2damnold4this
New member
Some good posts on this thread
Firearm Stopping Power…a different perspective.
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
The more I think about case studies of shootings the more I come to realize that the major flaw in them is they that lack evidence and consideration of what the bullets did inside of the targets that did or did not incapacitate.
Consider hypothetical two shootings:
A) two bullets (choose you caliber .35" to .50") hit the target in the sternum at a 5 degree angle and proceeds to penetrate the left ventricle and lodge in left posterior latissimus dorsi after penetrating the 7th rib.
B) two bullets (choose you caliber .35" to .50") hit the target in the sternum at a 60 degree angle is partially deflected and proceeds to penetrate the left pectoralis major, runs outside the ribs and lodges under the skin at the margin of the left latissimus dorsi.
A) lots of hemorrhaging
B) little hemorrhaging
Bots hit center of mass, but what the bullet did or did not do inside of the target makes a huge difference.
As some here have noted such evidence would take considerable money. Such evidence would have to be uniformly gathered by specially trained trauma physicians who not only could care for the injured but also gather the data for later study; and gathered by Medical Examiners from those who died before medical treatment was administered. MRIs of the soft tissue damage and X-rays of the bone damage on all shootings to be considered would be useful in assessing what the bullet/s did inside of the target. Costly and time consuming.
Consider hypothetical two shootings:
A) two bullets (choose you caliber .35" to .50") hit the target in the sternum at a 5 degree angle and proceeds to penetrate the left ventricle and lodge in left posterior latissimus dorsi after penetrating the 7th rib.
B) two bullets (choose you caliber .35" to .50") hit the target in the sternum at a 60 degree angle is partially deflected and proceeds to penetrate the left pectoralis major, runs outside the ribs and lodges under the skin at the margin of the left latissimus dorsi.
A) lots of hemorrhaging
B) little hemorrhaging
Bots hit center of mass, but what the bullet did or did not do inside of the target makes a huge difference.
As some here have noted such evidence would take considerable money. Such evidence would have to be uniformly gathered by specially trained trauma physicians who not only could care for the injured but also gather the data for later study; and gathered by Medical Examiners from those who died before medical treatment was administered. MRIs of the soft tissue damage and X-rays of the bone damage on all shootings to be considered would be useful in assessing what the bullet/s did inside of the target. Costly and time consuming.
yes really. when momentum = zero penatration will stop.conserving momentum in this case is a bad idea IMHO thats why I use hollow points.
If you actually study the external ballistics RELEVANT to wounds (since I doubt anybody has ever died from the heat energy off a bullet. Unless your using Willy Pete LOL) you will see exacticly how increased momentum affects penatration. Increasing kinetic energy without increasing momentum will have more of an affect on the size of the wound channel mostly temporary but it can have a affect on perminate wound channel from more rapid bullet expansion.
Last edited:
603Country
New member
A good discussion, but it's getting bogged down. I think everyone was originally arguing over stopping power and over the contention in that article by the fellow that suggested that there wasn't much difference in various cartridges on stopping power. Seems obvious to me that he's very wrong. If we look at extremes, we have the 22 short at the low end and the 454 Casull (or something similar) at the high end. Said another way, that's a small slow bullet at the low end and a large fast bullet at the high end. I don't think any rational person believes that the small slow bullet is the equal of the big fast bullet when it comes to stopping power. With that logic established, everything else is in the middle, with the only determination to be made being where in that range does your favorite cartridge fit. Is a 9 mil equal to the 44 Mag? I sincerely doubt that it is. Is the 45 ACP equal to the 41 Mag? I doubt it. Does the 45 ACP outrank the 9 Mil? Well, that gets to be a tougher question, being that you have a small fast bullet versus a large slow bullet. Personally, I favor the large slow bullet, particularly if you use the same shape and design of the bullet (hardball). The same theory applies to rifle bullets. Would you expect the 220 Swift (55 grain bullet at almost 4000 fps) to be the game stopping equal of the 45-70 (large slow bullet) when it came to shooting an Elk? I don't think you would. So...ranking pistol cartridges should be as follows: Large fast bullet, then large slower bullet, then smaller fast bullet, then small slow bullet. Naturally, there will be some overlap in the middle of the range - say 9 Mil versus 357 Mag.
603Country, having read parts of the Thompson-LaGarde tests, I don't understand why you would want to cite them to defend big-bore bullets.
First, the methodology was suspect. The researchers shot livestock, which often showed little or no immediate reaction to either round.
Second, neither 9mm nor .45acp dropped the majority of the steers used as test subjects, using body shots. Almost all had to be killed with coup de grace to the head, and many of the coups de grace via handgun didn't do the trick, either. "Killed with hammer" was a depressingly frequent result of those tests.
Third, the only advantages noted for the .45 was that it was somewhat more likely to break heavy bones, and that subjectively the researchers thought the wounds it inflicted might require longer recovery times.
First, the methodology was suspect. The researchers shot livestock, which often showed little or no immediate reaction to either round.
Second, neither 9mm nor .45acp dropped the majority of the steers used as test subjects, using body shots. Almost all had to be killed with coup de grace to the head, and many of the coups de grace via handgun didn't do the trick, either. "Killed with hammer" was a depressingly frequent result of those tests.
Third, the only advantages noted for the .45 was that it was somewhat more likely to break heavy bones, and that subjectively the researchers thought the wounds it inflicted might require longer recovery times.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Momentum must be conserved, it's an immutable law of physics. You don't have the option for it not to be conserved.
I agree with you the more momentum generally means more penetration. I disagree that 9ball has a good grasp of fundamental principles.
Last edited:
Absolutely equal? No, probably not. Is it possible that past a certain cartridge capability, it starts making much less of a difference? Quite possibly. You need to penetrate to and through the target's vital organs and make a good sized wound while doing it. Once you have that level of performance, what you do with the bullet matters much more than the specific bullet you're working with.
secret_agent_man
Moderator
"To scare people, you should carry an automatic. But to kill them, use a revolver."
--George S. Patton
--George S. Patton
Momentum as a whole yes. but in this case I ment the bullet's momentum which only pertains to the momentum of or possessed by the bullet once it's energy is transfered the bullet ceases to have momentum.
I agree I just said his calculations were correct, the fact he is misusing the formula leads to practical application of said calculations.
603Country
New member
Hi MLeake,
Actually, my thinking is more along the lines of Julian Hatcher's RSP formula from 1934. But, since there are people that disagree with that formula's accuracy, my previous statement follows a more basic logic - big fast bullet versus small slow bullet. If you want knockdown power, go for the big fast bullet, which has more momentum and cross sectional area.
Actually, my thinking is more along the lines of Julian Hatcher's RSP formula from 1934. But, since there are people that disagree with that formula's accuracy, my previous statement follows a more basic logic - big fast bullet versus small slow bullet. If you want knockdown power, go for the big fast bullet, which has more momentum and cross sectional area.
Daugherty16
New member
Why? Don't Newtonian physics apply to the human body? Hmm. Momentum is best analyzed and explained using vectors, IIRC. Something has to act on a body in motion in order to change its vector or in this case, stop it cold. Thus the momentum, or motion, is transferred to the 2nd body. The more the momentum, the more the THUMP, in layman's terms.
Exactly correct, sir, and why i chose this analogy. I'd rather be hit with a baseball than a bullet
, but i'd take the ping pong ball over the baseball. Anyway, i'm probably over my head with all this science stuff so i'm dropping out now, but i'll still shoot the biggest bullets i can control from the largest pistol i can conceal. And if i ever have to do it for real, i have complete confidence they will be able to stop a threat - ballistics aside, because i practice and believe i will hit my target.
I have heard all of these arguments for years. They all have some validity. The problem with any anaysis is that each actual shooting has so many different variables that no one shooting can be exactly matched to another. Not to mention that different bodies will react differently to similar hits.
The exercise is fun and interesting to consider and read, but I don't think anyone is going to convince someone else to change his mind.
The exercise is fun and interesting to consider and read, but I don't think anyone is going to convince someone else to change his mind.
amazon shooter
New member
Get the Facts or the Facts will @@@@ You
Right On Man!
Finally, Mr. Greg Ellifritz has debunked this stoppin power nonsense.
He seems to be the only one who knows "How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin".
Right On Man!
Finally, Mr. Greg Ellifritz has debunked this stoppin power nonsense.
He seems to be the only one who knows "How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin".
I read a lot of physical nonsense here
Energy is ALWAYS conserved! Even in inelastic collisions. Just because it transformed in heat doesn't mean the energy left. About my formula
here's the complete calculation if you insist:
then you'll have to solve the differential equation
(you'll need to open the images in new window/tab, don't know what the problem is...)
Further derivation will get you s(t) which will allow you to substitute v(t) by v(s(t)). Sorry I won't provide the further steps because I am studying for my exams and want to do something else in my spare time then entering equations
You are clearly not getting my post. If the bullet remains in the body as I assumed, ALL of the kinetic energy is transformed in heat.
Yes, that's why the energy dump theory just as much as the knock down theory is utter bull****, as I stated before.
Energy is ALWAYS conserved! Even in inelastic collisions. Just because it transformed in heat doesn't mean the energy left. About my formula
I simplified things a bit as not to get to specific,
here's the complete calculation if you insist:
then you'll have to solve the differential equation
(you'll need to open the images in new window/tab, don't know what the problem is...)
Further derivation will get you s(t) which will allow you to substitute v(t) by v(s(t)). Sorry I won't provide the further steps because I am studying for my exams and want to do something else in my spare time then entering equations
Conserving momentum is a bad idea?? Go explain that to Newton please... this makes no sense at all.
Yes they do, but just as the energy isn't even close to the amounts needed to validate the energy dump theory, just as much the momentum totally isn't in the same category needed to knock a human being down.
If you check, you can find studies where firearms have been shot into sides of beef, dead game animals, etc.
The sides of beef and the bodies don't move much. Doesn't matter if it's a .22LR or a 12ga slug. So, if objects of human size or smaller don't get moved by 12ga and rifle slugs, it's a safe conclusion that humans won't get knocked down by the momentum of any slug from a man-portable centerfire weapon.
RPG's and other rocket propelled items, which don't transfer equivalent momentum directly to the shooter, are a whole 'nother argument...
Seems to me that whether one reads Ellifritz, Fackler, or Marshall and Sanow, the .44 Magnum doesn't do as much better on humans as Hatcher et al would suggest. OTOH, the .44 Magnum is much better suited to large quadrupeds than is the 9mm, .45acp, etc - but that's due to momentum, penetration, and in many cases bullet construction.
In bear country, I like a .44 Magnum. In more settled areas, something between a .38special and a .45acp seems a more practical choice. I have handguns in .38, .357, 9mm, .40s&w, 10mm, .44 magnum, and .45acp. Around town, I mostly carry a caliber starting in .3 (or 9) because I can put those on target the fastest, and they should work well.
The sides of beef and the bodies don't move much. Doesn't matter if it's a .22LR or a 12ga slug. So, if objects of human size or smaller don't get moved by 12ga and rifle slugs, it's a safe conclusion that humans won't get knocked down by the momentum of any slug from a man-portable centerfire weapon.
RPG's and other rocket propelled items, which don't transfer equivalent momentum directly to the shooter, are a whole 'nother argument...
Seems to me that whether one reads Ellifritz, Fackler, or Marshall and Sanow, the .44 Magnum doesn't do as much better on humans as Hatcher et al would suggest. OTOH, the .44 Magnum is much better suited to large quadrupeds than is the 9mm, .45acp, etc - but that's due to momentum, penetration, and in many cases bullet construction.
In bear country, I like a .44 Magnum. In more settled areas, something between a .38special and a .45acp seems a more practical choice. I have handguns in .38, .357, 9mm, .40s&w, 10mm, .44 magnum, and .45acp. Around town, I mostly carry a caliber starting in .3 (or 9) because I can put those on target the fastest, and they should work well.
Except that it isn't because some of the kinetic energy is expended doing plastic deformation to soft tissue or crack propagation in bones, etc. It doesn't all become heat if it does permanent physical damage to body structures. Some of the bullet's energy does (mostly by way of fluid motion), but not all of it.
Yes it is always conserved, but it is also transformed into all sorts of different forms. So to solve the energy balance you have to account for as many of the transformations as possible and then solve them all simultaneously. You end up with dynamics and thermodynamics going on at the same time. Not easy. For a problem of this type it generally involves complex computer simulation to do all the work. Most computer simulations don't do this though because it's too much work and takes forever. Unfortunately I can't see your equation to tell if you're accounting for that.
In comparison basing an analysis on momentum conservation lets you drop all the thermodynamics out of the problem and just worry about dynamic motion instead. Much easier, but still hard.
Oh my, where to begin.
I'll be the first to admit that I do not know what it is that makes a bullet work, or an arrow work, on flesh. I think many people are just as unknowing but are not as comfortable in their ignorance as I am. I think they are trying to understand the process using information passed on by the gun press and what seems like rational explanations using conclusions from these statistical "studies".
What I do know is that business is driven by sales. Sales is driven by product differentiation. Product differentiation is the job of Marketing. Marketing is all about creating a favorable perception. Perception is created by propaganda and hype.
EXACTLY! Rather than rely on statistical tabulations of events that have multiple outcomes, I humbly suggest that the gruesome reports from the autopsy tables probably contain the most useful data.
EXACTLY! If the momentum of the projectile was enough to knock a 200 lb target down, it will knock the shooter down first.
Maybe. Sometimes data is just data, a collection of facts that may or not be related. Problems occur when someone starts looking for causal relationships between the facts. This only works when the data contains ALL the facts, which none of the statistical based shooting data has, IMHO.
IMHO this is more of a misinformed opinion than a theory. Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, I used to subscribe in this theory until I really stopped to think about it.
I'll be the first to admit that I do not know what it is that makes a bullet work, or an arrow work, on flesh. I think many people are just as unknowing but are not as comfortable in their ignorance as I am. I think they are trying to understand the process using information passed on by the gun press and what seems like rational explanations using conclusions from these statistical "studies".
What I do know is that business is driven by sales. Sales is driven by product differentiation. Product differentiation is the job of Marketing. Marketing is all about creating a favorable perception. Perception is created by propaganda and hype.
GoOfY-FoOt
New member
BOTTOM LINE
Any weapon used to thwart an attack, has to overcome one of two things.
Desire and ability.
Someone MUST have an ongoing mental capacity to cause harm to another human being and they MUST have the physical ability to carry it out.
It does not matter what the statistics say, the odds are irrelevent. The only thing that will relate to any one given situation are the dynamics of that very situation.
Stop their desire to continue attacking you, OR, remove their physical ability.
Any weapon used to thwart an attack, has to overcome one of two things.
Desire and ability.
Someone MUST have an ongoing mental capacity to cause harm to another human being and they MUST have the physical ability to carry it out.
It does not matter what the statistics say, the odds are irrelevent. The only thing that will relate to any one given situation are the dynamics of that very situation.
Stop their desire to continue attacking you, OR, remove their physical ability.