Two holes are better than one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But more energy doesn't cause overpenetration.
More energy causes hollow points to open sooner, and bigger, and in some cases to fragment a little bit.
I just love hearing about MCNETT's double tap 10mm defensive ammo.
135 grain nosler hollow point, at 1600 FPS.
No overpenetration here.
Any plenty of energy.
Now just hit your target, and you'll be ok.
http://www.doubletapammo.com/main_site/index.html
 
"Could be barking up the wrong end of the dog here, but in cases where the bullet doesn't exit, isn't it cheerfully richocheting around inside, bouncing of bones and causing multiple wound channels as fragments of bullet and bone go whizzing off in different directions ? "
Yes, too much TV. If the bullet doesn't have enough energy to exit the body, where does it get the energy to "richochet" around inside the body ?

"Now shoot a gallon jug full of water with a .44 mag 240 grain projectile at 1600 FPS.
Water jug ripped open, contents of jug spilled almost instantly. Jug empty."
Note the significantly great reaction of the target dispite the fact that the bullet didn't disipate all it's energy into the water; it exited and kept right on going, but the damage was done anyway.

"......a Ballistic Tip at high velocity and you have a small hand grenade on impact" True enough but has no relevance to handgun rounds. A bullet that was as frangible as a ballistic tip in a handgun would have almost no penetration.

"First, all things being equal a bullet that exits Mr. Badguy has done more damage than one that stops. "
I agree. You want air in, blood out. Two holes let more air in, and more blood out.

"I feel that the best bullet will expand and stop just under the skin before possible exit"
And this would be better than a depleted uranium tank round center of mass that would wizz right through ? How about a .300 Win mag to the chest ? How about a 1 ounce shotgun slug COM ? Those are worse than a round that stopped right under the skin on the far side ?
 
I understand the supposed reason for this one...but completely disagree with it.

FMJ's making two holes in one person is not a good thing by any means...If you think the holes in the skin cause the bleeding are what stop the guy....Id have to rethink this one.

Trauma to vitals...and I understand youre saying the faster less- resistant bullet will cause more of a shock/wound channel because of the speed...I totally disagree with this one also. Ill take the bigger channel made by expansion everytime......

This theory has been shot down :rolleyes: more times than I can count on my fingers and toes by people alot smarter than most of us.

Another example of "The Geneva Convention" or the official group Im unsure of, ruled against the use of JHP's in the time of war. FMJ or ball rounds only for soldiers as they are "more humane" and you have ALOT better chance of surviving being shot with them.

We have Forensics guys, ER Doc's, EMT's on this board and ask them which is better at stopping someone.

Sorry for the rant....this is as old as the 45/9mm trap and I fell into it again.
:D

Shoot well.
 
The whole water jug analogy has nothing to do with the human body. Water, for all intents and purposes, does not compress much. Thus, when it is captured inside a container the resulting explosion when it is hit by something is a factor of speed. Hit it fast enough where the water cannot disperse and it blows the whole jug regardless of bullet design. The fluid in human beings isn't compacted as tightly in the torso.

"'......a Ballistic Tip at high velocity and you have a small hand grenade on impact' True enough but has no relevance to handgun rounds. A bullet that was as frangible as a ballistic tip in a handgun would have almost no penetration. "
Incorrect. A ballistic Tip at handgun velocities does not rupture as violently. That is why they are not recommended on deer under 100 yards. And, even frangible bullets as made by Sinterfire (which turn to COPPER DUST on impact with steel) make nice large wound channels in flesh. They simply react differently to materials that do not compress as readily.
 
actually...

That's more of a hydraulic suggestion.


Liquids are slightly compensable. We generally say they are incompressible because you can only compress a liquid to a slightly higher density before the work you're doing on it phase changes the liquid into a solid.
 
Water jugs are not the same as the human body, yada, yada, yada.
I never said they were.
I'm saying that this sort of test is a physical demonstration of the effect of energy and displacement.
To minimize over-penetration, and maximize energy, the bullet should be moving fast.
Whatever diameter the bullet happens to be, whatever it happens to weigh, provided the bullet is a modern hollow point or similar design, velocity is the key to shutting down the target's higher functions.
Provided the bullet opens up, and is moving fast enough upon contact, massive damage will be done, and it won't really matter if the bullet was retained or had to be dug from the walls at a later date...

I also assume that if the bullet were already expanded, and had inflicted enough damage to shut down the attacker, that the projectile in question wouldn't have any useful velocity left.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity does anyone have a real-world example of an OVERPENETRATING (misses dont count) bullet seriously injuring or killing someone other than the intended target? With people getting shot everyday youd think it would be an easy thing to find.
 
Not a personal experience, but a couple years ago in Munich some police recruit shot a knife-wielding attacker in the head with a 9mm FMJ. She also killed the attacker brother a few yards behind with this shot. I think there were some more incidents similar to this one, I just can't recall them right now.

After that we were issued expanding JHP ammo. Mind you, this all happened in Germany where firefights are much less frequent than in the US. Therefore I suppose overpenetration is a real danger, not just a theoretical possibility.


Regards,

Trooper
 
"FMJ's making two holes in one person is not a good thing by any means...If you think the holes in the skin cause the bleeding are what stop the guy....Id have to rethink this one. "
You added the term FMJ, it doesn't matter what kind of bullet it is. If it goes clear through, that is better than going half way through. We are not talking about holes in the skin. The back hole indicates that the bullet completely transversed the body and thus put a hole in everything in it's path. This is twice as good as a bullet that only went half way though and stopped dispite the fact that the bullet that stopped "disapated all it's energy". This is what you refer to as trauma to the vitals. Put another way, let's say you shot someone with a caliber or bullet and the bullet penetrated one inch and stopped. All it's energy was disapated in the target. BUT, no vital organs or blood vessels were hit in the process. This is not better than putting a hole clear through the target every time.
The water jug thing: what I was trying to point out is that significant energy is released into the target whether the bullet stops or not. A lot of this discussion ignores the fact that we may have more than enough energy, like in my example of the .300 Win Mag to the chest. Just because the bullet doesn't stop inside the target doesn't mean the target didn't get plenty of energy in the process.

"We have Forensics guys, ER Doc's, EMT's on this board and ask them which is better at stopping someone."
I have worked full time as a paramedic in a major city for 19 years and about 10 months.
When we are talking about handgun bullets at handgun velocities, in my opinion and my opinion only, it is the bullet that goes through and through. We arn't dealing with a lot of energy here. Usually if a handgun bullet stops inside the body it is just because it ran out of gas without having started with much to begin with. It isn't like you are harnessing the energy of a rifle inside the body. In that case, you would have to stop the bullet somehow to keep it inside the body; the example was already given of the ballistic tip bullet. We have many times more energy than is required to completely penetrate the body, but we use a bullet designed to come apart and keep all the energy inside the target. In the case of a lot of handguns rounds, we don't have the power to completely penetrate the body and the bullet just peters out. Don't confuse this with containing some massive amount of energy as in the ballistic tip case. How about this example: a car is moving along at 60 MPH and hits a solid concrete wall: all the energy is dissipated into the wall/car and the car is completely destroyed. Now compare this with a car that runs out of gas, the engine dies and it coasts to a stop. In the first example you had a massive amount of energy and it was suddenly stopped with all it's energy being retained. In the second case you just ran out of energy. With a ballistic tip fired out of a rifle, you have a massive amount of energy. If the bullet didn't come apart, it would go through several persons. With, let's say a .38 Special HP, it just runs out of energy and stops; there isn't some massive release of energy into the target like there is with a rifle bullet.
"Out of curiosity does anyone have a real-world example of an OVERPENETRATING (misses dont count) bullet seriously injuring or killing someone other than the intended target?"
No. I have probably responded on at least 100 shootings in the last 20 years and I have never seen anyone hit by a bullet that overpenetrated. I KNOW it has happened, but to answer your question, I haven't ever seen it.
 
I probably should have left the "two holes" thing alone, it only clouds the issue. 444 is correct, it isn't the two holes that make him bleed faster but that there is wrecked tissue between those two holes. The real issue is this

If you handgun bullet/velocity setup is designed such that it will not exit the body when fired squarely at close range into the front of an average mans chest, than I'd say you have a bullet that doesn't have suffecient penetration. It's not hard to imagine an attacker being in such an arrangement that your bullet must pass through one or both of his forearms and his shoulder or upper arm before it even gets to his chest, and what if the guy weights 300 pounds and it wearing a parka? A handgun bullet that can reach his vitals in that situation is going to go through him in a more ideal shot (square into the thoratic triangle)

IMO to get the penetration you need to have a good chance at a quick stop from a varetity of angles you are going to have to accept that there will be certain angles that will go through and through.
 
In my opinion 1 hole is better than 2 because when a bullet passes all the way through something it doesnt give off all of its energy. When a bullet stops it gives off the rest of its energy and it creates an explosion effect (it doesnt really explode duh!:rolleyes: ) but if youve ever shot a deer where a bullet had stopped in him and skinned him you would see what im talking about . Everthing aroud the bullet is almost a liquid. I understand a pistol bullet would have far less energy but it would still create a golf ball size explosion around it
 
Again, I think we are dealing with apples and oranges.
If you had a massive amount of energy and also had a magic bullet that could be counted on to penetrate most of the target (adequate penetration) but not exit and use up all it's energy in the target, this would be a superior bullet to one that just penetrates everything and keeps on going. In this case the energy is meaningfull. There is a lot of it. Having it used up in the body produces massive trauma.
Now we take a medium or small bore handgun. We don't have a lot of energy. We might not even have enough energy to reach the vital organs if the body is at an odd angle, or if there is heavy clothing involved etc. The energy being absorbed by the body is almost inconsequential.
There is no comparison between teh bullet in the first paragraph and the bullet in the second paragraph. The fact that they both stopped inside the body doesn't mean that they both did a similar amount of work.
 
No one ever survived a gunshot wound because the bullet penetrated too far. Some have survived because the bullet didn't penetrate far enough. What does this mean? Heck if I know!

But I do believe that you have to hit something vital and to do that you need marksmanship and sufficient penetration. Whatever sufficient is!

Regards,
Happyguy:D
 
MATH, what a concept

Wheelman, I think you may have some trouble with your math. A through and through is not actually two holes, but one.

I think what you mean to say that two penetrations of the skin is better than one penetration. A through and through is one bullet hole that represents two penetrations of the skin, entrance and exit. The concept is that you would get better drainage of blood out of the person, more chance for air to enter the person, etc. Of course, whether that matters is being debated.

The important thing for discussing a problem is first understanding the actual parameters in an actually representative manner. Math is fundamental as is problem orientation.
 
Math:
Take the person and count the holes. How many are there ? Two ?
Shoot a person with something that gives incomplete penetration. How many holes are there ? One.
The two holes even have names: One is called the entrance
wound (or hole), the other an exit wound (or hole).
 
Last edited:
Do you think there is any chance you might actually miss the bad guy entirely during a gunfight?
Click to expand...

Excellent question.

If the answer to this question is "yes", then you can stop worrying about overpenetrating, and start worrying about hitting a bystander with a bullet moving at full velocity.
Click to expand...

Terrific answer.

You are more likely to hurt a bystander with a miss than with a bullet that overpenetrates.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

Hitting the goblin and saving your skin are the things you shoud worry about.
 
Interesting thoughts.

I can definitely see the advantages both ways... but here's what I think.

If you shoot BG and the bullet goes in-and-out, then he'll bleed out two places... However, if he runs off, since the bullet went through cleanly, he may survive without medical attention.

If you shoot BG with a nice JHP that stops in the body, if he runs off, he's got to get medical attention to get that bullet out. As such, it might give the po-po more of a chance to catch him.

Now I know this isn't a be-all, end-all explanation, but just an example. Besides, AFAIK, the issue isn't having the BG bleed out of two holes, it's the internal area of the wound. It doesn't even matter if the blood never leaves the body, if you tear up the arteries/veins that they run through, it'll ruin his day.

If I'm wrong, I hope someone will correct me.

Wes
 
Energy is relative. Speed is probably a better indicator, as is the mass and MEPLAT of the round. The published energies of specific cartridges are not the end-all to the truth. A 110 gr .357 magnum has more "energy" than a 158 gr. using the same load. Why? mass x velocity squared. Speed has more of a bearing than does the mass according to the mathematical formula.

Speed also allows the bullet to do its work. We rely on sufficient speed to open that hollow point. Speed also generates a larger temporary wound channel (that liquid state mentioned earlier).

So, if you have a slow moving bullet of light weight, the wound channel will be shorter and narrower. A slow moving heavy bullet will penetrate better, but will only create a small wound channel. A fast moving light bullet will make a larger wound channel and possibly exit. A fast moving heavy bullet will cause a large wound channel and probably exit.

A larger wound channel creates more damage to the vitals. An exit wound allows more blood out and more air in.

The bullet size also matters. Larger bullets tend to create more damage. Bluntness rips, sharpness cuts.

If this was an easy question to answer, then we would not have such a variety of ammunition. Even the .45 acp comes in 165 gr to 230 gr (lighter/faster to heavier/slower), then with some being +P for even more speed. Handgun ammo is not developed with boat tails for long distances - it is developed to fulfill the variety of needs of the shooter. Everybody has a different opinion.

My opinion: expanding through and through is best. Faster bleed out and the faster bullet creates a larger wound channel.

One thing that we have not discussed is penetration of objects that may be on or in front of the BG.

Overall, if you can handle it, get a .357 mag or .44 mag or 10mm or 9/40/45 Auto +P. Maximum bullet weight for better penetration. You can mop up the mess later.
:D

If you want to put all the energy in the target, then get a .380 :uhoh: or a .25 :barf:
 
Thefumegator
There are a couple problems with your argument.
"However, if he runs off, since the bullet went through cleanly, he may survive without medical attention."
Not trying to be a wise guy or anything but I believe a lot of this comes from the movies. Having a bullet pass completely through your body doesn't mean you are OK. Having a bullet stop in your body doesn't mean you are going to die. One isn't nessessarily more deadly than the other. A good example is the movie Scarface. Frank says to Manny,
"I hear you caught one on the job". Manny says somthing to the effect, "Oh, it's nothing, it went in and out". Like that is OK. If the bullet went in and out of your left ventricle, that isn't good. If it went through musle or fat tissue only, you very well might survive without medical attention. If it was a hit anywhere in the trunk of your body, you are in deep do-do without medical attention whether the bullet went through and through or stopped somewhere inside. The thing that matters is what it hit inside the body. External bleeding certainly isn't nessessary. It is just a nice bonus. Having more air enter the chest cavity is just as nice. Having a bullet in your body doesn't nessessarily mean anything. In the movies, the treatment for a GSW is to remove the bullet. They pin the guy down, give him a shot of whiskey and remove the bullet with pliers. Obviously this does nothing to repair any of the damage done by the bullet. It only removed a piece of metal that was not causing any harm. There is absolutely no reason to remove the bullet. Again, what matters is what the bullet hit, the bullet inside lying in a static state very well might not cause harm at all unless it is resting against something important.
 
Some of you have no clue. You want the bullet to ,by some miracle, stop against the skin and not exit.There is no such thing !! Does the bullet do that if you go through the lungs without hitting ribs ? and the same bullet do that while hitting ribs ?? Do you change bullets for winter vs summer because of the clothing ?? The best thing you can do is to use premium ammo and practice so you can hit the BG.
 
Tissue damage, tissue damage, tissue damage. Violently disrupt the most amount of vital organs.

That's all there is to it.
 
Well, I live in a major city and am often around large groups. Over penetration is a consideration for me. Most of that came from carrying a 1911. Now I carry a 9mm with a 3.5" barrel and when loaded with modern expanding 124-127 Gr bullets, I really don't consider over penetration an issue.

For the general discussion of is a 44 Magnum with soft points better at stopping a human very quickly than a 9mm loaded with Ranger Talons, I tend to say no. I would rather have decent penetration (at least 10") and relatively reliably expansion. Now, I don't want something that only penetrates 4", but if the bullet is designed to penetrate 10"to 15" or so and expand (such as Rangers, Gold Dots, Golden Sabers), I'm happy and would rather carry those in 9mm or 40S&W than soft points or wadcutters in 357, 41 or 44 Magnum.
 
You boys need to take your pistols...

and go hunting.

You need penetration. Expansion is optional. The bullet absolutely HAS to have enough momentum to reach, and cause significant damage to, the vitals. When your talking about humans, that includes the upright spine. This is the fastest stop short of a headshot.

This requires a bullet that stays together (whether it expands or not) and penetrates in a straight line, so you have sufficient accuracy inside the body. It does little good to hit your man on the third shirt button if the bullet can't be counted on to travel on through the vitals. The FBI/Miami debacle is the best example that comes to mind, and it illustrates another point. This crap don't happen when it's convenient for you, and you can't always pick a pefectly closed line of fire when the shooting starts. There may well be people behind your man somewhere. If he kills you and takes your gun, they will be at his mercy. Best solve that problem right there on the end of your nose, before you worry much about the price of tea in China. You have to survive the firefight.

This kind of energy needed to accomplish all this means that the bullet is likely to exit if it misses the spine. All to the good, as long as you don't ding somebody's grandma in the process. Two hole ARE better than one, and yes they count as two. Two for blood to run out of, and two for air to get in from. Air entering the upper-torso via unconventional routes causes collapse of the lungs, which is another way to take the fight out of yor opponent. This is all about making the other fella "sicker, quicker" so he has other things besides killing you on his mind.

I get a big kick out of the theoretical arguments that these threads generate. Shoot a half-dozen deer, go to 20 years worth of shooting fracases, and then attend or review about 50 autopsies. Nobody questions the effectiveness of a 12 gauge slug, but few seem to understand that it depends on the same wounding mechanism as a handgun does.

I'll stop botherin' y'all now, and you can get back to your slide rules and "one-stop shot" charts. But do me a favor. If your butt's on the line, make sure you choose a weapon that has enough penetration to get the job done- even under less than ideal circumstances. You ain't gonna "blow anybody up" with a handgun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top