Expansion vs Penetration

[tetvet68]

Penetration vs Expansion

Good morning folks,

Just joined TFL and find it very interesting. I'm a long time shooter, hunter, combat vet, hand loader. I've been on other forums and found some of them to be loaded with never-been-in-combat experts who are certain they will react positively in a SD situation with the associated huge adrenalin dump, tunnel vision, etc. Some people out there are really scary and not helping deflect the present anti-gun rhetoric. Some are "trollers" for sure but the internet and Youtube have created a lot of self-proclaimed experts. Some are very credible, some not so much.

That said, the TFL forums I have visited so far are very good, very interesting and there appears to be a fair amount of courtesy for the opinion of others.

In regards to the conversation concerning penetration vs expansion, I am certainly in agreement that one bullet cannot do it all and certain amount of penetration is required to stop a BG. Personally, for me, the bigger the handgun bullet the better and 12" to 15" of penetration with an expanding bullet (Critical Duty, HST, etc) is probably quite acceptable. I'm in favor of the big hole and a big "energy dump". After having been in the jungle, I've seen a person keep going after being hit in the torso. In many case, initial pain was not an issue because the high-power non-expanding rifle bullet zipped right through without the attendant organ shock of an expanding style hunting bullet that dumps a tremendous amount of energy before it exits. As mentioned above, the mere fact of knowing you've been shot is enough to stop many people...call it "psychological shock value". But the body seems to go into almost instant shock, numbing the initial pain, so hitting a vital organ causing massive blood loss (oxygen deprivation to the brain) is important and most vital torso organs are within a few inches of the skin so the bigger the hole, the more chance you have to induce massive blood loss...especially with multiple hits.

I carry a G23 w/night sights and my house gun is a Taurus P1911 with a 4 1/2 lb trigger and night sights. I also have a Taurus 99 9MM and a Ruger MKII with a bull barrel. I practice with all of them with emphasis on the G23 and 1911. I'm not a bullseye shooter but I'm fairly decent at center-mass. I hope I never have to do a Zimmerman but I do practice turning the gun immediately upon clearing the holster and getting the first shot off from slightly above waist level just in case the BG is "right there" because, in my mind, that's the very worst case scenario...other than taking a hit.

Anyway, just wanted to say "Hi" and my initial impression is this will be a fun informative forum. Jim

 

[RBid]

More holes are better than fewer holes.


Larger holes are better than smaller holes.


Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.


Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.


There are no magic bullets.

I quoted the above, because of consistency. When we spend enough time looking at this stuff, it is inevitable that we'll run across people who bash Ellifritz, or Marshall & Sanow, or Doc Roberts, or Fackler, etc. People will point out flawed methodology, insufficient sample size, or any other thing to discredit a particular "expert" whose views they disagree with. You'll hear terms like "gelatin junkie", and run into the "lab science vs street science" debate.

When you step back from all of that, and look for commonality between people with extensive street experience, scientists, enthusiasts, etc, the above points are almost unanimously present. We may agree or disagree on other specifics, but it should be accepted that the statements above are all true.

 

[Tomac]

Well said, RBid.
Tomac

 

[idek]

More holes are better than fewer holes.


Larger holes are better than smaller holes.


Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.


Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.


There are no magic bullets.

When you... look for commonality between people with extensive street experience, scientists, enthusiasts, etc, the above points are almost unanimously present. We may agree or disagree on other specifics, but it should be accepted that the statements above are all true.

agreed

...it is inevitable that we'll run across people who bash Ellifritz, or Marshall & Sanow, or Doc Roberts, or Fackler, etc. People will point out flawed methodology, insufficient sample size, or any other thing to discredit a particular "expert" whose views they disagree with. You'll hear terms like "gelatin junkie", and run into the "lab science vs street science" debate.

I realize the overall post above is mostly about agreeing on some generally accepted "Truths" and cutting out a lot of the clutter. That is valid, but the phrasing in some parts makes it sound like it's bad to question the findings of these researchers... that people are trying to "bash" researchers or shoot holes in their work simply to satisfy our own egos or something.

In the Ellifritz link I posted, his results showed 61% one-shot incapacitation with .22lr, 72% with .32 caliber cartridges, 62% with .380 ACP.

Meanwhile, 9mm Luger and .45 ACP results show 47% and 51% one-shot incapacitation respectively.

According to this particular study, even the "larger holes are better than smaller holes" statement would go out the window.

Something seems wrong when .32 ACP/.32 Long looks like the clear winner in a comparison of handgun cartridges. If that means I'm "bashing" Ellifrizt's work, then I guess I'm bashing it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...In the Ellifritz link I posted, his results showed 61% one-shot incapacitation with .22lr, 72% with .32 caliber cartridges, 62% with .380 ACP.

Meanwhile, 9mm Luger and .45 ACP results show 47% and 51% one-shot incapacitation respectively.

According to this particular study, even the "larger holes are better than smaller holes" statement would go out the window.

Something seems wrong when .32 ACP/.32 Long looks like the clear winner in a comparison of handgun cartridges. If that means I'm "bashing" Ellifrizt's work, then I guess I'm bashing it.

What it means is that you didn't understand Ellifitz's analysis of the data.

First, look at the article and the chart there labeled "Failure to incapacitate."

​

Then have another look at post 9 where I quote Ellifritz:

...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

Then also look at post 9 where I quote the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick, page 8:

...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.

The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

In other words, much, or even most, of the time a person when shot will choose to stop what he's doing for psychological reasons. He is not actually incapacitated, but rather he decides to stop because it hurts, or he's afraid, or he's convinced himself that once he's been shot he's incapable of continuing, etc. In such cases, what he's been shot with really doesn't matter. It's enough that he's been shot and he knows it. His mind then tells him not to continue, or his mind tells him he can't continue. His mind decides not to continue, even though he may in fact be physiologically capable of continuing.

But what if the assailant's mind doesn't know or care that he's been shot? That certainly seems to happen at times. And in such cases, the assailant isn't going to stop unless/until his body is sufficiently damaged in such a way that he is forced to stop. So he might be forced to stop because his brain or spine is physically damaged. He might he might be forced to stop because major bones/skeletal structures are smashed to the point that he has lost mobility. He might be forced to stop because he has lost so much blood that the oxygen level in his brain has fallen to the extent that it can no longer function.

The thing is that if you need to shoot someone in self defense you can't know ahead of time whether he will stop because of psychological factors or you will need to damage him enough to make him physiologically incapable to be a continued threat. Bullets making more and larger holes deep enough in the right places are more likely to produce a sufficient physiological response if the assailant is not willing to just stop because he's been shot.

 

[horselips]

Figure don't lie, liars can figure, and blah, blah, blah. Do your homework and you'll discover that in the real world of real people being shot by real bullets, it doesn't matter much what they're hit with. Maybe your odds of a one or two shot stop are a little better with a big bore heavy bullet, or super fast mid size magnum, but the inconvenient fact is that an astounding percentage of people shot once with a .22 are either killed or quickly incapacitated. Don't shoot the messenger. Thanks.

Velocity, foot pounds, penetration and expansion are like sports stats. We have all seen a football game where the team with the least time in possession, the least yards rushed and passed, even suffered the most turnovers and penalties, still beat the team that maxed out the stats. They just managed to score more points. Happens all the time.

If your bullet hits just right, you win. It doesn't matter much what caliber it is, jacketed or hollow point, wad cutter or round nose. So, what's the deciding factor here? Accuracy, or bullet placement, followed by luck. Luck? Yep. Maybe while you were shooting at your probably moving target he moved just right, aligned his skeleton just so, that when your bullet entered his body it went to the right place. Or it didn't, and despite the quality of your ammunition, you needed multiple shots to get the job done.

No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy and in CQB there is no nuclear option. So, you practice, practice and practice some more, equip yourself as best you can given your finances, physique, overall health and wardrobe requirements, and if the poo-poo hits the oscillating blades, you do what you can and hope for the best.

Each day I venture forth, armed with my NAA Mini Revolver, .22WMR, with the long, way out there, 1 5/8" barrel. At self-defense range-7 yards or thereabouts, I can put 5 rounds in a 3" circle well inside of 5 seconds. Taking my time, I can shave a half inch off of that. Yeah, I practice quite a bit. Do I feel under gunned? Well, for an across the parking lot shoot out, yes. Against a lunatic armed with a modern sporting rifle? Sure, unless I'm behind him when I open fire. Am I the guy to stop a bank robbery? Nope. But for my intended purpose, I feel well armed and confident. The stats be damned.

 

[Nanuk]

Carry the biggest, most powerful gun you shoot well and can conceal. Most days it is my customized Glock 27 Converted to 357 Sig) and 14 rounds on board. Some days it is my Performance center 629, or it could be the 1911.

Moral of the story: Friends don't let friends carry mouse guns.

 

[dahermit]

...the inconvenient fact is that an astounding percentage of people shot once with a .22 are either killed or quickly incapacitated...

That would be wonderful if true...even better if you had any evidence to prove where you got that " astounding percentage ".

 

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by dahermit:

That would be wonderful if true...even better if you had any evidence to prove where you got that " astounding percentage ".

He may be referencing the article in the recent issue of "Handgunner" magazine concerning stopping power where they show .22(short, long or LR) had a one shot percentage of 60%. Of course they could just be makin' it up too.

 

[dahermit]

He may be referencing the article in the recent issue of "Handgunner" magazine concerning stopping power where they show .22(short, long or LR) had a one shot percentage of 60%. Of course they could just be makin' it up too.

That means out of 10 assailants, 6 "stopped", 4 did not...not my definition of "astounding". Furthermore, he did not define what "stopping power" in the case of .22 rim-fire meant. Did it mean that they were incapacitated or just that the left the scene after being shot, which would imply that the .22's "stopping power", was due more to psychological effect (Oh my God!!! I've been shot!), than in actual ballistic performance (Uhhhh, thud.)...just ask'en.

 

[idek]

Quote:
Originally Posted by idek
...In the Ellifritz link I posted, his results showed 61% one-shot incapacitation with .22lr, 72% with .32 caliber cartridges, 62% with .380 ACP.

Meanwhile, 9mm Luger and .45 ACP results show 47% and 51% one-shot incapacitation respectively.

According to this particular study, even the "larger holes are better than smaller holes" statement would go out the window.

Something seems wrong when .32 ACP/.32 Long looks like the clear winner in a comparison of handgun cartridges. If that means I'm "bashing" Ellifrizt's work, then I guess I'm bashing it.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
What it means is that you didn't understand Ellifitz's analysis of the data.

I work with numbers for a profession, and I think I know how to interpret data. I also know about study bias, which seems to be occurring in this case, even if it's not done so deliberately. The data (and graph) you are referring to is failure to incapacitate. I was referring to his data on one-hit incapacitation. Two different categories with two different results. This charts show what I'm referring to...

And this chart can also be misleading...

I never said ALL data seemed inaccurate but some seemed questionable. And I don't think it's necessarily wise to accept certain results (even from reputable sources) as gospel.

By the way, the whole permanent cavity issue you keep posting over and over, Massad Ayoob argues the other way in some of his handgun combat books. So who's to say Ellifritz is right and Ayoob is wrong? There are plenty of "experts" out there. Who can say which experts are most expert?

 

[csmsss]

My opinion? This notion of "one shot incapacitation" is a fable and exactly the wrong animal to be dissecting. Does it happen? Certainly. Can it be measured in an accurate, repeatable fashion producing predictable results? Not that I've seen. Every shooting poses its own unique circumstances that defy easy categorization, which is why these accumulations of shooting data (to my mind at least) produce less and less valid results the more "macro" they become.

For example, most don't seem to exclude (or make any allowance for) the firearm(s) used in the shooting. Many cartridges, including the beloved .22LR, are commonly chambered in both rifles and handguns. You would expect a .22LR round fired out of a 20" barreled rifle to have markedly improved performance compared to one fired from a 2" barreled revolver - but the studies don't make any distinction between the two.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I work with numbers for a profession, and I think I know how to interpret data. I also know about study bias, which seems to be occurring in this case, even if it's not done so deliberately. The data (and graph) you are referring to is failure to incapacitate. I was referring to his data on one-hit incapacitation. Two different categories with two different results...

1. I'm a lawyer, and I know something about interpreting data as well. I also know about evidence, the meaning of evidence and how to prove things.
   
   
2. And yes, there are two sets of data: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
   
   
   • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
     
     
   • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
     
     
   • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
     
     
   • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understanding the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
   
   
3. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
   
   
   • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
     
     
   • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
   
   
4. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
   
   
   • From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.

...By the way, the whole permanent cavity issue you keep posting over and over, there's another guy with a lot of street experience who would argues against that in some of his books. He's named Massad Ayoob. Perhaps you've heard of him....

Well yes, I have heard of Massad Ayoob.

• In October of 2008, I took his class, LFI-1 (now called MAG-40).
  
  
• In 2010, I was an assistant instructor at his MAG-40 class in Sierra Vista, Arizona (see my article).
  
  
• He quoted me in his column in the August, 2010 edition of Combat Handguns.
  
  
• We still keep in touch (albeit very intermittently).

...By the way, the whole permanent cavity issue you keep posting over and over, Massad Ayoob argues the other way in some of his handgun combat books. So who's to say Ellifritz is right and Ayoob is wrong? There are plenty of "experts" out there. Who can say which experts are most expert?

The core difference of opinion there really is only about how the wounding causes potentially incapacitating physiological damage.

The body is a machine, and it can be made to stop working in only certain ways: enough blood loss; enough damage to the central nervous system; or enough damage to key skeletal structures. And if you make a big hole in something the amount of direct damage will be based on how big the hole is.

The real debate, which might never be completely settled is where the velocity threshold is above which a bullet's passage will have a significant enough shock effect to meaningfully contribute to the tissue damage causing physiological incapacitation. But there are still two stopping mechanisms: psychological and physiological.

 

[idek]

My primary point was/is that one needs to be careful of how they look at data. In many cases, including firearms, statistics can't tell the whole story. I think we'd agree on that. Apparently, we're aren't reading some data quite the same way (or focusing on the same aspects), and that's okay.

By the way, I rephrased some of my original wording in post #31 shortly after submitted it, because I realized it sounded snarky, but I see it was included in your quote before I changed it. My apologies for that.

 

[horselips]

Quote from Nanuk: > Moral of the story: Friends don't let friends carry mouse guns.

NONSENSE! Mouse guns, because of their small size and light weight, are supremely adaptable to any wardrobe not even needing a belt and sometimes not even a holster. And because of that, they are the only guns that have a chance of never, ever being left at home. A CCW gun left at home might as well be on the moon.

Truth be told, most (not all) people who carry anything larger than a mouse gun, will confess that at some time, for some reason, they decided against carrying. Don't panic - "Te absolvo a peccatis tuis..." For your penance, repent, and don't let it ever happen again. Rule No.1 - "Have a gun!" Not most of the time, not when it's easy to carry because of what you're wearing - but all the time, every time, with no exceptions. For the vast majority of us, to meet that requirement, only a mouse gun will do.

As for you caliber queens out there, relax. No handgun is a "nuclear option" and to the confusion of some, and delight for the rest of us, the record of one shot stops and even kills by the diminutive .22LR is far better than anyone believed until the research was done and the results tabulated. A casual reading of the "Armed Citizen" column in The American Rifleman magazine (NRA) will reveal an astounding number of successful self defenses accomplished with it.

But don't worry about me -I'd never settle for a .22LR CCW gun. I like my bases covered, and for that, I carry a .22WMR. To quote Yosemite Sam, "Say yer prayers, varmint!"

 

[Nanuk]

NONSENSE! Mouse guns, because of their small size and light weight, are supremely adaptable to any wardrobe not even needing a belt and sometimes not even a holster. And because of that, they are the only guns that have a chance of never, ever being left at home. A CCW gun left at home might as well be on the moon.

It depends on your commitment level. I always carry a fighting gun, have for almost 40 years and will continue to do so.

 

[horselips]

Nanuk, I sooo agree with you about commitment to carry. But that's the problem. Commitment is very hard to find. One of my best friends went through the whole process of getting a CCW permit - even though it's unnecessary here in Arizona, and more often than not he leaves his gun in his car or in his house. GRRRR. I chew his butt regularly, to little avail.

Anyway, the nice thing about mouse guns is they require very little in the way of commitment. If only commitment was as easy to get as a gun. By asking for no accommodation in return, no sacrifice beyond practice and cleaning, a mouse gun is very easy to commit to. I'd rather see millions more people carrying mouse guns than the very few committed people who are carrying larger, heavier weapons today.

Thank you for your commitment. Good job.

 

[Tomac]

Commitment is right. My ccw is a hybrid SIG P250sc 9mm (15+1) and I always carry at least 1 reload.
However, there are times when it's simply too big to carry w/the wardrobe of a special occasion. At those times I carry a Kahr CM9 holsterless w/a Covert Carrier combo grip/clip and 2 reloads in a Recluse back pocket mag carrier:

But I don't turn my nose up at someone who carries less than a 9mm just because it's below my personal comfort level.
Tomac

 

[robert1811]

No shock?

"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable"



Really? I always though if there was enough of a shock to system by a large temporary cavity it would send the body into shock or if its violent enough rupture soft organs like a heart or intestines even if the bullet doesnt directly come in contact with the organ.


Is this not true, some please pm on this if you can confirm or debunk this.

 

[Frank Ettin]

"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable"



Really? I always though if there was enough of a shock to system by a large temporary cavity it would send the body into shock or if its violent enough rupture soft organs like a heart or intestines even if the bullet doesnt directly come in contact with the organ.


Is this not true, some please pm on this if you can confirm or debunk this.

According to the sources I quoted in post 9, "shock" is not a factor at the velocity of the usual defensive handgun cartridges. See also the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick.