I have a problem with "Shot placement is key" and "Overpenetration"

[Crusader103]

jscott, you can't depend on energy transference from pistol bullets to stop someone.

I never said you could. You would be foolish to rely on any single factor, especially in a handgun caliber, to stop someone. Shot placement is key but that does not mean that all other factors are to be thrown to the wind. While the transference of energy may be a greater factor in rifle rounds (rifle rounds are generally faster and velocity is squared in the foot/pounds energy equation), that does not mean that you should fully discount the transference of energy in a handgun. You should also not discount a balance of optimal penetration with bullet design and a variety of other factors. Were you able to do so by simply stating that you cannot place an emphasis on such factors in a handgun, we would all be just as well shooting a .25 as a .45 because "only shot placement matters." I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Overpenetration is a factor, even in handgun calibers. Among other factors, I will continue to contend that a full tranference of energy is desireable and therefore rounds that overpenetrate should be avoided.

The foot/pounds of energy equation states that velocity (squared) x bullet weight (in grains), divided by 450,400 = foot/pounds of energy.

If a bullet travels completely through an adversary it will retain much of it's velocity. Since that particular portion is "squared," that equates to a lot of energy, even in a handgun. It is not "the factor," but it is "a factor."

Here's how you determine how much energy stopping in your target helps you. Take a 50 lb bag of cement mix, and set it on a barrel and shoot it a few times. How much that bag reacts, is how much a pistol bullet is going to knock someone over.

This is a very silly statement. I can push someone with my bare hands at 1 foot per second and make them fall backward with much more effectiveness than any firearm projectile I hurl at them at 1,000 feet per second. That does not mean a push is better than a bullet. You are simply confusing terms that cannot be correlated to any significant degree.

People often confuse such terms as energy, force, momentum, acceleration, stopping power, knock down power, etc. The simple fact is that how much that cement bag moves when struck is absolutely irrelevant (a slow, fat bullet will move it more than a fast, skinny one even though the first has much less energy) in terms of a bullet's effectiveness in stopping a threat, whether it be fired from a handgun or rifle. Neither is going to "knock someone over." That is the stuff of movies and is not a characteristic of small-arms projectiles. The various types of energy, force, and pressure are not all synonymous.

The introduction of such an assertion has absolutely nothing to do with the value of transferring foot/pounds of energy into a threat. Again, lest I be misconstrued, the transference of energy into the target is a factor and a strong reason behind avoiding over-penetrating rounds. I am not asserting that energy is the sole determiner though.

 

[303tom]

Have any of you ever been shot ?

 

[Crusader103]

Have any of you ever been shot?

Yes. It hurts. Why? Did I miss something?

 

[mljdeckard]

That's like asking a rat if it understands pharmaceuticals because it was a test subject.

Why is it you think it is important to make sure that a human target absorbs all of the energy from the bullet? The energy in a pistol round is concentrated into too small of a pinpoint to actually make the target feel all of that energy. When you shoot a handgun, the recoil you feel is roughly what the target will feel.

 

[seeker_two]

Energy transfer into the target is a myth. The important factor is energy transfer into the bullet. The bullet is the mechanism that does the work...whether it's designed to expand rapidly or penetrate deeply. The trick is to get the right balance of both with the muzzle energy available. Of course, all this is irrelevant if your bullet doesn't hit a vital target.

Using that logic, I load all my guns with loads offering moderate expansion, moderate penetration, and complete reliability. If I have to reload during a fight, my reloads offer deep penetration, minimal expansion, ability to penetrate cover, and complete reliability. And I try to practice whenever I can so I can place the shots where I need them.

Far as I'm concerned, the arguement is settled for me....

 

[mljdeckard]

What is your idea of 'moderate' penetration? How deep will they penetrate?

You think that it's less important for your initial shots to do the job than the follow-up shots?

 

[GunnerShotz]

Safety first

Interesting convo!

4.Be sure of your target and what is beyond it. (Jeff Cooper, Wiki)

"Shot placement is key" is a true statement... also valid is a concern for "Overpenetration". So, I'll be keeping both in mind when training/practicing and choosing what rounds to use...

Does that not answer the "problem"?

 

[Davek1977]

I guess shot placement being key is just common sense to me. OF COURSE one DESIRES his bullet to go where he/she wants it to. AS far as over-penetration goes, I want my bullet to do what it is designed to do....as with the case with most modern hollow point defensive loads, that goal is to expand and penetrate. If there ever comes a time and place I am forced to use my weapon for a defensive purpose, I want the best performing bullet available to me, and I want it to enter expand and dump energy and most likely exit my target, as most well constructed bullets can possibly do. While whats behind my target is a concern, my primary concern is saving my life and eliminating the threat to my safety. In such a situation, rule 4 still applies, but may not be given quite as much weight as it would on the rang, for better or worse. I'd rather be alive t deal with the possible ramifications of my actions than dead and assured no one was hurt or no property damaged.

 

[CZguy]

Interesting convo!

Whats a convo?

 

[beatledog7]

All this debate would tend to support the idea that one's best defensive option is always to find a way to NOT shoot.

Pulling the trigger in a defensive situation always raises two risks:

- having a bullet hit something other than the intended target, either from pass-through or a clean miss

- getting a hit, or even multiple hits, but not stopping the attack

So the preferred option remains avoiding the need to shoot.

Given the truly unfortunate fact that shooting another person may someday prove unavoidable, and that the above risks cannot be completely removed, make the equipment choices you deem best, and be prepared to have that event change your life forever.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You think that it's less important for your initial shots to do the job than the follow-up shots?

If I may:

We all know that the "average" gunfight will be over with fewer shots than contained in a J-frame .38. But if your fight is not average, and you need to reload, one reason might be that your adversary has been smart enough to go behind something. Maybe a more penetrative bullet can, at that point, turn his cover into concealment only. So, not at all odd to use a more penetrative round in your reload, anticipating that.

I feel the same way about non-LE back-up guns: we often hear of .380s or lower calibers being used as "BUGs"; but if my primary gun has run out of ammo and/or broken, and I'm still fighting for my life? I think I'll want a bigger gun, with more rounds that are more powerful, as a BUG.

YMMV.

So the preferred option remains avoiding the need to shoot.

Given the truly unfortunate fact that shooting another person may someday prove unavoidable, and that the above risks cannot be completely removed, make the equipment choices you deem best, and be prepared to have that event change your life forever.

+1

 

[303tom]

Yes. It hurts. Why? Did I miss something?

With what & did it go all the way through ? second question do you want to get shot again ?

 

[mljdeckard]

I still can't see why you would want two different layers or levels of deadly force. To me it seems to assume that you wouldn't want to use the most effective force possble when you are fighting for your life. To be in the middle of a gunfight, and launch into this algorithm of using one level, deciding it isn't enough, switching to another, and so on.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I still can't see why you would want two different layers or levels of deadly force.

Unless you don't carry a second gun (or carry a second that's an exact copy of your first), you carry "two levels." Even if you carry the same ammo in a shorter-barreled second gun, the velocity will be different: two levels.

The reality is that some people (including LEOs) do carry different sized guns, often in different calibers, at the same time. I do. So, for many folks, there's a reason.

It's not "two different levels of deadly force", the way I look at it: all of it is deadly force--just one level. It might be two different levels of penetrativeness or power, or just two different locations of carry (two different ease-of-access levels), different levels of concealment, etc.

 

[huntsman]

The foot/pounds of energy equation states that velocity (squared) x bullet weight (in grains), divided by 450,400 = foot/pounds of energy.

If a bullet travels completely through an adversary it will retain much of it's velocity. Since that particular portion is "squared," that equates to a lot of energy, even in a handgun. It is not "the factor," but it is "a factor."

thank you for the equation

but I'm still curious as to how much is much (percentage wise) and wouldn't that wasted energy be minimized by using slow velocity cartridge(sub 1,000ft/ps)?

 

[45_auto]

wouldn't that wasted energy be minimized by using slow velocity cartridge(sub 1,000ft/ps)

Only if you believe that the "wasted energy" would have some magical effect on stopping someone. If that's the case, you should be carrying the lightest, highest velocity (most energy) cartridge possible for your handgun.

 

[BBQLS1]

Why do we need 18 inches of penetration? Even if an arm is in the way of center of mass, there's still not 18 inches to an organ.

18 inches of ballistic gel doesn't equal 18 inches of organ.

Well, that and the fact he says it (230 grain .45 ACP) easily stops people better than a 9mm.

With modern ammo, I don't think this is correct at all. Though I prefer .45 ACP for a variety of reasons, I don't at all think anyone is undergunned with a good 9mm round. They are both handgun rounds and leave much to be desired.

 

[smalls]

18 inches of ballistic gel doesn't equal 18 inches of organ.

Of course not. But how do they relate? If no relation, why would we even bother using gel?

 

[mljdeckard]

Because humans are too expensive.

18" isn't enough because ballistic gel doesn't come with a leather jacket or layers of bone.

 

[gym]

Each situation is different. There is no way to lump them all together and come up with the ideal equation for which round is better. You have several objects, "humans" moving in different directions while firing at each other, much of this is a crapshoot, assuming they all have similar skills. If not then the unskilled will give up or be shot the fastest, unless they are very lucky. And whose grandma are we talking about, the wifes or mine?
Much of who survives a gunfight has to do with how much experiance they have had, and how much luck they have that day. I always carry 2 guns, now that I am older I carry two 9mm, or a 40 and a 9. More in case one jams or gets damaged, I want a second gun in case the first one doesn't work, or I would just carry 4 magazines.
In multi person shootouts where you are alone and facing 2 or 3 adversaries, you can't shoot the first target 2 or 3 times, because you would be shot by one of the other 2, assuming they stuck around. So you put 1 round in each, two in the last, then go back and hopefylly finish the other 2. Ayoob was talking about this not long ago. But if you are facing 3 pro's you are probablly going to die, regaurdless of what you are using.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Of course shot placement is key..

You the preacher man!

 

[huntsman]

Only if you believe that the "wasted energy" would have some magical effect on stopping someone. If that's the case, you should be carrying the lightest, highest velocity (most energy) cartridge possible for your handgun.

naw that ain't me I'm just a basic .380 .45acp guy

 

[seeker_two]

What is your idea of 'moderate' penetration? How deep will they penetrate?

You think that it's less important for your initial shots to do the job than the follow-up shots?

1. 11"-15"....Cor-Bon Pow'R'Ball. Followed by FMJ.

2. Sometimes you need to change clubs during the game....

 

[mljdeckard]

So, you think 11-15" won't traverse a human target, Corbon Powerball is moderately powerful ammo, and that you will know at the beginning of a fight, that you won't need the best ammo you can get?

 

[Loosedhorse]

that you won't need the best ammo you can get?

The "best ammo" depends on the situation. It's different with a skinny, tee-shirted attacker (and your daughter right behind him) than it would be for a leather-clad, beefy guy peaking arround some wood paneling. What's perfect for one of these scenarios is a disaster for the other.

So, you think 11-15" won't traverse a human target

Skin is tougher to penetrate than gel. A round that would have traveled another few inches in gel can be stopped by the far-side skin. I've recoverd enough bullets under the far hide of game animals.

Even if it does exit the far skin, it makes a big difference if it exits without enough energy to wound the next person; or if can only make a 2-inch deep wound, which sure could be fatal, but very well might not be; or if the bullet's ready to zip through that next person, too.