Velocity and Muzzle Energy vs Incapacitation

[fastbolt]

I don't think we will ever come up with a way to rank the service pistol cartridges so that the rankings accurately reflect the outcomes of real-world shootings. People and organizations have been trying for a very long time and no one has succeeded. People have been able to very accurately characterize the differences in terminal performance of the service pistol cartridges by using controlled conditions and gel shooting, but no one has been able to take the next step and prove that the differences between the service pistol cartridges that show up in gel shooting actually provide a practical/significant benefit to a defender in the real world.

The only reasonable conclusion we can come to is that it's very hard to tie differences in terminal performance in the service pistol performance class to differences in real-world shooting outcomes. It doesn't take much reasoning ability to understand that if there was a practical/significant benefit, we should be able to see it--it should show up when people look at the outcomes of real-world shootings. I mean, if we can't see it, what practical/significant benefit is it providing? The fact that no one has been able to make the connection suggests very strongly that if someone ever does pull it off, the benefit isn't going to be significant. If the benefit were significant, how could it be so hard to detect it?

If you want to improve your chances on the street, spend your money and time on practice and training--that will pay dividends. If you're using something in the service pistol performance class, the numbers stamped on the side of the gun or printed on the ammo boxes you buy aren't going to be what makes the difference.

Yep, if there was a consistently predictable, quantifiable difference (i.e. benefit), we'd have observed it over the last half century, at least.

You talk to more experienced trainers, though, and you start to hear something that ought not have to be said, and which you'd think would be 'common sense', which is ... better aiming of handgun shots and hits weirdly seems to correspond to 'better results'.

Not so much caliber, nor so much bullet design ... but more a question of what critical tissues, structures and organs are damaged. Sure, drugs, mental states and other factors may affect how (and how quickly) someone may react to a GSW, but critically located GSW seems to produce more reports of 'success' in rapid incapacitation.

Now, if someone wants to exercise their belief in the power of a 'talisman', or wants the 'comfort' of thinking they're carrying 'more effective' ammunition (caliber, brand, design, etc) ... there's always that.

All of that said, if I were restricted to choosing between a 158gr RNL or 158gr LSWC, I'd go with the one with the wider, flatter meplat and the pronounced sharp edges. Just because.

If required to choose Ball? I'd go with the largest caliber I could effectively control. Little larger ice pick hole GSW.

Etc, etc. Same old song & dance.

Less distraction and debate over borderline mystical properties of caliber and handgun bullets, and maybe some more training/practice trigger time? A little better grounding in realistic mindset, so you don't get stuck in a 'I don't believe this is happening to me?!!' mode before you can get traction making your way through the OODA Loop?

Some folks seem to think it's a question of Flight or Fight, an don't realize it's more realistically a Freeze, Flight or Fight response, and getting mired and stuck in a Freeze reaction can make whatever weapon you may be carrying more of a moot point.

 

[JohnKSa]

These other vital organs don't matter when you're trying to quickly stop someone.

Well, sorta. As you say:

"A powerful punch to the abdomen can displace organs in the abdomen, causing them to strain the diaphragm muscle between the abdominal and thoracic cavities of the torso. The strain causes the diaphragm muscle to suddenly contract and spasm, sometimes very painfully, and it can cause people to fall down in psychological reaction to the distress. It can also cause emotional fainting."

The temporary cavity is a blunt trauma effect, similar to a punch. In addition to bruising, and tearing damage to non-elastic organs, it can also have the same effects as a punch, (displacing organs is the definition of temporary cavity, in fact) particularly depending on where it hits. Is a person going to be permanently physically incapacitated? It's unlikely, but as with a punch, the effect can be rapid and profound. If a punch can down someone, think what a punch "from the inside", as it were, that actually results in significant tearing of the organ tissue, can do. They will likely stop shooting at you in the short term, or at least, one would expect their aim will be negatively affected.

There is the problem (as there is with any shot) that where one hits matters tremendously. One can't expect this kind of effect so I'm certainly not saying that people should expect temporary cavity to win gunfights for them. It's just one of the possibilities.

A broadhead hunting arrow possesses less kinetic energy than a .22 LR bullet.

Correct, but it has to have some or it wouldn't be a projectile, it would be an object at rest. Kinetic energy is integrally involved with the damage projectiles create, because without it you don't even have projectiles. But it's not THE answer. It is a part of the answer, but not the whole of it by any means.

It's worth noting that arrows create only penetrating wounds. They don't create any of the blunt trauma effect that temporary cavity creates.

What you hit is more important than what you hit with.

Absolutely.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The temporary cavity is a blunt trauma effect, similar to a punch. In addition to bruising, and damage to non-elastic organs, it can also have the same effects as a punch, particularly depending on where it hits. Is a person going to be permanently incapacitated? Probably not, but as with a punch, the effect can be rapid and profound. They will probably stop shooting at you in the short term, or at least, one would expect their aim will be negatively affected.

Aggressors that are drunk, drugged, psychotic and crazy, and/or acting with sheer determination to cause as much harm as possible may not react like one expects a rational person to react, and when that happens your bullets have to put holes in specific vitals to be quickly effective.

 

[JohnKSa]

Aggressors that are drunk, drugged, psychotic and crazy, and/or acting with sheer determination to cause as much harm as possible may not react like one expects a rational person to react,...

Absolutely. That is why such people are often much harder to stop and shootings involving them can devolve into nightmare scenarios. That fact is strong proof that there is a lot more going on than "bloodletting" when it comes to handgun incapacitation. If it were just a matter of people being incapacitated by blood loss, the effects you mention wouldn't have an effect on the outcome. When a person runs out of blood, it doesn't matter if they are drunk, drugged, psychotic, or determined.

 

[mavracer]

The effective diameter values are from Duncan MacPherson's book "Bullet Penetration".

MacPherson measured a bullet shape factor of .66 for SWC and truncated cone shaped bullets.

If you have a problem with MacPherson's values, then I suggest you take it up with him.

Get over your head and pull out the Appeal to Authority fallacy right on queue.
Just to clarify he didn't measure .66 he assigned it.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Get over your head and pull out the Appeal to Authority fallacy right on queue.
Just to clarify he didn't measure .66 he assigned it.

You accused me of making up numbers...

LOL do you ever stop to check your work?
Just for a point of reference when you make up numbers try the math first.
Just a point of reference the meplat of a typical SWC is about 69% of it's diameter.

So I cite the source of my information and you accuse me of appealing to authority.

Go feed your ego somewhere else.

 

[Bronco72]

Brain shot

 

[MarshallDodge]

What you hit is more important than what you hit with.

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[fastbolt]

Hell, folks. As gun owners & shooters we use words the way we wish to see them used, but aren't exactly known to use them in the most precise way.

Look how we use 'velocity', instead of 'speed'. We've forgotten our basic science and mix words the way that we like to hear/see them used. Remember, Speed is a scalar measurement of how fast a bullet is traveling. Velocity is vector, indicating both speed and a direction of movement.

Using the words that way, maybe the ammo makers ought to list speed, instead of velocity.

We seem to sometimes lose ourselves in shades of meaning and forget to pay attention to context and variables that may affect our definitions. Words mean things. Just not what everyone may think - or agree - they mean.

 

[mavracer]

You accused me of making up numbers...

If you lie with dogs
And in this case an appropriate double entendra.
The sad part is even when pointed out you don't recognize that the numbers you posted as to effective diameter don't work.

Go feed your ego somewhere else.

So no ego involved (at least on my end)

 

[entropy]

Entendre.
I wouldn't discount what Shawn is saying out of hand. After some PMs after a ballistics thread some time ago, I came to the conclusion that he does know what he's talking about, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[d2wing]

Entendre.
I wouldn't discount what Shawn is saying out of hand. After some PMs after a ballistics thread some time ago, I came to the conclusion that he does know what he's talking about, whether you agree with it or not.

He thinks he does. I do not agree.

 

[243winxb]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunshot_wound I think this is worth reading?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

True of elastic tissues. Veins, arteries and muscles tend to be quite elastic. Organs like the liver, spleen, kidney are significantly less elastic and can tear from temporary cavity in a way that resembles the "tearing" noted in ballistic gelatin.

Gunshot wounds in parenchymatous organs: the morphology mainly depends on the physical properties of the affected tissues* - International Journal of Legal Medicine

In contrast to gunshot wounds in skin and bone, the medico-legal literature pays little attention to the appearance of bullet penetration sites in abdominal organs. It was only in 1983 that Metter and Schulz published an article entitled “Morphological features of gunshot wounds in the liver and...

link.springer.com

I finally got the chance to read the article you posted.

Thanks for posting the link!

It presents a lot of good information. I've added it to my wound ballistics library.

Also of value are the links to several of the reference documents.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I'm aware of several of those studies, and many have been discredited (not "disproved" because in order to disprove something it must first be "proved"), such as Ann Marie Goransson's study in which anesthetized pigs were shot while hooked up to an EEG; and Dr. Dennis Tobin's theory that energy transfer causes the reticular activating system in the brain to shutdown.

Are you talking about Ann Marie Gransoon's 1988 Remote Cerebral effects on EEG in High Energy Missile Trauma?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Are you talking about Ann Marie Gransoon's 1988 remote cerebral effects on EEG in High Energy Missile Trauma?

Yes.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So was Goransson's study disproven or the disprover? If disproven, then by whom?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Not "disproved" because Goransson's experiment didn't "prove" anything.

In 2000, as a result of several online discussions between Todd Louis Green (if you don't know him, then Google his name) and myself about various incapacitation beliefs, I queried Fackler about Goransson's paper.

There were several incapacitation beliefs in circulation at the time but which, IMO, the professional wound ballistics community failed to adequately address (discredit), allowing these beliefs to thrive. I instigated Fackler to address several of these beliefs in print. Fackler replied:

"Why are you so interested in "What specifically discredits" [Goransson]? OK -- what discredits it is that she, along with Suneson et at., claims that the sonic pressure wave causes CNS damage at a distance (already disproved by Harvey-- see V1#1 ref). They have overlooked a far more likely cause -- the skeletal movement transmitted to the spine and possibly even as far as the brain causing CNS concussion in their 50 pound pigs -- when shot in proximal part of the thigh and have their femurs broken (same mechanism I explained above). Now, I ask you to read again pages 38 and 39 in the WBR Vol 1 # 1, 1991 (suggested previously) and see if it is clear to you this time. You said this citation doesn't directly address our concern? It clearly directly addresses the sonic shock wave theory -- which is what the Swedes (including Ann-Marie Gorannson) postulate as a tissue damaging mechanism."

"Question and Comments", IWBA Wound Ballistics Review, Vol 5 No 1, pp. 6-7. (Link)

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not "disproved" because Goransson's experiment didn't "prove" anything.

In 2000, as a result of several online discussions between Todd Louis Green (if you don't know him, then Google his name) and myself about various incapacitation beliefs, I queried Fackler about Goransson's paper.

There were several incapacitation beliefs in circulation at the time but which, IMO, the professional wound ballistics community failed to adequately address (discredit), allowing these beliefs to thrive. I instigated Fackler to address several of these beliefs in print. Fackler replied:

"Why are you so interested in "What specifically discredits" [Goransson]? OK -- what discredits it is that she, along with Suneson et at., claims that the sonic pressure wave causes CNS damage at a distance (already disproved by Harvey-- see V1#1 ref). They have overlooked a far more likely cause -- the skeletal movement transmitted to the spine and possibly even as far as the brain causing CNS concussion in their 50 pound pigs -- when shot in proximal part of the thigh and have their femurs broken (same mechanism I explained above). Now, I ask you to read again pages 38 and 39 in the WBR Vol 1 # 1, 1991 (suggested previously) and see if it is clear to you this time. You said this citation doesn't directly address our concern? It clearly directly addresses the sonic shock wave theory -- which is what the Swedes (including Ann-Marie Gorannson) postulate as a tissue damaging mechanism."

"Question and Comments", IWBA Wound Ballistics Review, Vol 5 No 1, pp. 6-7. (Link)

LOL, you keep claiming that something can't be disproved unless it is proven. You don't think you could disprove my claim that I have moved the original condition pre 9/11Twin Towers from New York into your living room? You could literally just go and look and see if I put them there, show people that the Twin Towers aren't in your living room despite my claims to the contrary. So you could literally prove the are not in your living room despite the fact that it was never proven that they were. Maybe you want to use logic to indirectly prove that something that is known to no longer exist (the original condition pre 9/11 Twin Towers) could have have been time ported from the past and also physically moved into your living room today by me. You could logically reason that. Seriously, you don't think hypotheses and theories can be disproved? I am sure Karl Popper is turning over in his grave right now, LOL.

So you justify "discredited" by saying something can't be disproven unless it has first been proved, but that is malarky. However, you are right. Fackler et al. haven't disproved anything. Then again, they have not proven they right. They have simply formed arguments for why they don't think it is happening. Others have formed arguments for why they think it does sometimes occur.

For the record, Goransson et al. never claimed CNS damage by sonic pressure waves in their 1988 research note. Goransson specifically states...

Conceiveably, the pressure and shock waves of the trauma were the causative factors.

and

The mechanism behind the effects observed is not yet known, nor can the absence of EEG effects in some animals be explained at present.

The statement of Fackler that Goransson make claims to the contrary, as per the quote you cited, are balderdash. Goransson never made such claims in said publication.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

LOL, you keep claiming that something can't be disproved unless it is proven. You don't think you could disprove my claim that I have moved the original condition pre 9/11Twin Towers from New York into your living room?

You made the claim, it's your responsibility to prove you moved the Towers to my living room.

"Show us."

If you can't prove it, then it's not my responsibility to "disprove" something you haven't proved.

So you justify "discredited" by saying something can't be disproven unless it has first been proved, but that is malarky. However, you are right. Fackler et al. haven't disproved anything. Then again, they have not proven they right. They have simply formed arguments for why they don't think it is happening. Others have formed arguments for why they think it does sometimes occur.

In this video, show us which hogs were instantly incapacitated by "pressure and shock waves" that depressed their CNS: (Link)

(I visited Stanford University Medical Library in the early 1990's and photocopied many wound ballistics papers from journals for my library, including Goransson's.)

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

When it comes to defensive carry against humans, does velocity and muzzle energy really matter? If a human is hit with a, just for sake of argument:

9mm 124 gr; 1200-1300 fps; 400+ fps
357 Sig 125/124 gr; 1400+ fps; 600 +/- ft-lb
357 mag 125 gr; 1600+ fps; 700 +/- ft-lb

If each round expands and penetrates to similar dimensions, is there any real world advantage to incapacitating and doing damage to a threat?

There seems to be this obsession and correlation with velocity and muzzle energy when it comes to what caliber and ammo people in the gun community choose to carry. What does higher velocity and muzzle energy of 9mm +p/+p+, 40s&w, 357 Sig, 10mm, 357 mag, 44 mag, etc. materialize itself when it comes to real world hits on target.

At issue here is many people have too narrow a focus and loose sight of the fact that terminal ballistics is a holistic field.

Velocity and muzzle energy are only a part of the whole picture. It IS important, to be sure, but it's not the be-all.

Kinetic energy, velocity, mass, momentum, bullet design, and even the target itself all figure into terminal ballistics. And several other aspects in addition, including real world factors such as recoil control and even concealability.

What good is a super-whamodyne, ultra high velocity, magic armor piercing, heat seeking, incendiary, explody bullet if you have a hard time managing recoil control in simulated self-defense training or if the gun that fires it can't be easily concealed/drawn?

People often get lost in wanting the bestest of the bestest, losing sight of the fact that a handgun, no matter how powerful, still represents the lowest powered form firearm. Also, there's the issue of practicality, which takes many forms.

Every aspect about every handgun is a compromise and must be intelligently balanced to best suit one's actual needs.

Pick a caliber/round combination that has proven and consistent penetration characteristics and reproducible terminal ballistics features when tested, and mate that up with a handgun, whose combination is reliable, controllable, and concealable (or just plain carriable, if open carrying).

You can ALWAYS experiment with different ammo for that pistol.

And you can ALWAYS decide to buy a different handgun.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Oh, and one other thing...

Don't bother talking about hydrostatic shock with respect to pistols.

Any potential for hydrostatic shock, much less hydrostatic shock that's reliably produceable AND effective, is really only achievable with rifles and rifle rounds.

 

[d2wing]

Numerous reports of actual events credit the .357 mag as a better stopper than a .38 Special. Bigger and faster is better. It's very simple. I don't understand why you need to argue about it. Also more bullets are better than fewer bullets properly placed. Any grade schooler an tell you that. It's pretty hard to take some of this seriously.
Besides as RetiredUSN said there are many other factors. Some that you may control, others you may not.
And energy is a measurement of the potential damage or work a bullet can do.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Numerous reports of actual events credit the .357 mag as a better stopper than a .38 Special. Bigger and faster is better. It's very simple ... And energy is a measurement of the potential damage or work a bullet can do.

A study of .357 Magnum shootings by a civilian California Highway Patrol employee revealed a couple of commonalities in circumstances that appear to explain why it seemed "more effective".

It had nothing to do with energy transfer.

The first finding was that shootings in which the "lightning bolt" effect occurred all happened at fairly close range.

The second finding was that these "lightning bolt" effect shootings also took place during hours of low light.

.357 Magnum produces a cannon-like KABOOM muzzle blast and, back in the day, it produced a large fireball muzzle flash.

The study postulated the effect at close range is the equivalent of having a flash/bang grenade explode in one's face that produced extreme psychological distress and disorientation to being shot or shot at.

 

[JohnKSa]

A study of .357 Magnum shootings by a civilian California Highway Patrol employee revealed a couple of commonalities in circumstances that appear to explain why it seemed "more effective".

It had nothing to do with energy transfer.
...
The study postulated the effect at close range is the equivalent of having a flash/bang grenade explode in one's face that produced extreme psychological distress and disorientation to being shot or shot at.

While I agree that the difference was not "energy transfer", your correct statements in the first and last sentences do not warrant the claim in the second sentence. The fact that they postulated something that "appeared to explain why" the difference existed is a far cry from proving that was the correct explanation or disproving other possible explanations.

This is sort of the same logical problem with the Goransson/Fackler disagreement. Fackler states that they "overlooked a far more likely cause" but offers no supporting evidence for why the cause he mentions is "far more likely" or any evidence that attacks the claims he asserts that Goransson made (whether she really made them or not).

The fact Goransson didn't list all the possible causes doesn't prove that she is wrong or prove that Fackler is right. The fact that he claims the overlooked cause is "far more likely" than the ones Goransson proposed isn't proof that it is correct or proof that the ones he asserts that Goransson made are incorrect. Even if he's right that it is "far more likely" that still isn't proof. Sometimes it's not the most likely explanation that turns out to be the correct one.

I think a big part of the problem with this general topic is that a lot of what appears to be fact turns out to be opinion when one begins to peel the onion.