Crusader103
Member
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.
Last edited: