Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

[481]

Wapato,

My remarks in line (blue) with yours-

I didn't want to muddy the waters with this. But I think saying knockdown doesn't exist at all may be missing the mark.

I never said that it doesn't exist. You cut out the portion of my post where I stated,

"For the most part, I am in agreement with the most of the order (descending importance) and almost every aspect that you offer for consideration save the extremely negligible effect of "knock-down". You could probably just exclude it from your list."

The effect is always there, always present and Newton's Third Law of Motion mandates it. But its actual contribution to what we witness when a person is shot is very small, hence my belief that it can be neglected in the list proposed by the OP.

I frequently hear something along the lines of "A bullet isn't going to send you flying through the air, otherwise it would send the shooter flying as well."

And that is truish.

In every sense it is true. The trajectory of the 185 pound person struck by the bullet in my example above would be hard to notice especially given the mechanical effect produced by the magnitude of the temporary cavity exceeding the ability of the person's torso to contain it.

However if you clothesline someone running by, or knock someone down with a punch the attacker isn't launched either. Because they're braced for it, and because a big part of it isn't that you're sending them airborn, it's that you're suddenly imparting some sort of rotation or motion and it knocks them off balance, and then gravity does the rest.

That's Newton's First Law of Motion (Inertia- a body at rest tends to remain at rest or a body in motion tends to remian in motion). The person's body is rotating about a nearly fixed axis in the case of the clothes' line which produces a change in direction about that axis imparting an angular moment (the momentum already being supplied by the person as they run). This has little to do with the effect under discussion here.

I've got a hunch if you went to the gunrange, loaded exactly one round in a powerful rifle/shotgun, held it loosely with open hands a little ways in front of your face (or even shoulder) and then locked your knees or started hustling sideways prior to firing you might well find yourself on the ground.

Sure either of those situations would likely cause someone to fall down. Give a shotgun or a centerfire rifle room to accelerate into your face and it's gonna hurt. That's why it is important to hold the butt of such firearms frimly against our shoulders when we fire them. But falling down from the pain induced by letting the shotgun/rifle accelerate into your face and being propelled irresistably rearwards by the shotgun/rifle are not the same thing. One is a reaction to the pain and damage of being smacked in the face, the other is a physical movement that one cannot resist.

I'd expect the same to aplly on the other end of the bullet.

Of course if you're actually hitting them center of mass you shouldn't impart much rotation, and if they're charging or braced to fire as well they'd probalby tend not to stumble and fall.

Anyway, for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpQNoCuar7g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY2lKEQm8hY&feature=related

Thanks for the vids.

 

[Skribs]

The people in the video still weren't knocked down...

However if you clothesline someone running by, or knock someone down with a punch the attacker isn't launched either. Because they're braced for it, and because a big part of it isn't that you're sending them airborn, it's that you're suddenly imparting some sort of rotation or motion and it knocks them off balance, and then gravity does the rest.

If you punch someone you're already imparting motion on your arm. If you don't follow through with the punch, your hand will slow down considerably when it hits them. It's because it's transfering energy. On the other hand, when you shoot, you are standing still, and thus the energy isn't spent stopping you. That said, the energy is spent fighting your mass and the friction of your contact points on the ground.

 

[David E]

The FIRST priority in a defensive arm is NONE of what the OP suggested based on his "research"

The Number One Priority in a defensive arm is simple RELIABILITY.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Knock Down Power = hogwash

sorry, but a bullets puts out much the same pressure as a knife point or other stabbing instruments

a moderate punch has MUCH more energy and force being transferred than a bullet can ever hope to dump.
that means if a BOXER isn't "knocked out of his socks" by a punch, what makes you think a measly bullet can hope to do that?

what we need to account here is this, when shot, be it a .22 or a 155 howitzer the response is "I've been shot" (if they notice it)

So said person responds just like TV taught them, they fall over.
See the action here has NOTHING to do with physics and everything to do with psychology.

Like David says
any gun that is reliable and shoots ammo that is capable of reaching those things that must be reached is capable.

everything past that is PERSONAL preference.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I've got a hunch if you went to the gunrange, loaded exactly one round in a powerful rifle/shotgun, held it loosely with open hands a little ways in front of your face (or even shoulder) and then locked your knees or started hustling sideways prior to firing you might well find yourself on the ground.

I'd expect the same to aplly on the other end of the bullet.

Nope. Experiments have done with a rifle attached to a cart. Firing the rifle remotely barely moves a small cart.

Similarly, bullets have been fired into 100 lb sacks of sand in carts, and again there is virtually no movement of the cart.

Thompson and Gorgas fired at cadavers hung by the neck in their famous 1904 experiment and did not note any movement of the bodies.

 

[trex1310]

How relevant is any of this stuff when you're scared enough to pee
on yourself and your gun hand is shaking like a dog crapping a peach
seed? Not very is my guess.

 

[Wapato]

Regarding knockdown. I'm kinda surprised at the responses here.

There are a lot of things that most shooters don't have a feeling for, like some of the deflection stuff.

But the one thing we all should have some concept of is how much a gun kicks. Presuming the round stops in the body, the impulse they're going to get is going to be pretty close to what we feel from the recoil of the gun.

Does it launch us back a couple dozen feet? Obviously not. Does it knock a shooter down even if their grip isn't the best, and the gun flips back into them. Not very likely. Because we're balanced and branced, usually with a little forward lean, solid points of contact on the ground, and we're ready and know exactly when it's going to happen.

The question is if that amount of impulse could impart some rotation or cause someone to stumble and fall if they aren't braced, ready, and might be moving.

The alternate explination for a lot of what is seen is:

So said person responds just like TV taught them, they fall over.
See the action here has NOTHING to do with physics and everything to do with psychology.

Myself I'm thinking a blend of the two, with actually falling being more common with hits to the shoulders or legs or at odd angles.

In any case I don't think it'll be a big consideration since most self defense shootings are at an opponent coming at you and you're aiming center of mass. But I'd expect it to be there in some percentage of shootings. Hurm. Although this thread is for common handgun cartridges and I might be drifting into shotgun space here. I'll ponder on this next time I'm at the range.

any gun that is reliable and shoots ammo that is capable of reaching those things that must be reached is capable.

Somebody should tell the gun makers that they need to make a more pistol friendly varient of the .22LR . There have been so many comments like this in this thread that there must be a massive untapped demand here.

The Number One Priority in a defensive arm is simple RELIABILITY.

We all agree that's absolutely vital in a gun. But this is a calibre thread, and I don't know if there's much of a difference there.

Well, I think initially there were issues with the .40, but I think those have mostly been sorted out.

 

[HoboCoastie]

The surface area of the weapon touching your hand is much bigger and the weapon is moving much slower than the bullet. It is NOT comparable to felt impact of a bullet. It's like slamming your palm down on the face of a sledge hammer compared to slamming your palm down on an ice pick.

I read somewhere that getting hit in the chest center mass with a 45acp feels equivalent to dropping a brick that was suspended above your chest 6". A .40 was comparable to a 4" drop, and a 9mm felt like the same test at 1-1/2". Not much force on any of them and not much difference between the calibers.

Such is why I placed little value on knock-down power/felt impact.

 

[357SIG]

Guys, 3 pages of arguing over this seems silly. Modern medical science pretty much follows what has been said by the OP. It can easily be researched and verified by anyone. The rest of the world accepts it and moves on, while the gun-toting public feels they need to challenge it on internet discussion boards. Really, it's pretty simple; hit a vital to stop a fight. Nothing else will work with any reliability, and all of those secondary effects you like to argue about are insignificant. Understanding the human body's response to a traumatic injury is where the focus should be, not on the sciences behind bullet capability. After all, the body is the object we are trying to incapacitate.

It would be beneficial for 90% of you to research mechanisms of injury for penetrating trauma. It would open your eyes to a lot of the ridiculous myths spewed out on gun boards AND by tactics experts (who have NO working knowledge on wounding effects, ONLY how to shoot a gun effectively.)

There is no black magic, or voodoo, or special principle of physics observed in a controlled environment, against non-living objects, that can predict the body's natural response in a dynamic environment full of variables. It just won't happen...we don't shoot at calibrated gel blocks on the street under perfect conditions, we shoot at people, who are all built differently, all have different mindsets, all have different health problems, and all have different tolerances to injury.

The actual conclusion, as observed in the field, and backed by medical science, is that there is little to no difference in effectiveness between the common defensive pistol rounds...none...nothing...not a significant difference. People like Mas Ayoob are excellent tactical firearms instructors, and could probably win every gun fight they ever encounter, but they do not have a clue as to what happens to the body when a human being is shot.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Handgun Caliber Selection Insight...

was the title of the thread. I help with this decision frequently, for friends or family or students. Caliber selection tends to come after platform selection, although they are not completely separable: obviously if you've chosen a DA semi-auto platform, you've pretty much ruled out .41 Magnum!

Caliber selection (following platform selection) in my experience tends to revolve on two main considerations: how much recoil the shooter wants to handle; and how much he or she wants to spend on practice ammo.

Then comes load selection, which is made to maximize the intended use (usually SD). Again, load selection isn't completely separable from caliber selection (you can't choose a 230 gr HP at 950 fps for .22 Mag), but it is distinct.

Dependability, in general, is not "chosen" (except to some extent at the platform level); but it must be tested for after the load selection is made.

What does that all mean? It means that, to me, listings of "caliber comparisons" have little practical use in the selection process for individual shooters--except for considerations of recoil, cost, and whether a police-level SD load exists for that caliber.

Knock-Down Power

I have been using this term along with other hunters for a few decades now, and it was my impression that it was being used long before I showed up. It was always used to mean the ability of a caliber or load to stop an animal in its tracks, as in: "Sure, you can kill a deer with a .223, but a 12 gauge slug has more knock-down power;" or "Don't use target bullets on game: they don't have enough knock-down power."

Recently, I am being told that what I mean by "knock-down power" isn't what I thought I meant; rather, I was supposed to mean the ability to push animals (or humans) around, perhaps lifting them out of the air. And once the term is so redefined, I am told I have been talking nonsense, hogwash, etc. for all these many years.

Well, I know what I mean, and it isn't hogwash.

 

[357SIG]

Just had another thought...

I would not at all be surprised if the argument continues like this simply because of hurt pride. Someone who has been regurgitating the ideas of diameter, bleed out, hydrostatic shock, etc. for years, coming off as knowledgeable, likely cannot stand the fact that they were wrong the whole time. They don't want to look wrong, or be proven wrong, so they will hang onto anything they can to keep the argument alive, no matter how insignificant. If they can raise a question in anyone's mind about even one simple factor of the whole, they can still claim to be right. Of course, only the uninformed will buy into it.

I once bought into all of this caliber effectiveness minutia, but have since stopped. I have gained a ton of experience and education in the field, am friends with some excellent trauma nurses, surgeons, PAs, etc., and have worked with some as well. I've also done the research, and read peer-reviewed literature on the subject of ballistic trauma. I can admit, I once could not have been more wrong on gunshot wounding. Being wrong is not a bad thing; it's what you do afterward that matters.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I would not at all be surprised if the argument continues like this simply because of hurt pride... Of course, only the uninformed will buy into it.

Just my opinion, but the best sign of "hurt pride" is the need to call others uninformed...

 

[Skribs]

I find it funny that someone named 357SIG is saying caliber doesn't matter.

 

[357SIG]

Well, that's your opinion.

The uninformed are those who do not have knowledge of the subject, or at least not enough to know what to believe. This can be a lawyer, manager, engineer, physicist, or a Wal-Mart cart pusher...it can affect anyone, and is not a bad thing. I know this is very hard for you to believe, but calling someone uniformed is not necessarily cutting them down, or insulting them. It's not like saying pea-brained, slow, or stupid. I'm uninformed about a lot of things, as are you, and everyone else.

From dictionary.com:

uninformed (ˌʌnɪnˈfɔːmd)

— adj
not having knowledge or information about a situation, subject, etc

...and I registered with my name long ago, and just like the 357 round. I know it is not any better for stopping someone, but I just like a lot of things about it that have nothing to do with stopping ability. I often carry 9mm for CCW, and only carry a 357 Glock at times because it is subcompact. If I had a subcompact 9mm, the G33 would sit in the safe.

Nonetheless, this supports my second point exactly. Rather than stick to the subject, or come up with an educated argument, or even try to intelligently counter my statement on pride, I get attacks in an effort to somehow discredit my statements.

 

[357SIG]

From http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html:

Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. There are two subcategories:

(1) Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.

(2) Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one's adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent's special circumstances have no control over the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies.

 

[Loosedhorse]

at least not enough to know what to believe

Ah...but now, thank Heaven, the uninformed have you to tell them what to believe. Because you know enough to know that. Isn't it interesting, though, that the "uninformed" also believe they know enough?

Good thing you told us how "informed you are," lest we confuse you with the similarly minded "uninformed."

I know this is very hard for you to believe

And how would you know what I believe? Perhaps you read some peer-reviewed literature on the subject?

calling someone uniformed is not necessarily cutting them down

I must thank you for posting the definition of "ad hominem" attack, as it was you who used it in calling posters "uninformed." As you are contrasting yourself as "informed", it is clearly meant to be "cutting."

Also, even if someone were in fact less informed on a subject than yourself, calling them "uninformed" is not needed to advance a valid argument. It is unnecessary ad hominem, and so it is intentionally cutting them down.

Oh, BTW: my pointing out your ad hominem is not itself ad hominem--it is attacking the form of your "argument."

Perhaps you were uninformed on that point?

 

[357SIG]

Ok, well, I said my piece, and see you want to act immaturely. Rather than trying to argue the facts, you would rather resort to personal attacks. I've explained myself, yet you can't leave it at that. Let's just get back on topic instead.

I have a question for you. What are the mechanisms of injury from a gunshot wound, and how does the caliber or energy of the bullet effect it, as it relates to handgun injuries? What processes in the body work to counteract the damage? If you are going to call me out, at least you can explain yourself. I will listen.

 

[Skribs]

This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself.

Actually, in this case, it is the fact that you obviously have a caliber you like, and are claiming in your name that you like it, but then saying caliber doesn't matter.

So I have to ask - do you still use a .357? Because with hot 40gr or 55gr FMJs out of a .22, you can get more of what the OP says. The Keltec PMR-30 is probably the best in terms of capacity, or a 5.7 offers more rounds at less recoil. Or do you still use the .357 Sig? If so, why do you use that over a .22 LR or .22 mag?

 

[Loosedhorse]

see you want to act immaturely

More ad hominem. I was speaking on logical argument, as it relates to your calling posters "uninformed."

I have a question for you.

Feel free to open a thread. Not sure what you'd call it...perhaps "Loosedhorse must explain himself to my satisfaction" would make a good title?

In an attempt to get us back on track, let me repeat from a few posts ago--and hope that this time, I may get a response to the subject matter:

to me, listings of "caliber comparisons" have little practical use in the selection process for individual shooters--except for considerations of recoil, cost, and whether a police-level SD load exists for that caliber.

 

[357SIG]

I rest my case. You can't answer me at all, and therefore lost credibility in this thread. This is too funny! No amount of insults on your part can trump this.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I rest my case.

Why, in a thread about caliber, does this "case" you rest concern not caliber...but me? Because your case is ad hominem. QED.

 

[Skribs]

357SIG, I actually asked you a question. However, you keep bashing us for disagreeing with you without actually answering. What do you use for self defense? Do you still use the 357 SIG, or do you use something under .25 caliber? Because according to the OP, something like a Keltec PMR would be the ideal choice, in terms of recoil and capacity (and you can probable get adequate placement).

You actually just said a lot of "you people need to do your research" without saying anything beyond "the real world has extra conditions that the lab can't test." Well, that may be true, but that doesn't make the lab tests unjustified. I should also mention that the OP mentioned penetration, which is tested in the lab. So if you want to throw out all lab testing, throw that out, too. Just stick with placement (which you can't test in a real setting), recoil, and capacity.

As to your question, fine:
I know that bigger holes take longer to heal. A wider hole increases the surface area to heal faster than a deeper hole, and if it's a through-and-through, you only have one way to increase that area. However, I'm not sure how relevant this is to defense discussion. After all, the goal is to stop the attack. How the person heals from it is after the fact, and irrelevant to stopping the attack.

I know that if you do not damage CNS, your goal is to reduce the blood/oxygen level in the brain enough to incapacitate the subject. That can be done by damaging the heart or the lungs, although even if the heart is destroyed the brain will still function for a few seconds. I've read accounts of people taking hits to the heart with a .22 and surviving (although it's possible they have with a 9 or .45 as well). Just simply hitting the heart won't necessarily do the job - the more damage you do to the organ, the more likely you are to cause failure. The more lung tissue you damage, the less oxygen can get into the blood.

Even if you miss the vitals, or if you don't damage them enough, a wider pipeline from the body will increase how fast blood can leave the body. Since the goal is a rapid drop in blood pressure, a wider pipeline (which also will damage more blood vessels, even if its just the small ones) will help.

Yes, I understand that a 12" deep 9mm-wide hole is only 1.5 cubic inches, which is not a lot of the human body. However, I'm not talking about destroying the whole body, as I am shutting the body down. I know that going to a .45" hole increases the pipeline to 2.43 cubic inches, which is a significant increase in the amount of blood loss you can achieve.

 

[khegglie]

The Piss is up to the walls now...

 

[481]

Well, it appears that the usual suspects have arrived, "opened shop" and begun to analyse one another.

So much for this one.

 

[Loosedhorse]

a wider pipeline

Skribs, I appreciate your summary...but it's not all just about the size of the pipeline, is it? If it were, we would have all long ago gone to .50 cal HPs--and we'd be clamoring to end the prohibition on calibers above .50!

Why is it that so few people carry a .50 for SD, and so many even carry calibers below .45?

Well, it appears that the usual suspects have arrived, "opened shop" and begun to analyse one another.

A very self-referential comment, as it has nothing to do with the topic, and instead analyzes other posters!