Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

[Prosser]

LH: You are supposed to buy what we tell you to buy, and we don't give you any choices. You will shoot copper bullets, at 1.50 each, or not shoot.
You will pay 1.00 a round because it has a Hollow Point bullet that costs us .02 cents to make, and we have turned lead into gold.

We will construct all kinds of legal threats to intimidate you into using our high priced ammunition, and give it to LEO's.

I better get to work, I'm having a skeptical, sarcastic morning, and it's only 5:49 am...

 

[Seven For Sure]

The right ammo can make all the difference, federal hydra-shok in any of those cal's will solve any intruder problem.

1996 called and they want their hydra-shok's back!

 

[Loosedhorse]

it would be a way to get hundreds of thousands of rounds tested without wasting ballistics gel, bullets, or human lives.

The trouble is there would be no way to reality-check the model's predictions about real gunfights (which are the only predictions that I would be interested in). The same problem as with gel.

We supposedly (the more you look, the harder it is to tell) live in the era of Science called Experimentalism. You propose an hypothesis or model, use it to make a prediction, and then run an experiment to test that prediction. Then you can either pat yourself on the back, adjust your model, or throw it away.

But that's not what's going on here. The FBI looked at anatomy and angles, and came up with their "12-inch penetration" model, and ithat model does "make sense" (for the FBI). But there is no validation testing going on, desired, or contemplated.

We are simply being told to believe that a bullet penetrating 12 inches with no temporary cavity will stop fights "more dependably" than (for example) one that penetrates 9.5 inches with a whopping TC. Not only should we not attempt to reality check the model, we're told there is no way to reality check it: so just accept it.

It's like the proponents of the geocentric universe telling the Copernicans, "Don't bother looking through that telescope: the Devil will only use it to deceive you!" So, (despite what tipoc says) individuals and PDs continue to use gel results to predict how well bullets will perform in actual gunfights--how "dependably" they will stop attackers.

Those of us who refuse to accept the model without verification are considered heretics...but happy ones!

But most of us struggle along in hunting and self defense by looking at the information that is available

Actually, it seems most hunters rely not on gelatin, but on personal experience and the anecdotal accounts of others, despite the "statistical invalidity" of that method. And enjoy pretty good success at predicting real-world performance.

In contrast, most folks selecting SD loads look at gel results, and don't bother to look at or ask for real-world data that could be collected every day.

LH: You are supposed to buy what we tell you to buy, and we don't give you any choices. You will shoot copper bullets, at 1.50 each, or not shoot.

Yes, Master. All hail Barnes, ALL HAIL BARNES!

 

[481]

As usual, you are right again, tipoc.

There is nothing new about this discussion. It's the same discussion LH and others have been a part of before. The same straw men.

There are those who just can't refuse a quixotic challenge.

There are some folks who do not get that no one and nothing can predict what a bullet will do with certainty in a gun fight.

We'll never be able to change the fact that these folks will accept as fact only those things that they themselves create.

 

[TheReiver]

I've nowhere near the experience with firearms that most of you have, but here is my take:

I honestly don't believe that there is a huge difference between the "service calibers" in the real world. The "best" one is the one that you are most accurate, comfortable, and confident with. For example, I couldn't stand my G23 because of the recoil, but I am quite good with my G19. Is the .40 more effective? Probably. Is the .40 more effective in my hands? No.

I think we all give too much credit to these ridiculous stories we sometimes hear. For instance:
"He got shot 50 times in the eye socket with a 9mm and didn't even bleed but then someone shot him in the left pinky with a .45 and he flew backwards twenty feet and smashed through a brick wall."

Obviously that one is made up, but you take my point. Get a quality firearm chambered in whichever of those three calibers (or some other caliber) with which you are most comfortable and accurate.

I carry, depending on the situation, a Glock 19, Kahr CW9, or Taurus PLY22. Usually some combination of those three actually. I can hit with them all and am confident in their performance as both calibers and weapon systems.

To summarize, get what you like, can afford, and can hit with.

Safe shooting =)

 

[357SIG]

Well, this is becoming a ridiculous runaround. I will make one last statement in this topic, and that's it.

I advise those who simply cannot understand that a human body is absolutely, completely unpredictable to take some biology, A&P, and pathology classes. If you can get through them without having a mental breakdown, then you will have learned a thing or two about the body's response to negative effects. You...just...can't....predict...what...a...bullet...will...do...to...a...person....period.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You...just...can't....predict...what...a...bullet...will...do...to...a...person....period.

What an utterly dopey statement.

The law sure thinks it can predict what a bullet will do: main or kill the recipient. That's why they use the term, "lethal force" in regard to shooting bullets at someone. You may have quite a career in front of you delivering expert testimony at trials:

DA: Shouldn't the accused have known that, when he placed his .45 pistol's muzzle over the defendent's heart and pulled the trigger, that the bullet would pierce the heart and kill his victim?
You: You...just...can't....predict...what...a...bullet...will...do...to...a...person....period.​

Oh well. I guess judges and such should bone up on their anatomy.

take some biology, A&P, and pathology classes.

You, apparently, would be scandalized to find out that some folks who teach those subjects, and who write textbooks on the same, disagree with you. But they do.

It's like the coin-flip experiment. Flip a coin 10 times--can I predict the exact sequence? No (except about one time out of 1024). But I can predict it will be about 5 heads and 5 tails: that the tally will come up exactly that way about 25% of the time; and the tally will have 4, 5, or 6 heads about 2/3 of the time.

So, yes, we can predict. If the FBI believes that gel preformance is absolutely unpredictive of street performance, then why are they running gel tests on ammo? Because no one at the FBI has ever taken an anatomy course?

 

[Skribs]

The trouble is there would be no way to reality-check the model's predictions about real gunfights (which are the only predictions that I would be interested in). The same problem as with gel.

You're right, we wouldn't be able to do a real reality check. However, does that mean that we wouldn't get any closer to reality using a computer model instead of ballistics gel? Right now, gello basically tells us what kind of wound tract we can expect in a non-deflected bullet. Wouldn't it be better if we could have a system that sets up, for each individual shot, what gets destroyed and how it will affect the body? And then compile the results to compare.

It would be a lot better than any of the other methods out there, including gello, that doesn't involve the use of a living target.

 

[357SIG]

Well, as I said...my points have been made. Ther's no reason to keep going about it. Take them or leave them. Ask a qualified expert of your choosing and the answer will be the same.

LH, what knowledge or experience do you have on the subject? Did you get your info from discussion boards, or are you somehow working or studying a field that is related? You seem to make a lot of statements that come off as factual, and you will easily tell experienced people how wrong they are. How about explaining yourself to the people here? Last time I asked someone for an explanation, I got nothing. I will try it again...can you explain to us what qualifies you to speak with certainty on this subject? Can you explain in what respects we are wrong? What classes or lectures have you attended that contradict my statement on education? After all, you did say I would be surprised to know that others teaching the subject would not agree. I have been challeged in this thread, and I have answered the challenges fairly, without ignoring them. It would be nice if you did the same.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You seem to make a lot of statements that come off as factual, and you will easily tell experienced people how wrong they are.

Right back at you.

can you explain to us what qualifies you to speak with certainty on this subject? Can you explain in what respects we are wrong?

When you make unqualified statements such as "a human body is absolutely, completely unpredictable" and "You...just...can't....predict...what...a...bullet...will...do...to...a...person....period", do you really need an explanation why anyone is certain that your statements are wrong?

As to my experience, that's my business. And it is immaterial. Your claimed experience (working in ERs, was it? Having taken A&P?) has not prevented you from making the above statements.

Again, it boils down to things like the definitions of "predict." You say we can't predict what a bullet will do, presumably meaning, if we can't get it right to the micron, or can't get it right each time we predict, then we can't predict at all. But no reasonable definition of prediction requires absolute precision and accuracy.

Yogi Berra said, "Predictions are very difficult; especially about the future." True: each shooting would be a new roll of the dice, but so what? Even with actual dice, we know how often true dice will roll 7--and that those odds change if we use loaded dice.

And when it comes to ammo selection for SD shooting, we're all looking for a way to load the dice in our favor. Otherwise, we'd just throw a dart at a board, and choose caliber and load randomly.

 

[Wapato]

Well, as I said...my points have been made. Ther's no reason to keep going about it. Take them or leave them. Ask a qualified expert of your choosing and the answer will be the same.

Well, statements maybe. But it would be aprpeciated if you could somehow remember some of these medical references you've based your conclusions on, I'd quite like to see them or try to track them down.

There are many many maaaaaaaany "experts" on these boards who have researched these things "extensively" and yadda yadda yadda. I'm sure you've run into them as well.

So I'd really appreciate having some content to look into myself.

Oh, and one other detail you sort of mentioned but I just wanted to confirm. Are you saying that virtually any hit on the heart by virtually any round will cause it to go into full on fibrillation as opposed to just trying to pump away?

 

[Wapato]

barring a severe human rights violation on the part of the tester) the only way we can really different calibers is computer simulation.

I think computer simulation could be very useful.

However I wish there were more systematic studies of cadavers.

Now it's true that, especially with LEOs, there are probably lots of shots involved, and so "one stop shot" studies might just be plain silly. But on the other hand all those shots are also a lot of datapoints.

Personally, what I wish they'd do is look at each shot for performance. First, foremost, and easiest, you could look for instances of bullet deflection, fragmentation, failure to penetrate intenal bones, signficant underpenetration for other reasons, or other "failures" against actual body tissues.

At a higher level, I'd be curious if for every bullet they could do at least an expert judgement analysis of if further penetration would have made a difference (i.e. cracking a spine) and if diameter made any difference for hitting or missing an artery etc (i.e. would have .22 FMJ have still gotten it, or would a one inch wide expanded bullet have gotten one)

That's an interesting thought.

The RII computer analysis of the 1970s is widely regarded as a failure, but I wonder what today's supercomputers could contribute if the right programming was available.

Well, the RII thing highlights the "garbage in garbage out" problem that you have to be very careful about.

However I'd think modern computers could do a lot in regards ot analyzing bleed out rates, pressure wave propagation, and especially internal deflection and fragmentation.

There is no testing nor computer models nor records (secret or otherwise) kept anywhere that can do that with the 100% guarantee that the round you shoot will do the same.

This is absolutely true.


....of absulutely everything.

I'm somewhat involved in Probabalistic Risk Assessment as part of my job. So I have an appreciation for learning about these things and getting the odds in your favor.

Everyone here is doing this, even 357sig. He's just come to the conclusion that the 9mm is the optimum balance of recoil vs tissue damage and penetration.

Now, in industry going from something that works 51.555% of the time to something that works 53.627% of the time can be a very worthwhile way to spend millions of dollars, even tightening up the uncertainty behind a probability can be huge. However I appreciate that there simply isn't the cash nor the right sort of incentives behind self defense rounds to generate anything like that kind of precision.

But that doesn't mean nothing can be done.

 

[357SIG]

You seem to make a lot of statements that come off as factual, and you will easily tell experienced people how wrong they are.

Right back at you.

can you explain to us what qualifies you to speak with certainty on this subject? Can you explain in what respects we are wrong?

When you make unqualified statements such as "a human body is absolutely, completely unpredictable" and "You...just...can't....predict...what...a...bullet...will...do...to...a...person....period", do you really need an explanation why anyone is certain that your statements are wrong?

As to my experience, that's my business. And it is immaterial. Your claimed experience (working in ERs, was it? Having taken A&P?) has not prevented you from making the above statements.

Again, it boils down to things like the definitions of "predict." You say we can't predict what a bullet will do, presumably meaning, if we can't get it right to the micron, or can't get it right each time we predict, then we can't predict at all. But no reasonable definition of prediction requires absolute precision and accuracy.

Yogi Berra said, "Predictions are very difficult; especially about the future." True: each shooting would be a new roll of the dice, but so what? Even with actual dice, we know how often true dice will roll 7--and that those odds change if we use loaded dice.

And when it comes to ammo selection for SD shooting, we're all looking for a way to load the dice in our favor. Otherwise, we'd just throw a dart at a board, and choose caliber and load randomly.

Nice style of arguing. I bet you do great in debates. Instead of answering the question, you just simply redirect it back. Great strategy! So, basically, what you are really saying is you have absolutely no qualification, education, or experience on the subject. You can't answer the questions I have asked, and you have absolutely nothing solid to back any of your claims, nor do you know where to get it.

Oh, nice touch with the quotes, taking them out of context. You and everyone else in the world who has read this thread know the context...effectiveness of handgun defense rounds, not everything as a whole. You seem to want to expand it into a broad category in an effort to discredit me, maybe to save a little face here.

Oh, wait...your experience on a subject you're debating is "your business," and "immaterial." Let's see how that works out for you in the real world one day. It might be an effective tool against 5-year-old kids, but adults see you for who you really are...a fake.

I fully expect you to dodge these questions again, because you know you have no foot to stand on. Rather than face the music, you will continue to insult those who call you out.

Yes, I work in ERs, yes, I participate in surgeries, yes, I've spent the last 4 of my 8 years of college studying medical science. Yes, I've gone hands-on with trauma patients, including GSW patients. Yes, I've done follow-up care with patients after the event. How about you?

Wapato, as I've said before, do a google search on "mechanisms of injury for penetrating trauma". To look even further into particular organs, try something like "heart penetrating trauma," or insert another organ in place of heart. Try some online journals ro some medical publications, like AJR. Try Dr. Fackler's site, firearmstactical....it has references at the ends of articles. There are plenty of textbooks that will help you along the way as well. I do not have the references for you to research. However there are many good articles and books available online at the click of a mouse. You just have to be able to discount someone's unfounded opinion, which you seem smart enough, and willing to do, unlike someone else here. This is not what you asked for, but will give you plenty of good information. I'd love to give you a title of an article or something, but I just don't have it.

 

[Skribs]

I wish I could have done that in school. "I don't remember where I read it, professor, so I didn't cite it in my paper. Just google some of the big words I used and you'll find it."

You might not be able to predict exactly what will happen, but you can predict the generalities. In med school, do they teach you that when you get a gunshot victim that you have to figure it out for yourself because it's too unpredictable to deal with, or do they tell you how to go about healing the wound and give generalizations based on what it hit?

 

[Bozwell]

Just my $0.02, but I don't really buy the statement that you can't predict whatsoever what a bullet will do when hitting a living creature. It may just be me, but any time I see someone make a broad statement like that, I tend to think it's probably inaccurate - and that's the case here.

While you may not be able to predict the exact damage a particular bullet will cause in a shooting, we can make some general predictions about generally how a given round will perform. For instance, we have enough information to tell us that a .44 magnum round is more likely to incapacitate an attacker than, say, a .22lr round. Sure, we probably can't say with any certainty that the .44 magnum will absolutely stop each and every attacker with a single torso shot, nor can we say exactly what damage a given hit will cause, but what we can predict is that it will be an effective round relative to other handgun calibers. Even if the data indicates a range of damage that may caused by a particular round and a likelihood of the various amounts of damage, that information is useful in selecting a caliber/round for defensive purposes. Put another way, you don't have to be able to predict the absolute specifics to be able to make a valuable prediction.

I think people just take things a bit too far and want to argue over which one of a similar set of calibers is more effective, when the truth is that any of the popular defensive calibers are effective with the right ammunition and it comes down to what you're most comfortable shooting and what you can put rounds on target with.

 

[357SIG]

Sigh...the quote is not to do with every aspect of a bullet wound. It has to do with creating a model, or experiment, with the intention of ranking bullets and calibers for effectiveness. When someone intentionally tries to take that out of context, it does sound wrong.

I think people just take things a bit too far and want to argue over which one of a similar set of calibers is more effective, when the truth is that any of the popular defensive calibers are effective with the right ammunition and it comes down to what you're most comfortable shooting and what you can put rounds on target with.

That makes sense, and that is my point. You just can't search for a unicorn (magic bullet) and expect to find one. Shot placement is it. What a .45 does to one guy might have a different effect on another. They both cause damage, of course...that is predictable. What exactly it makes that person do as a measurable response (like discontinue the fight, cry, drop dead, etc.) is quite unpredictable, hence my misquoted statement. You cannot say that a .45 is more effective than a 9mm because it incapacitated one guy in 25 seconds, when the 9mm did it in 35 in a separate incident. It doesn't work that way....people are too different. Next time, a .380 might do it in 10 seconds, while a .45 takes 2 min...all shots placed exactly the same.

 

[357SIG]

I wish I could have done that in school. "I don't remember where I read it, professor, so I didn't cite it in my paper. Just google some of the big words I used and you'll find it."

Yeah, no one ever said that, or anything like it. Of course, things have been cited properly at the time. When you read something 3 years ago, among a plethora of other things, it is quite easy to forget the title. Here, I am not writing a term paper, or a journal article. Here, I am just making a point on the internet. I am also providing some with an avenue to read some info on their own. Some people are way too lazy and want it spoon-fed. I say they should take what I've given them, and use the brain in their head to do a little work. Laziness on your part does not translate to my info being incorrect. I've already gone well above and beyond what you and LH have, and offered something specific you can look up. Where is anything from either of you?

Maybe I'll go one step further and link an article here, that way you can't say "I searched, but can't find it."

 

[357SIG]

Here:

You actually have to click the pdf in the right column to read it.

http://www.ajronline.org/content/155/4/685

 

[Bozwell]

I expect that you could create a model that could rank bullets/calibers, but the effectiveness of any such model would be questionable. By that I mean I'm not sure that it would teach us anything we don't already know. I think that as long as you go with a proven caliber and choose a round/firearm that works for you, you'll be in good shape.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I bet you do great in debates.

You are too kind. Formal debate is helpful because it distingushes various types of evidence, and various types of persuasion, being used to support a position.

You, for example, prefer the "appeal to authority:" you designate a particular definition of expertise (having worked in ERs, etc.) as allowing the possessor to make definitive, unchallengeable statements. It just so happens that you have those exact qualifications that you specify! So, you make such statements as the ones I quoted, and feel free to presume that someone who disagrees (and gives reasons) must simply not have your experience.

Here's my appeal to authority: a person with definitive expertise on this subject will have studied extensively the effects of bullets on gel and also extensively studied the effects of those same bullets on human attackers. I'll listen to that expert. It isn't me. It isn't you. So we are both not expert in the relevant subject matter. Despite your claim that having treated GSW patients qualifies you as an expert on Handgun Caliber Selection (which IS the topic, lest we forget!), it doesn't.

If my imagined expert told me that there was no correlation between gel results and street efectiveness, I would be surprised, but (after he showed me the data, and I also thought it sound) I'd accept it. But then I'd ask, "So why in the world would anyone ever use gel to evaluate SD bullets?"

If my imagined expert said there was a correlation (as I suspect, and as I think the FBI suspects, too) then I'd ask which aspect(s) of the gel results were correlated, and what was the strength of the correlation, at what confidence level?

It would be nice to know which gel findings (if any) correlate with street effectiveness, chiefly because the FBI has already assumed the answer is penetration over 12 inches. At the moment, that's just a reasonable, educated guess.

How about you?

Still my business. I get that you want me to play the "appeal to authority" game. You're hoping you hold winning cards there, because you sure don't seem to have them anywhere else. So you try to taunt.

Well, for anyone who thinks this issue is decided by the say-so of a guy who says (with no evidence) that he's a medical expert and I'm not, I say fine. Because I've already given the qualifications of the expert I'd listen to, and you ain't got'em

And neither do I. Whatever other sort-of-kind-of related expertise we each might have is immaterial to the question at hand. But you feel your "experienced opinion" is dispositive; and that is typical of false "appeals to authority."

A technique that no good debater uses.

 

[357SIG]

As I expected...

Just give it up, man. You've been called out, and can't even respond to it. I've asked you a simple few questions. Let us know why we should trust your "expert" advice. I've posted verifiable information, directed you where to find it, posted my experience and education, and finally posted an article....as far from an appeal to authority on my behalf as possible. Anyone can see that.

Where is your evidence? Regardless of your personal experience, please give us something to go on. Why are you so sure of your assertions?

Can you do anything besides avoid the relevant questions?

You want to play "list the fallacies"? How about you, constantly using the fallacy of "red herring"?

From dictionary.com:
red herring

2.
something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

You focus on everything but the real issue at hand. You focus on everything but the questions that will expose you as a fake. You can't cover it up with off-topic and irrelevant wastes of words.

 

[Wapato]

Thanks for the link, I'll give it a read.

Oh, and the reason I keep bothering you about it is that your experts seem to have come to a different conclusion than other experts (i.e. bigger holes are better, 9mm are more likely to deflect/fragment off bone). Thus I wanted to see yours specifically.

You cannot say that a .45 is more effective than a 9mm because it incapacitated one guy in 25 seconds, when the 9mm did it in 35 in a separate incident. It doesn't work that way....people are too different. Next time, a .380 might do it in 10 seconds, while a .45 takes 2 min...all shots placed exactly the same.

That's just a sample size thing.

Now things are are highly inadiquate will demonstrate it quickly. Nobody is advocating a ratshot round for self defense. (despite the fact that with the number of little pellets you could put in a .45 you'd probably have a lot that counted as "good shot placement".)

Once you're within the realm of the popular self defense cartridges the community has still shown that it can be confused (the RII stuff, and I'd argue the .38 cone bullets before that).

Once you're talking modern self defense rounds hopefully we've moved passed those sorts of issues.

However a fractional increase in effectiveness would still seem important to look for.

 

[357SIG]

Oh, and the reason I keep bothering you about it is that your experts seem to have come to a different conclusion than other experts (i.e. bigger holes are better, 9mm are more likely to deflect/fragment off bone). Thus I wanted to see yours specifically.

No problem. Let me make this clear...a .45 will create more damage than a 9mm. A .45 will probably have less of a chance of deflection. The more powerful the round, the more damage it will create. I do not dispute this as reality. What I'm saying is the differences are nearly insignificant when it comes to comparing the common service calibers used in civilian defense and LE today. What I'm also saying is the benefits of a smaller round (capacity, recoil,...) will "wash-out" those of the larger round (diameter, less deflection,...). What I'm saying is that each caliber of round has an equal opportunity to cause incapacitating damage in any situation. If someone is going to count on these extremely minor differences to aid in incapacitation, when so much more is involved, they are headed in the wrong direction.

 

[Prosser]

Good LORD. :banghead:

Let's look at your arguments:
You are arguing about caliber. In each category is a wide variety of bullet types, construction, design, and materials. Any general statement that fails to account for these variations, as a premise, makes the conclusion illogical.

So, your statements need to be more specific:
"9MM 130 grain, copper jacketed, .035" jacket, pure lead filled, at 950 fps, out of a 9 in one twist, and a 5" barrel deflected off the rib of a 380 pound man, with 40% body fat, after passing through 7" of fat, and highly unusual 3MM thick skin."

"BarnesX 90 Grain, 9MM pure copper LFN with a meplat of .25", out of a 9 to1 twist 5" barrel at 1450 fps went through the skin of a 200 pound, 45% body fat female, after penetrating 2MM skin, 12" of fat, and hitting the rib at a 90 degree angle."

Even these statements neglect time, place, distance, and manner.
They also neglect the physiolocial condition of the person in question, and their mental condition, and any other factors that might have affected their ability to tolerate the gunshot. I also failed to mention the body type, in that the thickness of the bones, and their frailty are vital facts in this premise, trying to lead to a generalization, also usually a fallacy in argument.

So, you all are taking a subject with a ton of variables in bullets, then shooting them out of another set of variables, guns, at a distance, another variable, into targets that are as variable as the human genetic code, and, on top of that, the human condition, likewise incredibly diverse.
Then, from this inadequate observations, you are attempting to draw general conclusions, from inadequate premise.

Caliber wars? Get real.

Since you are so intent on doing this, why don't you do something constructive, and come up with a set of parameters in one area of the equation that would allow for an adequate premise statement?

How what is actually comparable between calibers, and, how do you have to define the caliber to have a premise statement that can't be refuted?

 

[Bozwell]

Largely I agree with your post Prosser, but just a quick observation - if your assailant has 45% body fat , I'm pretty sure you can just run away from the encounter. Sure, they may chase after you on their motorized scooter, but you'll take the lead if you simply step off the sidewalk.