Velocity vs Bullet weight. Here we go.

[RetiredUSNChief]

Also again, JR, you can't make comparisons with rifles. A .50 BMG is a whole 'nuther beast. Might just as well compare a 20mm or 30mm round at that point.

If you must make comparisons, then limit them to other handguns, like the .357 example you gave (a good one)...even then there is enough variety in performance characteristics to keep any debate going ad nauseum.

"Shock wave" effects, both physiological and psychological, cannot be entirely discounted. However, the one true factor which has consistently proven to be more important than any other is PENETRATION. Not shock effects, not velocity, not even caliber.

You MUST have penetration sufficient to reach vital organs.

When push comes to shove, penetration is EXACTLY what ANY handgun (and rifle/shotgun) is really designed to do: poke holes in the target using some kind of pellet. I think people sometimes lose sight of this.

Additional side effects/benefits which may go along with that are supplementary to that primary purpose.

 

[JRWhit]

The rifle comparison is just to exaggerate the effect, or theoretical effect, I'm referring to. I know the difference is extreme. I was just questioning if there could be any more chance of survival by buying that split second of more time,even if that extra time was not guaranteed in every scenario. I know nothing is guaranteed. Those who choose to carry, do so to increase chances of survival, but know it does not guarantee it. I myself, reflecting on what I use for defense rounds, Have made a choice that does not correlate to this theory. It's just that in watching the bad guy in the video take a hit and carry on as though it didn't even sting a little even though it was a well placed fatal shot, gets the ole hamster wheel turning.

 

[Missileman]

As some have mentioned the adrenaline level of the target is the biggest difference in my mind. Even a totally incapacitating fatal shot is almost useless if the target has already received his adrenaline surge. When I was hunting I had a buck one time that heard me click a safety off, but couldn't locate me. He was alert with ears up trying to locate me for an escape. The 220 grain 30-06 went in the front shoulder, through one lung, split the heart, and left an exit hole having part of the other lung hanging out. He ran almost 1/2 mile before collapsing. Anytime they were alert , it was going to be a chase. Most times when they were oblivious to my presence, they dropped on the spot. I believe you get the same reaction from a human target. Adrenaline is an extremely powerful chemical. Like someone said earlier, if you don't do a CNS shot, they will probably continue to fight until they bleed out or die when the tissues just can't perform anymore.

 

[blarby]

I'd say again that the "shockwave" and "knockdown power" arguments are still pretty invalid.

"Threats" in this case, violent perps, stop for only a few reasons- as illustrated in the video.

You can either get an extremely lucky CNS hit, rendering your subject unable to tranmit electrical impulses through the body causing motion, OR

You can cause a loss of blood sufficient to disable the functioning of the brain, OR

You can cause a combination pyschological and physical condition similar to "shock" that shuts the attacker down. Essentially, they give up, and quickly expire due to their wounds. This is one thats still under debate, and I wouldn't count on an assailant "given' up and dyin" on you in an assault. It does however, happen. People give up and die all the time- especially when wounded or otherwise harmed.

You can expand your wound channel, hoping for either faster blood loss- OR hoping to sever nervous channels that allow mobility. Thats pretty much it on a soft target.

No amount of wounding you can do, short of vaporizing your target, can stop a determined assailant before they can hurt you. Heart, lungs, any other organ short of the brain- is still going to leave you with a still live and now potentially lethally wounded attacker.

Magdump until they stop. The more holes, the faster they bleed out- and you might even get lucky with a CNS hit.

Doesnt matter if you have a 45 with 7-10 rounds, or a 9 with 17-30... your object should be the same : perforate as efficiently as possible. Do not stop until your assailant stops.


On a human assailant, assuming you can penetrate ( which it isn't hard ) the weight or velocity is less of a consequence. The delivery device enabling you to place those shots on target efficently is more of the concern.

On a hunting target of large size, being able to create a wound channel of appropriate size to cause the animal to bleed out is more a matter of bullet construction than weight. Velocity in rifles ( between 1900 and 2800 FPS in most hunting weights ) is more than sufficient to do the job. At the high, or the low, end. Its simply a measure of math used in steering your bullet where you want it to go.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The rifle comparison is just to exaggerate the effect, or theoretical effect, I'm referring to. I know the difference is extreme. I was just questioning if there could be any more chance of survival by buying that split second of more time,even if that extra time was not guaranteed in every scenario. I know nothing is guaranteed. Those who choose to carry, do so to increase chances of survival, but know it does not guarantee it. I myself, reflecting on what I use for defense rounds, Have made a choice that does not correlate to this theory. It's just that in watching the bad guy in the video take a hit and carry on as though it didn't even sting a little even though it was a well placed fatal shot, gets the ole hamster wheel turning.

Fair enough.

However, increasing one or more performance charactistics is ALWAYS an exercise in pros and cons, cost and trade-offs. And by "cost", I don't mean financial expenses. I mean what it costs the individual to actually utilize the weapon in terms of performance.

If you want to significantly increase the velocity of a given mass/caliber, this will involve some expenses and trade-offs. By "significantly", I mean in readily measurable and repeatable results in actual performance dynamics. For example, let's assume you want to increase the velocity of a 230 grain .45 acp bullet from a nominal 850 fps to 1500 fps.

There is a huge difference in recoil in accomplishing this. This will cost the individual in terms of being able to control the gun and be able to accurately and quickly put rounds on target, especially in a self-defence scenario.

These kinds of chamber pressures and physical forces felt on the static and dynamic parts of the gun require the gun to be built larger and beefier in order to funciton reliably without catastrophically failing under use. This affects such things as concealabilty and handling, which in turn costs the user in ability to accurately and quickly put rounds on target.

So there are a couple things that have to be considered here:

1. Is the increase in performance due to the increase velocity actually worth it in terms of actual down range performance?

2. Are the trade-offs and expenses in engineering the handgun to withstand this increase in velocity actually worth it in terms of the ability of the person to handle the weapon?


So, maybe you decide that jacking a 230 grain, .45 acp bullet up to 1500 fps requires sacrificing too much elsewhere...so you decide to change the mass of the bullet or the caliber of the bullet. Now you're intentionally shifting the trade-offs to mass and caliber to see if the cost will justify the performance.

You can see where this is going.


Fortunately for us, there is a HUGE market of handgun calibers to choose from which offer us an incredibly wide variety of choices in performance.

And for all these performance characteristics, we can see the engineering requirements which go into them. There is a reason, for example, that you don't see a .500 Magnum in a .380 sized semi-automatic. And that reason is due to the inherent limitations with handguns.


The 500 S&W Magnum can easily launch a 400 grain bullet a half inch in diameter at velocities in excess of 1600 fps. But for self-defense, do you want to try carrying this concealed...or even open carry? Can you physically draw, aim, and put six rounds on target as quickly and accurately as another handgun which doesn't have near this extreme in performance characteristics?


Increasing velocity DOES have an effect on terminal performance. Unfortunately for handguns, getting velocities significant enough to actually have an overriding significant effect on the terminal performance simply costs too much.


I said before that the single most important factor in being able to take down a living target with a personal firearm is that firearm's ability to penetrate. ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE SECONDARY TO THIS! If you can significantly increase performance by significantly increasing those other factors, GREAT. But be mindful of the cost entailed.

A firearm is designed first and foremost as a weapon to remotely perforate a target. The better it can perforate the target, the better chance you have at reaching vital organs and causing enough blood loss to incapacitate that target.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I said before that the single most important factor in being able to take down a living target with a personal firearm is that firearm's ability to penetrate. ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE SECONDARY TO THIS!

Wouldn't the most important factor in being able to take down a living target be the ability of the user+firearm to HIT the target?

Penetration of the empty air to the left of the target is less than useful.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Wouldn't the most important factor in being able to take down a living target be the ability of the user+firearm to HIT the target?

Penetration of the empty air to the left of the target is less than useful.

Heh! That should go without saying that poking a hole in one's target requires one to HIT the target...

 

[Trent]

Transferring force doesn't kill someone.

Otherwise body armor would be useless. It causes ALL of the energy to be expended before entering the body. It effectively transfers *all* of the force to the object (bad guy) in an instant.

But that doesn't do any damage. Because the round is stopped just short (or in most cases, a dimple, in the human flesh, which bounces back out). All of the energy transfers, but it does no damage.

No, what incapacitates people is:

A) Blood loss, caused by permanent crush cavity damaging and/or destroying blood vessels.
B) Structural damage (shattered femur, spine); hard to do with a gun, easier with a car..
C) Central nervous system disruption. (Brain can't communicate with vital organs anymore either due to intervening nerve disruption or disruption of the brain itself).

Nothing short of one of those three will end a threat, unless they CHOOSE to stop being a threat.

"Oh I've been shot I have to fall down" = conditioned response by watching too many movies. Plenty enough humans and animals have been shot and decide to not fall down over the years, to prove you don't need to.

Permanent crush cavity causes damage. If that permanent crush cavity opens a big enough artery, you bleed out, but you are still in the fight until you lose consciousness.

If it destroys something structural that prevents you from standing (knee, femur; but not pelvis), you fall down but aren't out of the fight.

If it destroys a vital organ, you bleed for awhile and then die, but doesn't necessarily mean you are out of the fight. Heart-shot criminals have killed the officer that shot them before they collapse and die.

If it destroys your brain, spine, or otherwise prevents signals from reaching your heart and lungs, you die. Usually you are done for instantly in that case.

Note that some wounds (Severed aorta, for instance) cause such a rapid loss in blood pressure from bleeding that you WILL lose consciousness; shock sets in almost immediately. That's kind of a special case, though. If your aorta is severed (as it was when my uncle had his firearms accident), you really don't have time to do anything. Your circulatory system has a massive loss of pressure and it shocks your brain, you go down and fall unconscious. (First hand report of when my uncle shot himself accidentally, severed his aorta).

Anyway.. definitely energy transfer doesn't mean diddly, unless you're talking about a 155mm howitzer detonating next to you or you are within the area of effect of a 500 lb bomb. Then, yeah, I'll argue that energy transfer does matter.

 

[Orion8472]

So Trent . . . [nice post, BTW], it would seem that most handgun rounds [from 22lr to 5.7x28 to 9mm to 45acp] can be effective or ineffective, depending upon where the person is hit.

 

[MachIVshooter]

So Trent . . . [nice post, BTW], it would seem that most handgun rounds [from 22lr to 5.7x28 to 9mm to 45acp] can be effective or ineffective, depending upon where the person is hit.

I know you directed this at Trent, but......

You can broaden that from handgun to firearm. The high velocity of a rifle round does not mitigate poor bullet placement.

High velocity rifle rounds definitely do more damage than pistol rounds, but if a vital structure isn't hit, then a vital structure isn't hit, whether the wound channel is 0.35" wide or 3.5" wide. Rounds that do greater damage simply give you a wider margin of error.

 

[Trent]

Orion;

Yes, *all* firearms rounds can be effective depending on where the person is hit.

Using larger calibers offers you a broader swath of permanent crush cavity. If you discount jacketed hollowpoint expansion and fragmentation (neither of which are 100% reliable), and compare base projectile size, a 45 caliber projectile gives you about a 20% boost in the width of the crush cavity. That doesn't mean it does 20% more damage (the human body is LARGE, compared to that tiny hole, you're damaging VERY little tissue if you compare the two by surface area)! That just means that the crush cavity is around 20% wider in diameter.

This means that you *might* nick an artery that you otherwise missed.

Permanent crush cavity is that - the tissue is obliterated. Gone. History. Hamburger. It's what happens when a near-or-above-supersonic bullet impacts with cells in your body which are mostly made of water. The cells rupture, and cease to be cells!

As the bullet slows, the permanent crush cavity narrows and then ceases to exist. What you get then is tissue tearing, very little permanent damage. (You also get tissue tearing around the permanent crush cavity but very little - arteries, muscle, etc are very elastic and very tough tissues). At the end of the bullet's wound channel it might only push arteries aside. Or crack, instead of obliterate bone.

When you get to VERY high velocity projectiles you can get a nifty phenomenon where you induce nerve shock in nearby nerve clusters. This was witnessed during the FBI miami shootout where an agent took a 223 round through the neck, it temporarily paralyzed the agent as it disrupted nerve communications (but did not strike the nerves).

However, the shot has to be VERY close to the central nervous system, and moving VERY fast, for that to happen.

The "hydrostatic shock" you might hear about from supersonic rounds is true, but not to the awesome degree you might hear it described in various articles. It's a very localized effect caused by the supersonic "bubble" around the projectile. Supersonic rounds WILL induce more tearing of tissue than subsonic rounds, because the tissues are displaced with much greater force. This "temporary cavity" that forms can be very destructive to certain organs, which are not as resilient as others when stretched.

Now, given the surface area of an average human being, and the .097 difference in diameter between a 9mm and a 45 ACP round, what do you think the net effect is in overall stopping power?

Compare a .22 caliber to a .45 caliber hole. Are you more likely to hit something that will incapacitate an attacker, knowing that only two things will stop them? (Unconsciousness from blood loss or central nervous system damage)

Shot placement is key.

In fact, it's downright CRITICAL.

The only BIG difference in calibers comes in how deep the projectiles penetrate while still doing permanent crush cavity damage.

A #7 pellet from a shotgun crushes very little tissue, leaves a tiny permanent crush cavity radius, and doesn't penetrate deeply. But get ENOUGH of those pellets in one area, if the area is critical, you're in big trouble.

A 22 subsonic round won't kill a man if it hits him in the hand. But then, neither will a 50 BMG. One hole will be .22" across. One will be .50" across. One might break a bone. The other will remove the whole bone.

When you shoot to stop an attacker, you shoot center of mass. Because that's where all the blood vessels meet. And in order to stop that attacker, you need to cause blood loss until they are unconscious. (Or get lucky, and get a CNS hit.)

All things being equal, a bigger bullet will let more blood out.

But a little bullet in the right place will kill you dead as a doornail, too.

Considering that your potential future attacker might be a 350 pound body builder, you need to make sure the round you have penetrates to hit vital organs. You might hit him in the side. Through an arm. Through a wall and THEN in to the arm, through a thick coat, and then through 2" of muscle before hitting a rib, and then MAYBE hitting an artery.

I don't mind keeping a 5.7x28mm for home defense because I know when I pull the trigger I'm center of mass. I'm *going* to hit something vital. I don't plan on shooting once. I don't plan on shooting until they fall down. I plan on shooting until they fall down and aren't pointing that weapon at me anymore. I can do all of that faster with a 5.7. And still have rounds to spare if his armed buddy follows him around the corner.

But that 5.7 is going to fragment fast, stop fast, and not hit one of my 5 kids or 3 dogs or 4 cats in another room (hopefully).

When I travel, I keep a 9mm on me. Because I'm faster (by .08 seconds) on split times with it (avg. .17 seconds). That's a third bullet out the barrel for every 2 bullets I'd fire from my 45 (accurately; I average .25 seconds split times on it).

And it gives me 50% more ammo capacity to boot.

And it penetrates deep enough that I'm comfortable with it's lethality, if the bad guy happens to be a steroid pumped body builder. Kids and pets I can't see behind walls aren't as much of a factor outside as they are when they're all clustered in my house together. They still are, so shot placement is still very important, as is knowing when to shoot, and when not to shoot.

So I go with the biggest caliber I can shoot accurately and fast. I can get 50% more bang for my available time with a 9mm, and 50% more ammo for the weight.

That WAY outweighs the additional diameter of my impacts, if I were to carry a 45. Because 3 9mm bullets in a bad guy cause a hell of a lot more damage than 2 45's do, if they are all clustered center mass!

A 12 gauge is better, because then you get the equivalent of 15 9mm bullets out of a 3" 00 buck magnum round, with each pull of the trigger. But 00 buck penetrates REALLY far, and I won't use it for home defense because of that.

 

[Orion8472]

Thanks again, Trent.

I'm in the process of considering the sale of my Five Seven. I have a fair number of rounds, . . . and like the way it shoots [as well as its accuracy], but realistically, a 9mm loaded with Federal HST rounds [147gr] would probably be a "better choice". And practicing with the 9mm is quite a bit cheaper.

Having said that, I hope to never need to prove any of that. If I can get out of the situation, I will do so as quickly as possible. The LAST thing I want to do is to get into a gun fight.

 

[Trent]

Yeah, people tend to get hurt in gun fights. Best to avoid them altogether.

 

[wally]

This once again raises the question to me of higher velocity vs heavier bullet weight.

Bullet placement and adequate penetration trumps everything, especially with handgun rounds.

Study the Regan assassination attempt. An inferior caliber with two accidentally very well placed bullets were true one shot drops, while a poorly place round left Reagan not knowing he was hit until he saw the blood, but it still darn near killed him an hour later.