BMI vs FPS

P

Pond James Pond

New member
I was reading a thread a few minutes ago that briefly touched on the point of clothing being quite an effective obstacle to bullets, especially in weaker chamberings, I started wondering about other "obstacles".

In Western society (and increasingly others), the ubiquitous processed food of modern living is making the populations typically more "corpulent".

So for me the question arises:
Does a higher BMI actually make rounds less effective?
 
A higher bmi makes everything less effective. Your cardiovascular system, the ability to tie your shoes without getting winded, appearing attractive to the opposite sex.

Be that as it may, you will need to be more specific in regards to the term effective. Effective at what specifically? If you are referring to the ability to stop an aggressor, that depends on a myriad of other influences.

However, I see you're line of reasoning but I think that being fat would only increase the efficacy of the round you are being shot with. Case in point, being fat slows you down. And being shot is going to slow you down even more.
 
However, I see you're line of reasoning but I think that being fat would only increase the efficacy of the round you are being shot with. Case in point, being fat slows you down. And being shot is going to slow you down even more.
Click to expand...

ONly if it reaches something important. Otherwise it is just a flesh wound. I mean it would hurt, but if they had a mind to do you harm regardless, shots from anything sub 9mm might struggle even more than normal to dissuade an attack.

Being fat gives a bullet of middling power far more tissue to negotiate before reaching anything resembling vital and even that is typically enveloped in fat too. Fat is actually quite dense, if not hard.

So, in other words, could a portly assailant be harder to incapacitate in the usual sense?
 
In 1992, Trooper Mark Coates was killed with a .22lr that went into his heart from the armpit opening of his vest after he had shot his corpulent assailant five times COM with a .357 magnum.
 
Mythbusters actually tested this. They used bovine fat and muscle packed into a large Lucite tube at a thickness that equated to a human body weight of > 300 lbs, and fired 9mm and 45 ACP rounds at the muscle/fat. Penetration into the backup ballistics gel was not significantly affected by the bovine tissue. So corpulence does not seem to be effective body armor.
 
BTW, fat is not hard. It is significantly less dense and resistant than muscle tissue. Bone, of course is the densest body component and has the potential to deflect a projectile such as a bullet.
 
Today's greater body weights mean a bullet often will have to penetrate more deeply to find vital tissues than it once would have had to do. Thus, ignore the IWBA's minimal penetration criterion at your peril.

Clothing generally does not pose a problem in regard to penetration. Clothing tends to clog hollowpoints, which can impair expansion, but reducing expansion increases penetration, and penetration über alles.
 
BMI is a poor indicator on humans anyway, it is only accurate on true couch potatoes. Body fat percentages are much more accurate and it is not unusual to see someone with a BMI indicating they are obese, but with a very healthy, even athletic fat percentage. Especially anyone who is even remotely athletic.

I think that relates to bullet performance too. A large muscular man is far different than a large fat man. But any tissue that has to be overcome in order to reach vitals is going to be somewhat effective. Fat not as much as muscle, but it is denser than air.
 
jmr40 said:
it is not unusual to see someone with a BMI indicating they are obese, but with a very healthy, even athletic fat percentage. Especially anyone who is even remotely athletic.
Click to expand...

This is a common overstatement.

These folks certainly exist, but when looking at entire populations, BMI certainly tracks more closely with obesity. That's why, despite the outliers, BMI is still used as a proxy for obesity. IOW, statistically, someone with a BMI over 30 is much more likely to be obese than big and athletic. Just look around - how many do you see every day that look like the former, compared to the latter?
 
BMI is used for the individual for health related measures. It's a measurement that your doctor shares with you, personally...and not a very good one, to be honest. Statistically throughout the country doesn't mean much...It wouldn't surprise me to see norther countries having higher BMIs than southern African countries. A lot of it has to do with genetics.

Anybody who is muscular and short has a higher than average BMI..that's just the way it is calculated.

They should be recording body fat percentages, but that would take an actual measurement instead of just a sloppy calculation.


Not that I'm arguing America is fine with the fatties...it's not; the country really needs to slim down.
 
OK. It seems the actual validity of the BMI as a tool is being scrutinized but let's not get too hung up on that.

To be clear the term BMI was used to give some context but really the question is simply:

"Does obesity, by its nature, afford that person a degree of protection for regular SD handgun ammunition at regular SD distances?"
 
Doubtful.

Although, my wife had a case once where the guy who got shot like 5 times was hugely fat and lived...didn't even cause real damage.

Maybe it's an issue where the target is so large that it is harder to hit actual organs because most of it is useless fat.
 
"Aim small miss small"
If COM is not small...

BMI was accepted when calculating body fat % reliably was cost prohibitive in public health facilities. Any clinic should be taking height and weight at time of admittance already. Bringing out another expensive electronic contraption prone to failure and theft was cost prohibitive.
 
Last edited:
" attractive to the oppostite sex"

Obviously stated by a skinny guy, with a skinny girlfriend.

The above intended as comedy......no offense intended to anybody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top