CONFIRMED. I have read of a case where a person wearing a bullet-proof vest was killed when he was shot with a magnum handgun - even though the vest was not penetrated, the shock to the body was sufficient to separate his aorta from his heart, killing him almost instantly. Merely shaking a baby can kill it. Of course a sufficient shock can kill.
Expansion vs Penetration
- Thread starter engineglue
- Start date
Frank Ettin
Administrator
You read? Where? Provide documentation.horselips said:
On one hand we have Urey Patrick and John Hall who are (from post 9):
On the other hand we have you, an anonymous denizen of cyberspace who read something from an unknown source.
So on that basis, why should we pay any attention to you unless you can back up what you claim with some solid evidence?
In any case, the sort of blunt force trauma is in no way comparable to a piercing injury by a projectile.
Which is another matter entirely.horselips said:
Of course a sufficient shock can kill. The issue is whether, or at what velocity, the shock produced by a projectile piercing flesh is sufficient to cause an appreciable amount of tissue damage remote from the permanent wound channel. And the evidence shows that at velocities of less than about 2,000 fps, the shock is insufficient.horselips said:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
In other words, it's unverifiable information from an unknown source of unknown reliability. It's also old, and we have no way to know if you have even remembered what you read accurately.horselips said:
So (1) it's worthless; and (2) your posting it tells us something about your credibility.
Now, now. Relax. If you had a truly open mind, you would be intrigued, and you would feel compelled to strap on a bullet-proof vest and have someone fire a .44 magnum at your chest. Then you'd know for sure. That's what a true scientist would do. Or, you could just believe me. Or not. Or whatever.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Nonsense --horselips said:
- I am relaxed, but I really am not fond of people using unverifiable claims when discussing important matters.
- Having an open mind is not the same as being gullible. One may reject unsubstantiated claims without necessarily being closed minded. Having an open mind means essentially being willing to consider evidence of something -- not being willing to accept something without evidence.
- There is nothing to be intrigued about. Verifiable data can be intriguing. Myth and fable are not, at least when dealing with real life issues.
- No, I do not feel compelled to strap on a bullet-proof vest and have someone shoot me. However, I suspect that any number of people have been shot while wearing ballistic vests, and there is probably a body of actual data. That data would be interesting. Your myth is not.
How would you know?horselips said:
Why would I believe you? You've given me no reason to.horselips said:
On the other hand, based on this discussion I would not accept anything you might claim without solid, verifiable evidence. As Carl Saga said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Last edited:
Good post on this one. I'm torn as I have first hand experience that does not conform with some of the theories, but every situation and offender is different. Offenders motivated by deep core issues may react differently than one motivated by greed or fear when struck by a bullet. In my experience having enough bullets trumps the diameter of the bullet. Having a firearm with you trumps not having firearm with you, regardless of the magazine capacity or diameter of the bullet. More research needs to be done on time after hit and incapacitation, (they can cause much damage before they sucumb to their injuries.) The quality of defensive ammunition these days is truly amazing and I wouldn't feel inadequate with any appropriate defensive pistol caliber.
Gel is only so good. To many variables to take into consideration.
Heres an example. A researcher did studies on blackpowder wounding. REAL cases were used. From the current time period. It was in the 90s. The ex rays discovered that a small round ball from a 1860 colt may not have much energy, at short ranges a hit to the head would fracture the entire skull and basically make it clobber the brain. No one survived the wounds.
Now you can find reports of 'intruder shot in head with 9mm, will be prosecuted"
Heres an example. A researcher did studies on blackpowder wounding. REAL cases were used. From the current time period. It was in the 90s. The ex rays discovered that a small round ball from a 1860 colt may not have much energy, at short ranges a hit to the head would fracture the entire skull and basically make it clobber the brain. No one survived the wounds.
Now you can find reports of 'intruder shot in head with 9mm, will be prosecuted"
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Please provide documentation. Link the research or at least cite where it is published.Bezoar said:
If that's your claim, you need to find the reports and cite them or link them for us. It's your job to provide the evidence to support your claim, not ours.Bezoar said:
Last edited:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
It's not our job to Google anything. If you make a claim, it's your burden to support it with actual evidence. If you're unable to do so, we can ignore your claim.Bezoar said:
Threads like this recall an interesting discussion about realistic vs unrealistic expectations of handgun rounds. Caliber wars frequently feature tales of various rounds "failing", which is commonly presented as a high count stop. For example, "I know an FBI HRT agent who shot a hijacker 7 times with .45 JHP before he went down." Realistic expectation is that it very well may require so many rounds to put down a determined criminal. This is a software fail, not a hardware fail.
I mention this now, because I could see this thread turning a sharp corner into caliber war country.
I mention this now, because I could see this thread turning a sharp corner into caliber war country.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=255957&highlight=sanow
thats just one.
44 army is basically a standard 38 special when it comes to performance. not fancy, but it gets the job.
thats just one.
44 army is basically a standard 38 special when it comes to performance. not fancy, but it gets the job.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
What is this? In post 49 you made certain claims that there was research that showed something. I asked for documentation. Now you post a link to an old thread on THR.Bezoar said:
That sure isn't good enough for me.
I know I'm weighing in a bit late but I noticed something in the Study by Frank Ellifritz is that:
Aside from the wonderful analysis and summary by Frank Ettin which is pretty much dead on, one thing that would be careful to remember in the 1 shot stopping percentage is that most .22 users would not be military or police.
What my inference is here is that military and police are going to be the ones typically carrying the rounds that had a lower one shot stop percentage but they are also usually walking INTO situations where the BG is prepared mentally to keep going. So, the data is skewed in that sense. I think we all agree that the psychological stopping power in an everyday situation of self defense is the largest factor but these numbers won't reflect that because of the situational background in which they are being used.
I hope that was clear, not sure how to express it better at the moment.
Aside from the wonderful analysis and summary by Frank Ettin which is pretty much dead on, one thing that would be careful to remember in the 1 shot stopping percentage is that most .22 users would not be military or police.
What my inference is here is that military and police are going to be the ones typically carrying the rounds that had a lower one shot stop percentage but they are also usually walking INTO situations where the BG is prepared mentally to keep going. So, the data is skewed in that sense. I think we all agree that the psychological stopping power in an everyday situation of self defense is the largest factor but these numbers won't reflect that because of the situational background in which they are being used.
I hope that was clear, not sure how to express it better at the moment.
SteveBonning
New member
I think we need more new people to start these threads again and again, so they can be debated again and again.....
I don't think it's a realistic expectation that these threads will go away. There are obviously a number of topics that become re-runs to us that are still of enough interest that A) new people keep making them, and B) the rest of us keep participating in the threads.
Besides, there are only so many possible topics. If we stop participating in-, or allowing these types of discussions, the board will die.
Besides, there are only so many possible topics. If we stop participating in-, or allowing these types of discussions, the board will die.
Some interesting points in the op, which seem to make sense at first glance, but a bit of careful thought points out where some of the are...less than fully factually inclusive.
Seems sensible, but reality is that any of the possible outcomes is possible with any cartridge, low, medium or high velocity. More likely with some, but possible with all. (and I think #3, is particularly misleading, as written, implying that the bullet missing a vital has anything to do with the power level of the round)
Studies are great things, and sometimes actually deliver useful information. But drawing correct conclusions, even from fully accurate data is tricky. One can determine general trends, but general trends are just that, general. You can find cases where everything failed. You can find cases where everything worked. What you cannot find is any way of knowing in advance if the shooting you get involved in will follow the general rule, or be an exception.
And doesn't everything rely on the shooter's ability, as a baseline?
Which, incidently is the original loading for the 9mm Luger. A 124grFMJ @ 1050fps (later increased to 1100fps).
Stopping power discussions are certainly more informative than ones about angels dancing on the heads of pins, but putting all one's faith in any theory being the absolute truth every single time doesn't seem to square with observed real world results. There are no magic bullets.....
Seems sensible, but reality is that any of the possible outcomes is possible with any cartridge, low, medium or high velocity. More likely with some, but possible with all. (and I think #3, is particularly misleading, as written, implying that the bullet missing a vital has anything to do with the power level of the round)
Studies are great things, and sometimes actually deliver useful information. But drawing correct conclusions, even from fully accurate data is tricky. One can determine general trends, but general trends are just that, general. You can find cases where everything failed. You can find cases where everything worked. What you cannot find is any way of knowing in advance if the shooting you get involved in will follow the general rule, or be an exception.
or it could do something else, like completely penetrate....
How big a part does FMJ construction play in "missing a vital" anyway? I think that would be a shooter function, not the bullet.
That would be military FMJ rifle ammo, widely recognized for its stopping power, right?
And doesn't everything rely on the shooter's ability, as a baseline?
Nice to know, I suppose, but really only tells you if you should expect the bullet to expand. Real world variables in addition to the FPS determine if the bullet will perform as expected.
Which, incidently is the original loading for the 9mm Luger. A 124grFMJ @ 1050fps (later increased to 1100fps).
Stopping power discussions are certainly more informative than ones about angels dancing on the heads of pins, but putting all one's faith in any theory being the absolute truth every single time doesn't seem to square with observed real world results. There are no magic bullets.....