. Takes me longer than that to clear the Thunderwear. I don't walk around carrying in a IPSC speed rig. Miculek can put 8 rounds from a revolver on target in one second, but revolvers have faster lock times than autos. That matters for him, not me. My finger is the limiting factor, not the gun. He can also put TWELVE rounds on target in 2.99 seconds with a six shot revolver. That's pretty danged impressive, like the king of revolver shooting, even though he was starting from shooter ready, not from leather.

I mean, just to further get off topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giSaNiQ-Wb4

 

[mavracer]

I'm shooting until the SOB is dead.

if your shooting after the threat is gone its murder.

 

[mavracer]

Having more energy is usually a good thing, but you CAN'T add more energy without adding more recoil too. Whether that recoil is worth the possibility of a magic stop is up to the individual shooter to decide. Given current bullet designs and MY ability to shoot +P 10mm versus a nice slow 9mm/.45 I can say for sure that I'm sticking with the slower rounds that I can put on target fast.

yes this has relavance and has been discused in this thread also I agree for the most part.lighter bullets faster have more KE with less recoil energy.but I still don't see where armed deer has relavance.
I shoot a el presidente' in between 6 and 6.5 seconds with my 5" delta thats 12 rounds and a reload 3 targets.but, I don't normaly carry a full size gun.
I too rely on tactics and my ability to shoot more than energy.

 

[MCgunner]

I think it's an individual choice what gun, caliber you go with anyway. I'm just talking theory here, not actual practical application anyway. I do feel quite comfortable carrying .38, 9mm, .357 magnum, or .45 ACP. The .45 rarely gets any carry, though, as I must carry it IWB. Only time I'll do that is on a trip to the big city or something. Practical carry guns for me tend to be light and pocket sized and that limits caliber quite a bit. I could tote, say, a compact Taurus .45, in the thunderwear, but I just prefer the SP101 and, this is where it's perhaps on topic, but I have more faith in the .357 magnum than the .45. But, I won't limit my carry to .357. Even the .380 has a place in my carry battery. You carry what you can so long as you're armed with SOMETHING half way effective 24/7. That's my philosophy on it, anyway. Carry a gun and know how to use it. That pretty much covers it all. I do limit my caliber minimum to .380. I am going to get a P3AT pretty soon, likely. If you're not wearing enough to conceal a P3AT, you're naked. LOL! I see no need for .25s, .22s, and .32s with guns in .380 being so tiny now days.

 

[mavracer]

I see no need for .25s, .22s, and .32s with guns in .380 being so tiny now days.

easy dogging the .32 while I agree its not quite a .380 when loaded with euro spec. fiocchi ammo it has 200 ft.lb. of energy and our friend brassfetcher shows it penatrates 16"+ in gelatin.BTW it chronoed 998 fps from my seecamp.and IMHO this energy dump thing is not a factor with 32s and .380s

oh ya and a seecamp is small enough I can conceal it naked.ROFLMAO

 

[MCgunner]

Hmm, didn't know that about euro spec loads. I could probably handload to that level. But, the P3AT is no bigger than the P32, though I could have gotten a P32 for 200 bucks at a recent gun show, maybe should have, but I still prefer .380 because it's rimless and because it's a little more punch with a little bigger hole. Yeah, I said it, a little bigger hole. ROFL Between that euro spec .32 and the .380, might be close, though.

I hand load a 105 grain flat point SWC cast from a .358 lee mold and sized to .356 in a .380 load with unique to about 220 ft lbs. That one should penetrate and do the job better than any FMJ IN THEORY. One thing I know for sure, it's accurate and feeds 100 percent. That'll be the load I'll test if and when... nah ...make that WHEN I get a P3AT. It's sort of on the agenda at this point. I really don't wanna buy new dies for a new caliber and, besides, .380 is pain in the butt enough to load with fat fingers. ROFL!

 

[mavracer]

MCGUNNER,
yes if I had to do it today I might get a P3AT but 12 years ago the seecamp was IT and I don't think the .380 is enough better to switch.besides after 12 years and 0 malfunctions I'm just starting to trust it.

 

[McCall911]

oh ya and a seecamp is small enough I can conceal it naked.ROFLMAO

I'll take your word for it, mav. If we ever meet, you don't have to show me!
It's not a pretty picture I'm getting...

 

[Michael Courtney]

How many times when shooting a deer from hiding do you have to make quick followup shots?

How many times was the deer holding a loaded weapon to shoot back with?

How many times were you surrounded by multiple deer with bad intentions?

I think the more important question for the discussion at hand is whether or not deer are a more realistic test medium than ballistic gelatin. I don't beieve that anyone has suggested that deer are a perfect representation of a living human target. However, I would argue that deer are more realistic than ballistic gelatin and that if one observes a wound channel that exceeds the recovered bullet diameter in deer, one is likely to see a similar effect in humans for the same load.

Lung damage? Whoopty do, we've already determined that an attacker can last as long as 20 seconds with NO HEART. Lung damage or not, if your target has a gun he's going to be shooting back if he's not dead.

This is a convenient change of the subject.

The matter under discussion is whether or not bullets with more energy can create larger wound channels. You have shifted to saying that it does not matter. There may be cases where the size of the wound channel does not matter, but I think in an average sense it is clear to most readers that the amount of tissue that gets damaged is an important consideration.

How many deer have you shot with a handgun that you observed this effect in? A percentage would suffice.

. . .

Until someone can show me a bullet design that actually harnesses that extra energy against internal tissue consistently

We've shot a lot of deer with handgun bullets. (We're under a non-disclosure agreement not to give precise numbers.) We have published the results of some of our findings. Every time (100%) we've hit a deer with a bullet that transfers energy at a rate at least of 500 ft-lbs per 12" of penetration, we have observed a wound channel considerably greater in diameter than the expanded diameter of the bullet. This is true in the lungs and the vascular tissue as well as the liver.

Michael Courtney

 

[45auto]

Every time (100%) we've hit a deer with a bullet that transfers energy at a rate at least of 500 ft-lbs per 12" of penetration

If that's true, that would alter load selection. For example, in 45 ACP, that might mean a 185 grain at 1,000-1100 FPS compared to a 230 at 850. That's just looking at one manufacturer for muzzle energy statistics.

Am I "interpreting" that correctly?

 

[mavracer]

If that's true, that would alter load selection. For example, in 45 ACP, that might mean a 185 grain at 1,000-1100 FPS compared to a 230 at 850. That's just looking at one manufacturer for muzzle energy statistics.

only if your willing to give up the penatration of the better momentum of the 230 for the added damage early in the wound tract.its all a balancing act.and the crap shoot happens when given one shot senerio the 185 may work and the 230 fail say its hair wider wound damages the heart enough,but another where the 230 works and the 185 fails say it penatrates just enough to hit spine.
which is why tactics and accuracy are more important than energy.

 

[MCgunner]

I shoot a 200 grain Speer bullet to 950 fps in .45, not a +P, but around 400 ft lbs, and I have confidence it'll work. I don't sweat it that much. However, I do prefer calibers that both penetrate and pack a good bit of energy and .357 magnum is such a load. If they'd just offer the 10mm in more platforms, it'd be awesome in an autoloader, but I don't do Glocks and that EEA thing is HUGE! I'm thinkin' Ruger P90 in 10mm, but that's a pipe dream. Ruger is too busy dropping models to actually ADD one. Unfortunately 10mm has missed its calling because lesser built shooters in law enforcement had problems controlling the full power cartridge. That does not mean that I would have problems with it. I KNOW I could get 600 ft lbs out of it without problems with repeat shots, sure of it.

I'm a revolver guy anyway and the SP101 is the uber best carry gun I currently have IMHO. It's almost as easy to tote in thunderwear as my Taurus M85UL and packs a helluva punch and is quite controllable with the Hogue grip. That's my personal choice. Everyone has different choices in firearms, but from my experience in the field, I have a good respect for the .357 magnum and I wouldn't hunt deer with less, why should I trust a .45ACP in lieu of it???? Deer hunting starts with the .357 magnum and goes UP in horsepower, not down. You'd better be able to put a mag full of 9s into the deer to stop it, cause you'll need it. With the .357, it takes one and you're guttin' it soon as you can get down out of the stand. That don't mean I don't carry a 9 a lot, I do. I just accept the limitations of the cartridge for the convenience of a 13 shot, 14 ounce pocket gun that can put a mag full of +Ps into 3.5" at 25 yards.

 

[Soybomb]

I think the more important question for the discussion at hand is whether or not deer are a more realistic test medium than ballistic gelatin. I don't beieve that anyone has suggested that deer are a perfect representation of a living human target. However, I would argue that deer are more realistic than ballistic gelatin and that if one observes a wound channel that exceeds the recovered bullet diameter in deer, one is likely to see a similar effect in humans for the same load.

Wouldn't the big pile of variables involved with shooting an animal really take away much of the benefit of having a uniform testing platform? Small differences between rounds might no longer be able to be accurately shown. With regard to deer being a better test medium, among others there are Wolberg's paper on the winchester 147gr ground that showed the gelatin tests to be a good match for its real world performance. Are there flaws in his write up? Are there other papers I should read showing properly calibrated gel to not be a good judge of performance?

We've shot a lot of deer with handgun bullets. (We're under a non-disclosure agreement not to give precise numbers.)

I'd like to hear more details about this arrangement and why the details cannot be divulged.

 

[mavracer]

Wouldn't the big pile of variables involved with shooting an animal really take away much of the benefit of having a uniform testing platform?

If your looking at how the bullet design reacts maybe.But, if your wanting to look at how lung tissue reacts to bullet wounds at different energy levels, then actual lung tissue is a much better medium to use.

Wolberg's paper on the winchester 147gr ground that showed the gelatin tests to be a good match for its real world performance.

This should answer your own question.you test in jello because we figured out a long time ago that bullets that make bigger deeper holes in jello make bigger deeper holes in flesh.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think gelatin is fine for a theoretical test of bullet performance. But considering the inhomogeneity of the human body, I don't think you can draw conclusions from a way a bullet performs in gelatin.

 

[MCgunner]

You can't test tissue damage in jello. All you can do is provide a standard medium to test bullet performance. Jello is useful for that.

 

[fletcher]

why the details cannot be divulged.

He said they signed an NDA. Perhaps they performed some analysis for a client, and are not legally allowed to release the results as it may impact their product development.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Wouldn't the big pile of variables involved with shooting an animal really take away much of the benefit of having a uniform testing platform?

There is a much wider range of variables in sport hunting than existed in our experimental set-up. You should read our paper, "A method for testing handgun bullets in deer." Range, shot angle, shot placement, and impact velocity are all well controlled in our method. In addition, we believe our method will be easily reproduced by other parties.

See:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf

Small differences between rounds might no longer be able to be accurately shown.

The smaller the difference between two loads, the more deer you'll have to shoot to accurately quantify that difference. However, in many cases there is a significant difference between two rounds. For example, the 147 grain 9mm Win JHP load we tested (WWB) basically performs much like the expectations from gelatin. It creates a simple hole comparable in diameter with the expanded bullet. In contrast, the 135 grain Nosler JHP .40 at 1375 FPS creates a wound channel much larger than the expanded bullet diameter.

With regard to deer being a better test medium, among others there are Wolberg's paper on the winchester 147gr ground that showed the gelatin tests to be a good match for its real world performance. Are there flaws in his write up?

There are not any major flaws, but care must be taken not to extend conclusions beyond what is warranted by Wolberg's data. Wolberg's data shows that penetration depth is well correlated between gelatin and people. It does NOT show that wound channel is well correlated between gelatin and people, nor does it show temporary cavitation is well correlated between gelatin and people.

Properly prepared and calibrated gelatin is a good medium for predicting average bullet penetration in humans (and in deer also), but to my knowledge, there is no published data showing it is a good predictor or wound channel volume, or temporary cavitation.

I'd like to hear more details about this arrangement and why the details cannot be divulged.

Many researchers involved in live animal experiments have limitations on what they can disclose about their research. These days, the main motive is avoiding hassles from the animal rights groups. If they knew how many deer we have killed, the animal rights groups would be much more motivated to hassle us, either by showing up at our facilities (this has happened a few times), dragging us into court, or trying to restrict our work through bureaucratic mechanisms. Neither us, our employers, or our funding sources want these hassles. You'd probably know this if you'd read our paper (See page 8):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf

The essential findings of our research can be supported by only releasing data on a limited number of test subjects.

Michael Courtney

 

[easyg]

Yes a man may/may not decide to drop the gun. At the point that a gunfight ensues, I don't see why I should be giving my target the option. I'm shooting until the SOB is dead. Period. Since we're talking about handguns, it's likely going to take more than one so I want the successive ones to be as fast as possible.

In less than 2 seconds I can have my pistol unholstered and have 6 rounds on target (9mm, I sadly don't own my own .45).

The real problem with this line of thinking is this:

Suppose you draw and shoot, the gun goes bang, and then NOTHING!
Yep, you have a failure to eject, or if using a revolver, a cylinder lock-up!
But the BG is still firing at you!

Any time you draw and fire you have to consider the possibility that you might only get ONE SHOT.
Knowing this to be true, ask yourself....

If I'm only able to get one shot off, what caliber do I want to put in my target?

.25?
.22LR?
.38 special?
.380?
9mm?
.45ACP?
.40S&W?
.357 magnum?
.44 magnum?
10mm?

What?

 

[Michael Courtney]

Suppose you draw and shoot, the gun goes bang, and then NOTHING!
Yep, you have a failure to eject, or if using a revolver, a cylinder lock-up!
But the BG is still firing at you!

Sounds like great motivation to carry a back-up gun.

WIth quality firearms that are properly maintained, the fact that the gun might end up as a single shot is probably too remote a risk assessment to allow the possibility to dominate the cartridge selection criteria.

There are plenty of good loads in 9mm and above that are likely to perform adaquately if well-paced against a single attacker. They might not completely incapacitate the attacker so that you can stand around and celebrate your victory, but odds are in your favor (if you place a shot well) that you will have gained sufficient advantage to escape and evade (using cover and concealment, of course) should you hear a "click" after properly placing the first shot in the center of the attacker's chest. But it is better to carry a second gun so that one only needs to avoid getting shot for the time it takes to use the back-up gun to complete the incapacitation process for the attacker.

Michael Courtney

 

[Riktoven]

I Might only get one shot.

Badguy Might choose to stop.

Badguy Might suffer some form of actual tissue damage outside the bullet path.


I'll grant you that Mr. Murphy is a devil, but that is an awful lot of Maybes.

Maybe no matter what I'm shooting might bounce right off his skin. Anything is possible, but not too likely.

Maybe the badguy is wearing body armor. A higher energy round might be able to impart enough energy through the vest to incapacitate, or might even penetrate the vest. Might not though.

I'm not saying 9mm is better than .44 magnum. I'm saying that RELYING on high energy to grant you anything other than more recoil is foolish. The trade-offs have been pretty well documented in this thread, and all I want to point out is that in a gunfight, the only wounds you can count on are the holes you are making, and thus you have got to make those holes deep and as fast as possible.

If you carry a hunting magnum for defense, more power to you. If you can shoot at a rate that you consider to be sufficent with it more power to you. If you think that the assailant that you have to shoot with it will "Drop right there" with anything less than a CNS shot, well then let's hope Mr. Murphy says more power to you as well.

Anecdotally (meaning, you have no reason to believe this) I know people that claim to have continued shooting after being wounded by 7.62x39mm fire to the upper chest. If they are telling the truth, why would I expect better results from a service caliber handgun?

Again, I'm not discounting the "pressure wave" (quotes for lack of proper terminology, not derisiveness). I just want new shooters to understand that 85% of all handgun shooting victims survive, and assuming they were holding a gun when shot, the vast majority were in good enough shape after being hit to keep on shooting.

Energy dump is real, and might happen when you need it. Aside from Dr. Courtney though, I don't know anyone that would claim the resulting wounds/physchological effect of energy transfer being 100% repeatable.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Anecdotally (meaning, you have no reason to believe this) I know people that claim to have continued shooting after being wounded by 7.62x39mm fire to the upper chest. If they are telling the truth, why would I expect better results from a service caliber handgun?

The reasons for this are well-documented in the scientific literature. The amount of kinetic energy that the bullet has is not important if the kinetic energy does not produce a large retarding force (local rate of kinetic energy loss dE/dx). A 7.62x39 bullet that neither expands nor tumbles only exerts small forces on the tissue.

Again, I'm not discounting the "pressure wave" (quotes for lack of proper terminology, not derisiveness).

"Ballistic pressure wave" is the technically correct term. "Pressure wave" is an acceptable shortening in contexts where the ballistic source of the wave is clear from context.

I just want new shooters to understand that 85% of all handgun shooting victims survive, and assuming they were holding a gun when shot, the vast majority were in good enough shape after being hit to keep on shooting.

The vast majority of handgun shooting victims are shot with sub-service calibers: 22's, .25's, and .32's. In addition, the majority of shooting victims are hit in locations that are unlikely to be rapidly lethal. Consequently, the survival rate of handgun shooting victims is marksmanship and training issue and does not indicate the survivability or incapacitation ability of high quality, well-placed service caliber JHP's.

Energy dump is real, and might happen when you need it. Aside from Dr. Courtney though, I don't know anyone that would claim the resulting wounds/physchological effect of energy transfer being 100% repeatable.

There are a number of papers in the literature concurring with the correlation between energy transfer and tissue damage. Other than my co-author and I, some scientists that provide original or reference published data supporting this correlation are B Rybeck, T Orlowski, T Piecuch, J Domaniecki, A Badowski, B Janzon, R Berlin, J Jussila, and C Peters.

There are exactly zero published papers with data that demonstrates the failure of bullet transferring at least 500 ft-lbs of energy per 12" of penetration to create a wound channel wider than projectile as it moves through tissue. (There are a number of "expert" opinions to this effect, but they fail to reference published data.)

Michael Courtney

 

[easyg]

Badguy Might choose to stop.

Only an idiot would count on this happening.

Badguy Might suffer some form of actual tissue damage outside the bullet path.

This is a certainty, due to the energy dump.
The question then becomes: How much damage and is that damage significant.

Maybe no matter what I'm shooting might bounce right off his skin. Anything is possible, but not too likely.

You can't be serious

WIth quality firearms that are properly maintained, the fact that the gun might end up as a single shot is probably too remote a risk assessment to allow the possibility to dominate the cartridge selection criteria.

Not remote in the least.

I Might only get one shot.

This is not just a question of MAYBE, it's a very real and even probable concern.
There's a reason that folks practice clearing jams, misfires, and misfeeds.
And anyone who has shot for any respectable amount of time has most likely experienced a firearms failure of some type.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
I Might only get one shot.

This is not just a question of MAYBE, it's a very real and even probable concern.

Rephrase that as "I might only get one hit" and I'd say the smart money would bet on that -- there is a stong tendency for performance to degrade dramatically in actual combat.

There's a reason that folks practice clearing jams, misfires, and misfeeds.
And anyone who has shot for any respectable amount of time has most likely experienced a firearms failure of some type

Yep.