Caliber effectiveness

I think of a handgun bullet wound as a combination of blunt trauma and penetrating wound.

The temporary cavity equates to blunt trauma. It causes pain, bruising, and may, if the right organs are involved, cause some wounding. Think of it as a punch. It won't generally cause any significant injury unless certain organs are involved. The spleen, for example, isn't very elastic and can be ruptured by blunt trauma. The liver is the same.

The penetrating wound goes deep and is likely to cause serious injury because when you start poking holes all the way, or at least most of the way through a human body, it's likely something important will be damaged. It may or may not cause immediate pain, but if you die or become physically incapacitated, the penetration aspect of the bullet wound is probably what caused it.

You want both. It's pretty obvious why you want penetration--if physical incapacitation is necessary that's the way you're going to get it. Also, the penetrating aspect of the wound is a big part of why guns are so feared.

But you also want the blunt trauma because it immediately lets the attacker know that an injury has taken place. It's of no value if the attacker bleeds out 5 minutes after killing you. Most handgun "stops" are due to the attacker giving up and their understanding that they have been shot is an important factor in that respect.

In my opinion, the "notification" aspect of the temporary cavity is likely the biggest benefit of expansion in handgun rounds. Good expansion causes a bigger temporary stretch cavity. The larger the stretch cavity is, the stronger the "punch" that the attacker feels and the more likely they are to interpret the injury as serious and give up.
 
John gives us some excellent points, here, known to some, and ignored by a great many.

A big one is the main flaw in "one shot stop" data. There are two kinds of stops. One, where a bullet strike physically stops the attacker from further attack, the other, is where the attacker stops themselves (consciously or unconsciously) because they were struck by a bullet.

This, the specific reaction to being shot, isn't something that can be predicted in advance, or quantified and plugged into any mathematical formula.

Literally, every single individual could react differently. You might have the bad luck to be facing a "terminator" type, who absolutely will not stop, until physically disabled. Or you might be facing the type that collapses because they were shot, somewhere, and thousands of hours of video training via TV movies, and games has "taught" them that when shot, one falls down.
Or you might face anything inbetween.

I knew a cop who got hit with a .22 Magnum during a gunfight. Bullet entered his arm just below the elbow, and went down his arm, ending up embedded in the wood grip of his service revolver. He said he never even noticed it, until after the fight was over, and he discovered he was bleeding. THEN, it "hurt like hell"...

Served with a guy who took 3 AK hits to his torso, he said that while he noticed the first two hits, they didn't stop him, but that 3rd one knocked him down...
I saw a guy take a .357 through his shin. He stayed on his feet for maybe 10 seconds, swaying, looking at the blood pouring out, then collapsed.

If the bullet, rifle, pistol, or even shotgun slug, doesn't hit one of the "off buttons" the reaction can be hugely different with each different person. Can be, not "will always" be. Those hits might be fatal, later, but might not be instantly incapacitating


The big flaw in one shot stop data, and to a much lesser degree, ALL "stopping power" data is that we can almost never know, with certainty the exact reason the attacker stopped. If they died, there's no point in asking them, they won't answer. If they didn't, they may not know, or realize if they were stopped or stopped themselves.

And collecting data from police reports etc., can only tell us what happened, not why it happened the way it did.

I agree that, what ever actually causes it, an attacker feeling the "punch" or "bite" of being shot ups the odds of ending the attack.
 
Yea, another one.

Not worth watching as its irrelevant to the real world.

Like all things, that is where data counts.

And its all percentages. Some days they are with you and other days not.
 
Although projectiles of higher kinetic energy may expend a portion of that energy by temporary displacement of elastic tissues, it is highly questionable whether that energy expenditure correlates with any effective wounding mechanism, at least insofar as handgun projectiles are concerned
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain the differences between the 38 Special and the 357 Magnum when the only difference in more energy?

The original 9mm pistol, the Luger had an 8 round magazine. So did its replacement, the P.38. For the German military, using FMJ ammo, for over 40 years and two World Wars, apparently, 8 was enough... (and they didn't lose either of those wars because of "only" 8 round pistols...
Click to expand...

8 was enough because the pistols were used for shooting deserters and trouble makers, not fighting, historical doctrine.
 
Nanuk said:
Then how do you explain the differences between the 38 Special and the 357 Magnum when the only difference in more energy?



8 was enough because the pistols were used for shooting deserters and trouble makers, not fighting, historical doctrine.
Click to expand...
The difference is more velocity, typically anywhere from around 38% to over 50% more velocity in a .357 diameter projectile on a same weight basis.

Of course, more velocity means more energy but that is hardly the only thing. It also means more momentum (38 to over 50% more). More velocity and momentum mean potentially better penetration but also greater ability to shatter bone that the projectile hits, plow right on through the sternum and keep on going, etc.
 
OK,for a strictly non-scientific report: over the past several years, I have shot literally hundreds of running raccoons, with both the .40 and .45. Using live traps, I like to roll it over, let them run for it, and see how it goes. There is no question, the .40 stops them more reliably than the .45, each loaded with quality hollow point bullets, and top end loads. Now, have I parked my carry .45? No. But the difference in results is very obvious.
 
8 was enough because the pistols were used for shooting deserters and trouble makers, not fighting, historical doctrine.
Click to expand...

Doctrine is what the boss says you should do. Reality is often different. There are plenty of verified examples of people using handguns in combat, against uniformed enemy military. As well as them being used to shoot "deserters and trouble makers".

Sure, a handgun isn't meant to be the primary offensive weapon, but it absolutely has been used in that role by lots of people over lots of years.
 
I like zPlinker’s data point.

As for being “unscientific”... not necessarily.

Traditional science was “quantitative”... by using experimental techniques then statistical analysis, the goal is to prove or disprove a hypothesis in a way that the same experiment can be repeated by others. If the results can be repeated by others, “that’s the ree in research” as my boss used to say.

Although disparaged by people who don’t understand it, sometimes very complex questions can be answered using “qualitative” research. Sometimes you simply can’t do an experiment 100 times. So instead, there are accepted ways to do good qualitative research and some stuff that is simply “bad science.” The goal is to document what one does and carefully write up your impressions. Of course, bias is possible and one works to overcome that.

Now, a man says “I’ve shot a whole bunch of raccoons with both and .40 is a lot better at it, you can easily tell”... I absolutely believe him.

My love of the .45 comes from my intended use for it, which was as a target shooting range toy. I had a Glock 22 long slide race gun that I got in a trade from a guy that sunk a lot of money in to it. I tried to love it, too. For what I did, it was too much power for shooting paper and for hunting I prefer .44 magnum.

Hardball .45acp is not real pleasant, either but tamed by generally heavier steel guns compared to the traditional Glock polymer. As a “woods gun”, light weight is important as I walk miles. For a range toy, heavy is good.

Let’s see... if I had to make a list of stuff I would not want to be on the wrong end of a traditional semi-auto pistol by, .40 is probably at the top of the list for “please, if I have to get shot, not the .40” But I still an not standing in front of a .22 short, either. If I had to make a terrible choice, that’s my pick to get shot with. Hunting guns are exempt from this list... like .44 and the super magnums.
 
Last edited:
The difference is more velocity, typically anywhere from around 38% to over 50% more velocity in a .357 diameter projectile on a same weight basis.

Of course, more velocity means more energy but that is hardly the only thing. It also means more momentum (38 to over 50% more). More velocity and momentum mean potentially better penetration but also greater ability to shatter bone that the projectile hits, plow right on through the sternum and keep on going, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which to me at least seems at odds with your previous statement.
 
There are plenty of verified examples of people using handguns in combat, against uniformed enemy military.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are but we are talking about Germans in WWI and WWII. I believe only officers carried pistols in the German Army.
 
Nanuk said:
Exactly. Which to me at least seems at odds with your previous statement.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that it is unnecessary to invoke damage outside of the primary crush channel resulting from a larger temporary cavity as a result of greater kinetic energy delivery to explain greater wounding potential resulting from higher velocity.

It has long been argued, as JohnKSa alluded, that a large temporary cavity might correlate with some sort of physiological or psychological shock that can perhaps transiently disable the GSW victim in the absence of any visible tissue damage within the temporary cavity. That is a possibility, but may be impossible to either prove or disprove.

Physicians and biological scientists have searched for years for an objective means of quantitating perceived pain without success. In other words, I cannot objectively measure how much pain another person is feeling, any more than I can know what they are thinking. I can only go by what they tell me. And the reactions of individuals who are shot vary from "I didn't know it" to "The worst pain I ever felt".
 
Last edited:
Size(bullet) matters but weight(gun) matters more, for CC. Everything else is background noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
None of this helps me decide between a 7 rd 45 ACP Shield and an 8 rd 9mm Shield.

And no,telling me to choose a different gun is not the point.
 
The simple truth is that the most effective pistol caliber for a given individual is the one that he/she can shoot well. Missing the target with a 10mm, 45 Super, 44 Mag, or 500 S&W isn't as effective as hitting it with a 25, 32, or 380.
 
peterg7 said:
Size(bullet) matters but weight(gun) matters more, for CC. Everything else is background noise.
Click to expand...
So, by your logic (or lack thereof) an empty 25acp pocket gun would be the most effective CC weapon because it's the smallest and lightest.

NOT!!
 
Yes, there are but we are talking about Germans in WWI and WWII. I believe only officers carried pistols in the German Army.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. A lot of German soldiers carried pistols. More so, over all, than ours did. from Line Infantry NCOs, though Paratroops, Panzer crewmen, and crew served weapon crews (machine guns, etc)

Squad leaders carried either 9mm pistols or SMGs, sometimes both. Officers carried pistols, sure, and rarely anything else, even in the Infantry.

Additionally, the Nazis were kind of "pistol crazy". Nearly EVERY Nazi uniform, from combat troops down to the dog catcher and the postman had a pistol as part of their uniform. Often a dagger as well, and while the daggers weren't daily wear, the pistols WERE.
 
COSteve said:
So, by your logic (or lack thereof) an empty 25acp pocket gun would be the most effective CC weapon because it's the smallest and lightest.



NOT!!
Click to expand...

O if it’s

Now that’s just being boorish.

the loaded gun on my belt(or pocket) will do me more good than the one in the safe, So if it’s a 9mm or .380 then I ok with it. Just as I would with a .40 I just can’t always CC a G23


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
7 round .45acp vs. 8 round Shield- which is better? Better for what, under what circumstance?

The marketing department at firearms companies would not like it if you all shared my opinion: they are close enough that it’s simply personal preference and “fashion.” It doesn’t matter.

But to sell guns,
Which is better: seven rounds of .45 or 21 rounds of 9mm? Everyone buy high capacity 9mm. Time passes, sales dwindle.
Which is better, 21 rounds of 9mm or 18 rounds of .40? Everyone runs to buy a .40. Time passes, sales dwindle.
Which is better, a special forces sized .40 or teeny tiny micropistols? Everyone buy a micropistol and argue about tiny revolvers only having 5 shots.
Which is better, just tell me what to buy for my wife? (which is like getting your mom a baseball glove for Christmas.) Back to the Glock 42 and M&P Shield EZ which remarkably swing us back around to what the cops carried in Europe before WW2 and was powerful enough to start WWI (arch duke Ferdinand was assassinated with a .380 so there is a data point regarding “starting power.” It started a world war.)

Okay, it’s good enough for a wife or girlfriend but .... moar power... see, 9mm is moar powah... everyone buy..... single stack compacts because .38 special sucks despite being good enough for the cops for decades.

Meanwhile, Gramps sold his old Python for $4,000 because Rick shoots zombies with it on the Netflix and some kid had to have it. His old .45 still shoots great after 60 years of faithful service, so it’ll do.

It’s fun. Buy it, try it, trade it if you don’t like it. Cheaper than golf as a hobby.
 
Maybe I was not clear. I'm talking about a 45ACP Shield 2.0 vs a 9 mm Shield 2.0.
The capacity difference is one round.

Other than that,they are close to identical.

The niche is to be light/compact enough for edc.

I'm leaning toward the 45,but loaded,it will weigh a little more,and the gun seems to cost a little more in 45. 9 mm's are easier to find,more likely to be on sale.
9mm and 45 are already in the supply chain,dies,brass,etc. I don't think I want to add 40 S+W
One of these days I'll just pick one.Its no big deal.I'm not paralyzed by the choice.

Its my way of saying I did not find anything new in the video. I still remember when I throw a big rock in a pond it makes more disruption than a small rock.


A GSW that cuts the abdominal aorta will likely be fatal. Soon. 9mm or 45.


But if it hits the rib where it joins the spine,will the greater area of a 45 translate to more temporary "stun" delivered from the rib to the spine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top