Interesting notion from another thread, which bears some examination

Status
Not open for further replies.
When it's all said and done, I think I'll trust the FBI tests, and their focus on (a) penetration, and (b) expansion. Which I think is the correct focus.

Now look at the results: the difference between the "big 3" or "big 4" is so tiny as to negligible. I mean, with the right bullet choice, you get equal penetration with 9x19 as you do the others, but only give up what? approx. .69 average expansion as compared to what? ...approx. .72 with the average .45 acp, or something ridiculously-small like that - correct? We're talking 3/100ths of inch difference... Less than 1/3rd of 1/10th of 1". Just doesn't matter.

Make mine a nine. I'll gladly take the nearly instant follow-ups and higher capacity. And much cheaper ammo (meaning more practice). It would be very different if it was shown that the 9x19 penetrated less or had a statistically-significant reduced diameter at the key point in time of measurement, which is after expansion.

I mean, heck, a 9x19 bullet is only .09 - 9/100ths of an inch less to begin with - before expansion (.36 vs. 45), less than 1/10th of an inch. But even if you think that that is significant, it's even less AFTER expansion - as I say, if I recall correctly, averages more like .03 or so when comparing expanded 9x19s with expanded .45s - only 1/3rd of the starting difference (.03 vs. .09), which was arguably negligible to start with. And if I recall correctly, the typical 147 9mm penetrates even more than the typical 155 .40 or 230 .45.

I may be mis-remembering a bit.... but seems like in end, they're all so close as to be identical as a practical matter in the two measures that the FBI thinks counts - penetration and expansion.... depending on ammo/bullet of course, which is why you should pick the bullet that looks the best for you from their tests if you're keen on maximizing every conceivable gunfight advantage.
 
Last edited:
Carry the most powerful gun you can conceal and shoot well. For me currently that is my 44 magnum loaded with 185 Grain LSWCHP's.
 
Unlicensed Dremel said:
When it's all said and done, I think I'll trust the FBI tests, and their focus on (a) penetration, and (b) expansion. Which I think is the correct focus.

Now look at the results: the difference between the "big 3" or "big 4" is so tiny as to negligible.
Click to expand...

If the stopping power between a .38 and a .44 Magnum handgun, for example, is negligible, would you put that to the test and carry a .38 handgun to handle Grizzly Bear encounters?
 
If the stopping power between a .38 and a .44 Magnum handgun, for example, is negligible, would you put that to the test and carry a .38 handgun to handle Grizzly Bear encounters?
Click to expand...
The big 3 or 4 is the category that includes 9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W, .45ACP, etc. It might include the .38special at the bottom end depending on who's opining at the moment.

It most definitely does not include the magnum hunting calibers such as the .44Mag.

When you compare the terminal performance of handguns from completely different performance classes--like a service pistol caliber with a magnum hunting caliber, or a service pistol caliber with a pocket pistol caliber--then you can certainly note terminal performance differences. Within a given performance class, not so much.
 
Originally posted by JohnKSa
When you compare the terminal performance of handguns from completely different performance classes--like a service pistol caliber with a magnum hunting caliber, or a service pistol caliber with a pocket pistol caliber--then you can certainly note terminal performance differences. Within a given performance class, not so much.
Click to expand...

While I agree with this for the most part, it is worthy of mention that sometimes the line between performance classes can be a bit blurred. For example, while small calibers like .25 Auto and .32 Auto obviously fit best in the pocket pistol class, .380 ACP and standard pressure .38 Special straddle the line somewhat. While many, if not most of the JHP loadings in those calibers give performance which is generally deemed less than optimum (they cannot both expand reliably and penetrate to 12" or more) there are a few loadings which can meet the minimum performance standards for a service-class cartridge.

Likewise, on the other end of the spectrum, .357 Magnum and 10mm Auto seem to straddle the line between service-class and magnum-class cartridges as some loadings behave much like the "big 3/4" while others behave very differently such as expanding reliably while penetrating very deeply (16+") or expanding very violently (often to the point of fragmentation) while still penetrating 12" or more.

As far as the original comparison goes (.38 Special vs. .44 Magnum) that is a clear-cut difference as .44 Magnum sits squarely in the magnum-class since only it's very lightest loadings (basically .44 Specials in Magnum cases) behave even remotely like service-class cartridges.
 
...it is worthy of mention that sometimes the line between performance classes can be a bit blurred.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely correct.

I generally draw the line between the pocket pistols and the service pistols based on which calibers can meet FBI minimum penetration specs with expanding ammunition. But that's my own line and other folks might define the classes differently.
 
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
...it is worthy of mention that sometimes the line between performance classes can be a bit blurred.

That is absolutely correct.

I generally draw the line between the pocket pistols and the service pistols based on which calibers can meet FBI minimum penetration specs with expanding ammunition. But that's my own line and other folks might define the classes differently.
Click to expand...

I draw the line the same way, but the problem is "borderline" calibers like .380 Auto and .38 Special (standard pressure loadings) can meet the 12" minimum or at least get very close to it with some JHP loadings while others fail miserably.

I guess the best way that I can come up with to differentiate them is to look at it in this light: "true" pocket pistol cartridges cannot both penetrate to 12" and expand reliably (they're best loaded with FMJ or other non-expanding bullets), "borderline" or "transitional" cartridges require the user to be extremely selective about their ammunition in order to get both reliable expansion and the minimum of 12" penetration, and "true" service calibers can give satisfactory performance the nearly any modern JHP bullet.
 
So, an increase in velocity is far more important than an increase in mass.
Click to expand...
This is pure nonsense and it is painfully obvious that your conclusions are based on study and not on actual killing. Anyone who has hunted with a handgun knows this to be false. In handguns, velocity is the most rapidly diminishing factor. Mass and diameter are the two most important factors and they are constant. Velocity and therefore energy, is vastly overrated.
 
If the stopping power between a .38 and a .44 Magnum handgun, for example, is negligible,
Click to expand...

ATN - as noted by John, I didn't say that the stopping power of those two is negligible. The penetration & expansion numbers (especially penetration) are world's apart on those two you mention, and has little to nothing to do with the three I mention (9x19, .40 SW, & .45 acp).
 
44flattop said:
This is pure nonsense and it is painfully obvious that your conclusions are based on study and not on actual killing. Anyone who has hunted with a handgun knows this to be false. In handguns, velocity is the most rapidly diminishing factor. Mass and diameter are the two most important factors and they are constant. Velocity and therefore energy, is vastly overrated.
Click to expand...

I agree, well said.
 
Well, I am glad to see that the wagons are circling, lol. ;)

The Earth sure looks flat, the sun sure looks like it is moving around us, and I am sure any number of people will call that a "real world" observation. Anyone can see that with their own two eyes, right? Clearly I must have never been outdoors. :rolleyes:

Nevermind all that science and book-larnin' ... that's just for nerds. ;)
 
Last edited:
The Earth sure looks flat, the sun sure looks like it is moving around us, and I am sure any number of people will call that a "real world" observation. Anyone can see that with their own two eyes, right? Clearly I must have never been outdoors.

Nevermind all that science and book-larnin' ... that's just for nerds.
Click to expand...
You can call us all ignorant if you want but you're still wrong. As has been said, the problem is not your "science and book learnin'" (don't assume you're talking to uneducated morons) but the application of it. You apparently don't know enough of how this stuff works in the real world, where bullets meet flesh, to understand that your conclusions are all wrong.
 
You can call us all ignorant if you want but you're still wrong. As has been said, the problem is not your "science and book learnin'" (don't assume you're talking to uneducated morons) but the application of it. You apparently don't know enough of how this stuff works in the real world, where bullets meet flesh, to understand that your conclusions are all wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, I've been called a "nerd", and it's implied that I am ignorant (since I "apparently don't know enough of how this stuff works in the real world") ... so let's just call that a wash OK?

My intent is never to insult or demean, but rather to illustrate.

Now, the rub of the matter is that the "real world" does not operate in contradiction to the established physical laws of the known universe ... last time I checked anyway ;) That's just a fact.

The continued assertion that some small group of people "knows" something which doesn't line up with established fact ... that's a giant problem. People claim they see things all the time ... and then the dashcam video proves otherwise. I'm gonna go with the dashcam, numsayin?

So, in the spirit of good will ... please continue to believe whatever you think you are seeing. I'll continue to go with repeatable, verifiable evidence and the same physics which make our guns work in the first place.

If you find some comfort in believing that I am an ignorant, desk-bound nerd who never gets out of the house ... who am I to stop you?
 
45ACP kills wet phone books much quicker than 9mm. I know that is true:)
Most people have not tested their stuff. It's easy to do. Make a box that will hold a stack of phone books. Soak the books, place in the box, Shoot the wet books and then do your own analysis. I did and in every case with pistols (not mags) the bigger the bullet the more damage done. It's pretty simple really.
 
What you seem to have a difficult time grasping is that the precise science of physics no longer applies once that bullet strikes flesh & bone. Things cease being simple, predictable, or cut & dried. The simple fact that you believe diameter and mass have no bearing on penetration shows to anyone with just a precursor knowledge of terminal ballistics that you do not know what you're talking about, with regards to terminal ballistics. You are trying to simplify something that is far from it.
 
... What you seem to have a difficult time grasping is that the precise science of physics no longer applies once that bullet strikes flesh & bone....
Click to expand...
What you seem to have trouble grasping is that you just contradicted yourself. Physics encompasses the whole of physical reality ... including the behavior of projectiles on flesh and bone. The physics of flesh and bone are well known, and not so mysterious as you suggest. I have no idea what that concept is so threatening.


... The simple fact that you believe diameter and mass have no bearing on penetration shows to anyone with just a precursor knowledge of terminal ballistics that you do not know what you're talking about, with regards to terminal ballistics.
Click to expand...

I have never once stated that diameter and mass "have no bearing on penetration", so I have no idea where you get that from. I have a pretty good idea exactly how diameter and mass count, and it's not anything like "has no bearing". :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Physics encompasses the whole of physical reality ... including the behavior of projectiles on flesh and bone. The physics of flesh and bone are pretty well known, and not so mysterious as you suggest.
Click to expand...
Is that why we're having this argument? Is that why the most credible evidence is gained through physically testing bullets and loads on test medium, rather than what is calculated with formulas? Because it's so simply explained by physics?

If you want to be credible as an "expert" on this subject, which appears to be the case, what are your qualifications? How old are you? What is your education? How long have you been doing what you're doing? What is your experience in killing critters? Explain to us exactly how your occupation makes your opinion more credible or valid than any other?

Then please explain you think you're the first one to have this all figured out.
 
... Is that why we're having this argument? Is that why the most credible evidence is gained through physically testing bullets and loads on test medium, rather than what is calculated with formulas? Because it's so simply explained by physics? ...
Click to expand...

I think you are confused as to how that works. We do physical testing as confirmation that everything is lining up. Almost all of the time the results are precisely what is predicted by the math, because the math is an accurate physical model of what happens in the real world. If things don't jibe, generally somebody made a mistake in either math or manufacturing. That happens. What doesn't happen is contradictions between the laws of physics and reality.

I've done this kind of work at Boeing & Space Systems/Loral. If the physics (which are far more complicated in those cases) didn't accurately reflect the real world you'd have planes and satellites literally dropping out of the sky for no known reason, and we'd have pilots designing aircraft instead of engineers.

If I tell you that I have 2 apples and you give me 3 more ... you don't have to observe the apples physically in my hands to know that I would then have 5, right? It not like some special "real world apple magic" adds or subtracts apples in a way that we don't understand. What would you think if someone told you they've personally seen a 6th apple magically appear "in the real world"?

Then please explain you think you're the first one to have this all figured out.
Click to expand...
I am absolutely certain that I am not the first, second or even 100-thousandth to "figure this out". Chalk that up as another claim I've never made, that I am somehow supposed to defend.

This is OLD news. It's no secret or mystery, and (most of it, anyway) hasn't been for hundreds of years. Newton had most of it figured out by the late 1600s. Rather the case is that people do like to stubbornly cling to comfortable ideas, and the firearms world is especially prone in this regard.

I've been rooms full of supposedly educated people asking what will happen if I drop a 10lb bowling ball and 1oz marble at the same time. Which hits the floor first? .... the answers are as astounding as the reasons given. Most people really don't get it ... which is no crime, but it is telling.
 
Last edited:
Hence my disapproval of the use of "energy" when discussing ammunition effectiveness

Lethality is what we discuss for hunting bullets.
Effectiveness is what we discuss for bullets intended to make humans cease and desist their immediate behavior as rapidly as possible.
There is a huge difference.

So while we continue to theorize over the mathematical reasons why certain bullets of certain dimension at certain velocities may perform better or worse, we can turn to actual results to decipher what is actually working the way we want.

Autopsy results indicate lethality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top