Interesting observation regarding caliber differences...
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
I am surprised that no one has brought up the idea of hydrostatic shock! The idea that the more ft/lbs that is exerted on tissue in one area can effect completely different areas of the body. This is where the different calibers and their respective ft/lb stats really show their colors. 
Retired15T
New member
I was thinking the same thing Cas.
I wonder if John's calculations take into account the kinetic energy being exerted on the surrounding tissues. Those tissues may not even be part of the wound channel, especially if we are talking about a 9mm bullet that is stopped by the breast bone. Yet the kinetic energy expended causes tremendous shock waves to travel through the body since so much of the human body is water. This shock has, and will again, put a man down because even though the heart isn't "destroyed" or part of the actual wound channel, it was still stopped by the shock of the round releasing its kinetic energy.
I would believe that this is why larger calibers tend to hurt humans more. The Army determined, way back when, that something like 950ft/sec from a 230gr .45 bullet would do the most damage to a body through wound channel and hydrostatic shock from the round giving up all that energy as it stopped. Even if the round went all the way through the body and left a 3" exit hole, there was damage to tissues up to 4" in diameter from the wound channel. I can't recall if that is something I read on the Internet at a gov't site, or something I read in some manual about firearms in the Army. I'd need to research that.
Of course, I completely agree that a well placed shot is what really counts. No matter if you're using a .22 or a .45. But I do think the .45 gives the sloppy aimed round a better chance at disabling the intended target.
I wonder if John's calculations take into account the kinetic energy being exerted on the surrounding tissues. Those tissues may not even be part of the wound channel, especially if we are talking about a 9mm bullet that is stopped by the breast bone. Yet the kinetic energy expended causes tremendous shock waves to travel through the body since so much of the human body is water. This shock has, and will again, put a man down because even though the heart isn't "destroyed" or part of the actual wound channel, it was still stopped by the shock of the round releasing its kinetic energy.
I would believe that this is why larger calibers tend to hurt humans more. The Army determined, way back when, that something like 950ft/sec from a 230gr .45 bullet would do the most damage to a body through wound channel and hydrostatic shock from the round giving up all that energy as it stopped. Even if the round went all the way through the body and left a 3" exit hole, there was damage to tissues up to 4" in diameter from the wound channel. I can't recall if that is something I read on the Internet at a gov't site, or something I read in some manual about firearms in the Army. I'd need to research that.
Of course, I completely agree that a well placed shot is what really counts. No matter if you're using a .22 or a .45. But I do think the .45 gives the sloppy aimed round a better chance at disabling the intended target.
1. Because I didn't run the figures for most of those calibers.ET. said:
2. Because it's not true. I did run the numbers for the .380 ACP, and as I mentioned earlier on the thread it rounded down to zero when viewed only to the nearest tenth.
Rather than making things up, it would be far more productive for you to read the comments in my previous posts. I've been very clear about exactly what the numbers mean and also what they don't mean.ET. said:
As I suggested to ET., it would be far more productive to actually read what I have posted as opposed to creating straw man arguments and assertions to attack.cougar gt-e said:
The amount of damage is virtually meaningless if it's not taken in the context of the whole item being damaged. 100 pounds of material damage to a motorcycle is a LOT of damage indeed, while 100 pounds of material damage to a battleship is negligible. To suggest that viewing the amount of damage as a percentage of the whole item actually undergoing the damage is viewing a non-important relationship is ludicrous.
Comparing amounts of damage without understanding how they relate to the whole is pointless. Suggesting, in the absence of other information, that one battleship with 1000 lbs of damage is more incapacitated than a battleship with 100 lbs of damage would be laughable. One needs to know how much that damage is, as a percentage of the whole in order to even begin to get idea of whether or not it's a significant amount of damage. If it were established that it's really a very small amount of damage relative to the whole then the important question becomes--WHAT parts are actually damaged.
On the other hand, if the amount of damage worked out to be a really significant percentage of the whole then one can expect to make reasonably accurate assessments based purely on the amount of damage.
If you mean that all bullets do a relatively small amount of damage then you are correct. If you mean that wound volume comparisons will show that .22LR and .30-06 rifle rounds cause about the same relative amount of damage then you are absolutely incorrect. Wound channel figures for high-power rifle rounds are not at all comparable to wound channel figures for typical handgun self-defense rounds. A little research on the web looking at gelatin testing results will demonstrate this conclusively.
There was no "number juggling" nor am I making any claim about the statistical significance of the results. I ran the calculations to get a feel for how much of a human is actually damaged by typical self-defense cartridges. It turned out that the numbers for the calibers I listed in the original post came out so similar that rounding them to the nearest tenth of a percent made them all come out the same. I thought that was "an interesting observation" which is exactly what I entitled this thread.
I've been very clear about how the numbers were obtained, what they mean and what they don't mean.
It wouldn't prove any such thing.
First of all, we are talking about averages--as I made perfectly clear in the initial post. "A .380ACP round" will almost certainly create a different amount of wound volume than the average figure. The average figure presented doesn't constrain the performance of any given .380ACP round.
Second, the concept of insufficient significant digits is well established. Rounding a result and ending up with zero doesn't prove anything other than that you need to carry more significant digits.
If one is willing to alter the initial data set that is true.
Otherwise it is simply not true although it is something that we hear quite often. A given data set can be presented in many different ways, but it isn't possible to make a data set say something that isn't in the data set unless you alter the data set itself or make an error in the calculations. That's not making the numbers say something--that's just making up numbers.
As this thread demonstrates there are people who become genuinely offended and upset by being reminded of the fact that their caliber/ammunition choices still result in a very small amount of damage to a human attacker. Anytime someone brings it up it's going to result in heated discussion no matter how its presented.
They are taken from the FBI wound volume figures. The FBI's position on this topic heavily discounts the effects of energy and temporary cavity. They tend to follow the folks who argue that wound volume tells the whole story.
So no, energy is not considered in these figures.
Sure they can. But that's not a GIVEN. Bullets can also hit virtually nothing important.
The point is that if one looks at the AMOUNT of damage done from a big picture perspective one gets a MUCH better feel for why failures to stop can and do occur with any handgun round.
From a more practical perspective it lets us know that OUR performance is considerably more important than the gun's performance or the bullet's performance.
Many people desperately want to believe that they can go to the gun store and purchase stopping power and be safe. It simply doesn't work like that. Looking at the figures in the first post of this thread make it clear that bullets don't damage enough of a person to result in incapacitation unless they are placed so that they damage very important parts of the attacker.
I haven't said anything about "automatic stops". I'm trying to point out that bullet damage needs to be viewed in the proper perspective. One needs to understand how little damage a bullet actually does to a human.
They always do very little damage. Remember that the wound volume figures can actually be viewed best case scenarios. They don't take into account the possibility of peripheral hits where the bullet might only nick a person or go through only an inch of tissue before exiting.
The gelatin blocks are deep enough to prevent exits. They are based on the assumption that the bullet makes a solid hit and that all of its penetration capability is used even when the amount of penetration would likely result in an exit if a human were put in place of the gelatin.
It's important to understand the difference between the AMOUNT of damage and the SIGNIFICANCE of the damage.
Sometimes a bullet damages something very important and rapid incapacitation results--but that doesn't mean that the bullet did MORE damage in that situation, it just means that the damage done was very SIGNIFICANT in terms of incapacitation.
A bullet striking the spine doesn't have to do more damage than one that goes through the gut--it just does more IMPORTANT damage in terms of achieving incapacitation.
Actually, that is exactly the point that the figures make. When you're damaging a very small amount of something, what is really important is WHAT is damaged.
cougar gt-e
New member
My goodness, you certainly did have to do a lot of work to reply to our intelligent (and not so intelligent) comments. Thank you for taking the time and considerable effort.
I actually did read your original post and this one too. Given the amount of replies and the direction of them, it may be plausible that your point was not succinctly made. If you are saying that all calibers of bullets damage only a small portion of the body - so try to damage the important bits. Then your mathematical analysis detracted from making that relationship.
Your point about 1000# of damage vs 100 # of damage to a battle ship, is misleading. Identical damage above the waterline and below the waterline will have different results. In nearly all cases, the item damaged and it's importance to the function of the system is more important than the weight or volume of damage.
Just my opinion.
jb
Actually that's EXACTLY the point. It's what parts are damaged that make the real difference, especially when you're talking about tiny amounts damage relative to the whole.
Trying to compare or assess damage without any other information, without even understanding how much damage is done relative to the whole, results in ridiculous conclusions.
It's important first of all to have proper perspective. It's very hard to draw any reasonable conclusions without understanding the big picture. Perspective is what the figures in the initial post provide.
When you can see the big picture then you have a chance of understanding what's actually important and what's not.
OldMarksman
Staff
"Hydrostatic shock" is a misnomer. Hydrostatics refers to the science of the behavior of fluids at rest. Hydrostatic pressure, for example, is the static pressure exerted by gravity on a column of fluid.
The term "hydrostatic shock" appeared in the gun literature in the writings of Jack O'Connor and Roy Weatherby back around the time I was studying physics in engineering school. Why the error did not appear obvious to me at the time, I do not recall. In any event, Jack and Roy were discussing the effects of projectiles with a velocity on the order of Mach 3, not handgun bullets.
Here's what the summary of the FBI report on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness has to say on the subject:
and...
The original post is to compare the damage a bullet does when it hits the same spot on the target. Between 9mm, .40, etc., the difference in wound channel and damage is negligible. It is not saying a hit to the left ventricle of the heart is the same level of damage as a hit to the fatty tissue of the thigh. I'm sure John will be by to back this up.
Hydrostatic shock, temporoary wound cavity, etc. are BS. The only wounding factor from a bullet is the tissue it contacts and destroys directly.
It seems to me much of the argument here is either reading comprehension issues or that the facts of wound ballistics don't match up with what the old timers "knew" back in the day...bigger, more powerful bullets win the fight. Sometimes, it hurts feelings. The problem is the old knowledge is simply not true. I had a whole discussion about this on THR recently, and in the end, those who diagreed with me resorted to name-calling and arguing insignificant details.
Hydrostatic shock, temporoary wound cavity, etc. are BS. The only wounding factor from a bullet is the tissue it contacts and destroys directly.
It seems to me much of the argument here is either reading comprehension issues or that the facts of wound ballistics don't match up with what the old timers "knew" back in the day...bigger, more powerful bullets win the fight. Sometimes, it hurts feelings. The problem is the old knowledge is simply not true. I had a whole discussion about this on THR recently, and in the end, those who diagreed with me resorted to name-calling and arguing insignificant details.
NightSleeper
New member
Methinks some people put just a little too much thought into certain things .... 
OldMarksman
Staff
That, plus misconceptions resulting from what people have seen portrayed in on-screen dramatics, plus confusing the blast and ado at the range with effectiveness on humans, plus not distinguishing between the need for power for taking large game from the needs for SD shooting, plus folklore, along with a lack of understanding of basic physics among some people....
Heck, I started out with many of the same misconceptions ( the .45 ACP is far better than a 9MM Parabellum, shot placement with the .45 really isn't all that important, a .357 Magnum will reliably stop instantly with one shot, energy transfer ("shock") is the key to handgun effectiveness) years ago. One can learn, when he or she elects to do so.
Maybe I'm not there yet: in an earlier post in this very thread I said that I am not a .380 ACP fan. But guess what? The legendary James B. Hickok ("Wild Bill") chose to carry and use a pair of .36 caliber Colt Navy revolvers, when many more powerful guns were available to him. Those Colts were comparable in power to...uh...the .380 ACP!
Not that those who direct the movies portray those guns as having the power of a pocket automatic when the "bad guys" get hit on screen.
Take a avarage bad guy, been straight for a week and desides to hold someone up with a gun. Good guy pulls his gun and shoots the BG. He drops the BG with a heart lung shot from a good hp round an he drops like a rock. Remeber he's straight. If that same guy is all meth'd up that same walking died guy could for a few seconds empty his gun in you and start to run away. Part of all this involves the persons mental ability.
Here is something else to ponder. Some african hunters had questions and compairing notes wondered why some game dropped with good hits and some ran. They found some medical expert's and after cutting up many animals to study over some time came up with. If the animals died quickly with a heart shot that brain tissue had ruptured, also, and if the animal ran some ways that the brain was relatively in normal shape. Meaning to them that the pressure side of the heart had the valve open and blood flowing to the brain when the bullet intered the heart a high speed pressure wave caused brain tissue to rupture and the animal to "turn off". If the valve was closed and the heart shot the animal could run aways before dieing. Bullet size did not really matter in the test but in africa not many small caliber rounds. So shoot the bad guy atleast a double tap with good placement and hope he ain't higher than a kite and if he's still move'n you still have more ammo right. Heck with the goats and fbi test
Here is something else to ponder. Some african hunters had questions and compairing notes wondered why some game dropped with good hits and some ran. They found some medical expert's and after cutting up many animals to study over some time came up with. If the animals died quickly with a heart shot that brain tissue had ruptured, also, and if the animal ran some ways that the brain was relatively in normal shape. Meaning to them that the pressure side of the heart had the valve open and blood flowing to the brain when the bullet intered the heart a high speed pressure wave caused brain tissue to rupture and the animal to "turn off". If the valve was closed and the heart shot the animal could run aways before dieing. Bullet size did not really matter in the test but in africa not many small caliber rounds. So shoot the bad guy atleast a double tap with good placement and hope he ain't higher than a kite and if he's still move'n you still have more ammo right. Heck with the goats and fbi test
Oh, but the old knowledge is true. The reason it is true is not so much that the bigger, heavier bullet does 5x the damage of a smaller one. It is because gunfights are not choreographed cinematic events where single opponents stand in the open and face each other square-on, only fire one shot apiece with equal weapons, etc. They are melees of excited, drugged and momentarily crazy people running wildly about and emptying guns at each other.
The 'big bullet advantage' is not necessarily the bigger hole it makes in 'stuff that matters' although that is icing on the cake. It is the bigger, heavier bullet's ability to penetrate intervening limbs, overcome oblique angles of entry, shatter and penetrate major bone structures.
OldMarksman
Staff
I don't think so. I did, for years, but I don't now.
The bigger bullet may or may not do all of those very important things. For penetration, I would prefer a .38 Super Automatic or a .357 SIG to a .44 Special, or to a .45 ACP for that matter, any day. Penetration is a function of bullet construction and shape, and of mass and velocity (squared)*, not just one of size and mass.
More importantly, however, the "bigger, heavier" bullet has one very important disadvantage when it comes to self defense: higher momentum (mass times velocity). Whatever additional momentum is imparted to the "bigger, heavier" bullet is also imparted to the handgun, making it that much more difficult to get an immediate second and possibly third shot into that rapidly moving target and more difficult to get the sights on a second threat before it's too late. All defensive shooting training these days calls for getting multiple shots on target very quickly, since the proverbial "one shot stop" is a matter of pure luck.
There's one other disadvantage, and that's the adverse effect on capacity. How important that is (except in competition, where it is paramount) won't be known until one's gun runs empty at the wrong time.
One of my favorite carry guns is a steel-framed 1911 with good sights in .45 ACP. Will I ever need more than eight shots? Hope I never find out. Is the .45 really it that much better than a 9MM Parabellum? Probably not. I bought it before doing a lot of real research on handgun wounding effectiveness, and I was probably influenced more by legend and folklore than by facts.
I can get multiple hits on target pretty quickly, but I was advised that using it in a high performance tactical defensive shooting class would put me at a distinct disadvantage vs. those who were using high-capacity 9s and .40s.
That advice turned out to be right.
__________
*While energy transfer in handgun calibers reportedly does not translate directly into effectiveness in any measurable degree, kinetic anergy is a major determinant in bullet penetration performance in both handguns and rifles.
Catfishman
New member
This could be the most pointless, purposely misleading thing I've every read TFL.
It may very well appear pointless to some, but it is not at all misleading--it's just not a particularly popular view.
The data is available on the internet--anyone can make the same calculations I did and duplicate the results. I think that several folks on this thread have confused their disagreement with the general premise of the post with an attempt to mislead on my part, but that's a mistake. The fact that some folks don't like what the post says doesn't make it or me misleading.
Again, I want to reiterate that the numbers do NOT say that all the listed calibers perform the same in terms of wound volume. The next to last sentence in the original post should make that clear, but I have stated it explicitly several times on this thread just in case some folks missed it.
What the numbers do is provide perspective. It's very tempting to focus nearly exclusively on terminal performance as if the differences in terminal performance will provide everything we need to know about selecting a self-defense weapon.
It's tempting because you can BUY a gun in a particular caliber and you can BUY ammunition with good terminal performance. Buying things is easy. A good quality gun and premium self-defense ammunition are well within the purchasing ability of most Americans.
So, for the time expended in a trip to the store, the cost of a gun and ammunition, and the effort required to make a trip or two to the range to slowly, deliberately make holes in a piece of paper, people can feel safe. They just BOUGHT stopping power and now it's all OK. But that's not true. Their conclusions are based on an analysis that is so narrowly focused that it can't help but be inaccurate.
It's not until one gets the big picture--sees just how little damage a bullet actually does on average to a human being--that one realizes that focusing exclusively on terminal performance differences is a mistake.
Catfishman
New member
I don't like this thread and I don't think it comes close to proving the points you says it does. But, I apologize for the "purposely misleading" part. I don't know you intent.
John,
Again you make a number of useful points in your above post but the original points regarding wound volume are rather pointless and misleading.
You agree with most of us that shot placement and bullet construction are more critical than caliber to the effectiveness of handgun rounds. You also agree, apparently, that most standard service calibers with well constructed bullets will do the job required of them. You agree with most of us that where the hole is put is critical. You toss that knowledge away though.
You say "Look none of these holes put here are very big!". We say "OK".
You say "no really look none of the holes are very big". We say "OK, but so what"
You say "The holes are not big, that's what!" We say, "OK what's your point we know they aren't very big but it's where they go that's important".
You say, "I knew it you are infatuated with big bores. The holes are tiny".
Ok so only a small amount of tissue is actually physically damaged compared to the rest that is left intact. That is also true of a stroke victim or of a brain anuerism. Also true of a charlie horse.
We knew only a small amount of tissue is damaged. You can repeat it over and over, and accuse folks of not agreeing that a small amount is damaged but the amount gets neither bigger or smaller. Beyond that, What ya got? Because the point in and of itself don't mean much.
It can also be misleading as it implies that selection of a bullet, caliber and gun make little difference. If the 158 gr. LRN bullet at 780 fps from a .38 Spl. damages about the same amount of tissue as the 158 gr. JHP at 1200 fps from a .357 than why should bullet type or caliber even enter into the choice of firearm.
tipoc
Again you make a number of useful points in your above post but the original points regarding wound volume are rather pointless and misleading.
You agree with most of us that shot placement and bullet construction are more critical than caliber to the effectiveness of handgun rounds. You also agree, apparently, that most standard service calibers with well constructed bullets will do the job required of them. You agree with most of us that where the hole is put is critical. You toss that knowledge away though.
You say "Look none of these holes put here are very big!". We say "OK".
You say "no really look none of the holes are very big". We say "OK, but so what"
You say "The holes are not big, that's what!" We say, "OK what's your point we know they aren't very big but it's where they go that's important".
You say, "I knew it you are infatuated with big bores. The holes are tiny".
Ok so only a small amount of tissue is actually physically damaged compared to the rest that is left intact. That is also true of a stroke victim or of a brain anuerism. Also true of a charlie horse.
We knew only a small amount of tissue is damaged. You can repeat it over and over, and accuse folks of not agreeing that a small amount is damaged but the amount gets neither bigger or smaller. Beyond that, What ya got? Because the point in and of itself don't mean much.
It can also be misleading as it implies that selection of a bullet, caliber and gun make little difference. If the 158 gr. LRN bullet at 780 fps from a .38 Spl. damages about the same amount of tissue as the 158 gr. JHP at 1200 fps from a .357 than why should bullet type or caliber even enter into the choice of firearm.
tipoc
Your post obviously wasn't formulated as a personal attack and it would have been a real stretch for me to take it at all personally.
But I thank you for your apology--it's nice to see that we can all be civil even when an emotionally charged topic like this one comes up.
In what way? Aside from the fact that I've said exactly zero about bullet construction on this thread, that knowledge is exactly the whole point of this thread. I don't understand how anything I've said could be construed as tossing away the ideas you list.
The reason I keep pointing out that it's WHAT is damaged that's important is because people keep saying things like this as if they somehow contradict what I'm saying. That gives me the impression that what I'm saying is not getting through.
The reason a stroke can be deadly is because of WHAT is damaged. The reason a brain aneurism can be deadly is because of WHAT is damaged. The reason a charlie horse is harmless is twofold--one, no tissue is damaged, and two, the area involved isn't vital anyway.
Out of your 3 examples, 2 of them are strongly in support of my point that rather than focusing on how much damage (given that the amount of damage is small and also is also roughly comparable when comparing the calibers in question) that one should focus on WHAT is damaged. Which makes me wonder why you're stating it as if it is somehow contrary to what I'm saying.
But then the third example doesn't have anything to do with tissue damage at all. It's almost totally irrelevant to the topic. Which leaves me wondering why I'm not getting through.
So I try to say it a slightly different way in hopes that somehow it will finally click.
It means what I've said it means--no more, no less. It means that the amount of damage done by a typical self-defense handgun bullet, in and of itself, doesn't imply incapacitation will result as many people seem to think it does.
If that's not much then it's not much. But if it's not much why are people arguing the point?
It doesn't really imply that at all.
It comes straight out and says that within a general performance class (like the one listed in the OP) differences in terminal performance, when viewed in the proper perspective, are so small that they definitely should not be the exclusive focus in choosing a self-defense gun or caliber.
So why should caliber enter into the choice of a firearm? This makes my point very well, and I thank you for asking the question.
There are several reasons that caliber should enter into the choice of a firearm, and the fact that you have to ask me what they are, as if terminal performance is the only reasonable factor to consider, is a perfect illustration of one of the primary points I've been trying to make. The point is that many people are virtually exclusively focused on terminal performance as the caliber selection criterion.
Here are a few reasons (not a complete list) why caliber should be considered when choosing a firearm.
Caliber affects, or can affect (in no particular order):
- Capacity for a given size/weight firearm.
- Recoil for a given size/weight firearm.
- Practice expenses.
- Terminal Performance.
- Reliability in some platforms.