Is Big Bullet Technology Dead?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mavracer there is no question that .12 splits are lightning fast. There is also no question that 540 shots per minute from a handgun is a bit faster than the average shooter can manage.:rolleyes: I don't know how that is relevant to this conversation. Whether my (or anyone else's) split times with a 9 mm are .16 or .56 it is a very good bet that with a similar size and weight handgun in .45 or .357 they will be slower. The average shooter will also be more accurate with the 9 mm. You can spin that any way you want, but those are simply the facts.

Are the differences enough to change the outcome of a gunfighft considering bigger holes and greater velocities? That is less certain. I believe it is. Y'all believe what you want.
 
.12 splits would be 540 rounds per minute just shy of what a M16 is, extremely unrealistic for the average shooter.
Click to expand...
0.12 splits work out to 500 rounds per minute give or take a round. The cyclic rate of an M16 is probably closer to 700rpm at the low end.

Anyway, that said, it is true that 0.12 splits would be very fast shooting--not out of the realm of reality by any means, but certainly very fast. It is also true that the faster both shooters are, the more rapidly a given split time difference will add up into a larger shot advantage.

Here's an example that compares a faster shooter with 0.2 second splits and a slower shooter achieving 0.24 second splits.

Obviously after the first shot, the faster shooter is going to get off his next shot before the slower shooter and that will be the case until the faster shooter's 7th shot which will happen simultaneous to the slower shooter's 6th shot.

By the faster shooter's 8th shot, 1.4 seconds after both shooters fire their first shot, the slower shooter would still have only fired 6. At the faster shooter's 14th shot, the slower shooter will have only fired 11.

If you have split values that you like better, post them and I'll run those too.
 
I think the first "high tech" bullet I ever saw was the Speer 200 grain 45ACP bullet with a quarter inch hollow point. It easily expanded at 850 fps and it was made long before the "new" 9mm bullets. Not a bullet made today has been left behind in the technology race except for the 358 cast 158 grain Kieth style bullet. There is just no way to improve that one. :)
 
That bullet actually performed better than some of the old design hollow points. Flat point,gut spreading taper,sharp shoulder. If you are going to fire a round that has no expansion you can at least make sure that it doesn't just squirt through like a needle.

A lot of the older designs just didn't expand, and didn't do much better than a round ball. I have several old brands from over half a century ago and some of the .357 ones have cavities that wouldn't even fit a bb. Most of them are as hard as steel. I did some expansion and penetration testing and with a lot of them, other than the rifling marks there was no evidence that they had been fired at all.
 
JohnKSa that is as good an explanation of how slight differences in split times can make a real difference in a gunfighft as I've seen. As seen here, many dismiss those differences as unimportant. I don't
Click to expand...

Ah, they can make a difference... Possibly. I think the .2 split time is realistic. I can personally do a little better most days, but I know I'm better than the average shooter and probably do at least par for TFL standards. I do not pull .12 split times. I do only count speed as an acco pice fo accuracy. If i cant hit a 8" target at 10 yards 9 of 10 times, consistently, that speed doesnt count. But let's take 14 accurate hits (using his later example of .2 second splits with 9mm vs .24 with .45) of 9mm vs 11 of .45 (assuming capacity isn't an issue). Let's use that for statistical significance. You are shot 14 times with 9mm. Is that any worse or better than with 11 .45acp and its larger wound channel? There's no "scientific proof" way to answer that, BTW. And, fwiw, I'm not as much of a defender of the "almighty" .45, but I also don't worship at the 9mm alter. Both serve you well, and I think .45 DOES have more wounding potential than 9mm. Can I prove it with science? No. No more than you can prove 14 rounds of 9mm is more deadly than 11 rounds of .45.

So the point is caliber wars are pretty stupid. The "soft recoiling" of 9mm is overrated. Im aware 9mm will be faster, but is it significantly faster? Even 9mm worshipers admit there is at least a fair chance that the .45 wound channel will be larger, and that it hits with more momentum, but scientifically we can't prove that its a significant difference. I personally believe there are applications for the larger caliber. I like .45 more in the winter. Why? Well, heavy winter clothing often disrupts the expansion (at least somewhat) of even modern projectiles and I believe starting diameter counts in this case. Coincidentally, its also easier to conceal larger firearms chambered in .45 in heavy winter clothing.

Further I believe the momentum of 230 grains vs 124 grains (with similar k/e) is significant. For an extreme demonstration compare .243 winchester vs 45-70. 243 has MORE k/e, but no one argues that it has more wounding ability than 45-70. The same people who argue that there is no significant difference between 9mm and 45 will tell you .243 is not suitable to elk hunt, but 45-70 will put them down as quick as anything. Let's take .30-06 and 45-70. Most folks will argue that 45-70 has more wounding capacity as a hunting round, despite 30-06's significantly greater k/e. But supposedly momentum matters for hunting cartridgex, but doesn't matter in pistol calibers. It does. Maybe not on the same scale, but it does.

So is .04 seconds less time between shots more important than more momentum and a larger starting diameter? I don't think so. Is capacity and size of platform important? YES! This is the best argument for 9mm, and is personally why I carry a 9mm most of them time. Especially in summer. Where I civilian CCw, I wouldn't care about 10 rounds capacity vs 7, or 15 vs 10. I'm LEO, and capacity is very important to me as Im expected to not just survive, but confront and overcome. I don't have a dog in this fight. In fact, I often wind up defending the caliber I choose NOT to carry most of the time because of capacity when carrying plain clothes and concealing. When carrying service size, I am strangely comfortable with 45 despite the lower capacity and .04 second slower split times.
 
Last edited:
I do not measure my split times. I consider it a waste of time
Click to expand...

So using an actual empirical measurement is not useful, but I am to trust your word that 9mm is faster on follow ups based on your careful observations? I've been on a good number of firing lines myself as both student and instructor. Some individuals will be better served by 9mm as .45 recoil is not easy for them to control and they won't take the time or effort to become proficient. For others, proficient shooting comes much more naturally or they are enthused enough to devote the time to become quite proficient. A proficient shooter will notice a strikingly small difference in time between follow up shots between 9mm and 45, should they feel it isnt a waste of time to measure it.
 
A proficient shooter will notice a strikingly small difference in time between follow up shots between 9mm and 45, should they feel it isnt a waste of time to measure it.
Click to expand...
Ok - so - despite not wanting to know, I gather a "split time" refers to the time between one shot and a follow up shot.
I couldn't care less & to be 100% frank, I believe it goes against everything I believe in about defensive shooting.

Call me "ancient school", but, stuff like that didn't even exist back when I learned to shoot. (thank God)!

I learned to make every shot count and to conserve ammunition.
You learn that when all you have is 6 rounds - plus (if you're lucky) another 12 rounds in a dump pack & help is a fair piece away.

For example; My work/shooting partner is a IDPA 5 gun master. His first focus when looking at most guns is competition, my first focus is carry/SD role.
Click to expand...
You know my friend, you didn't even need to mention that. I can tell by past discussions we've had here that you and I see eye to eye on a number of things. While my first goal was not carry oriented (Ohio had no legal carry), a lot of revolver basics went into my background.
 
Hal said:
Ok - so - despite not wanting to know, I gather a "split time" refers to the time between one shot and a follow up shot.
I couldn't care less & to be 100% frank, I believe it goes against everything I believe in about defensive shooting.

Call me "ancient school", but, stuff like that didn't even exist back when I learned to shoot. (thank God)!

I learned to make every shot count and to conserve ammunition.
You learn that when all you have is 6 rounds - plus (if you're lucky) another 12 rounds in a dump pack & help is a fair piece away.
Click to expand...

This video is worth the 3 minutes.
Substitute a citizen for the officer, ex: citizen being attacked by determined sociopath with impact weapon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d94FG6Thv0A

Split time a factor and conservation of ammo not prioritized.
 
So using an actual empirical measurement is not useful, ....
Click to expand...
It would not be useful for me. I know that I can shoot controlled shots more rapidly with a gun with less recoil.

I do not know how much more rapidly, but measuring split times would only tell me that for the specific conditions in the experiment.

In the real world, one's rate of fire will vary, depending upon the distance to the attacker as he closes, and as one tries to balance speed and precision to achieve combat accuracy.

The split times measured somewhere with a timer at a given distance when one fires at the signal will have only academic value when it comes to self defense.

...but I am to trust your word that 9mm is faster on follow ups based on your careful observations?
Click to expand...
You have much more than my word to go on.

I simply described how my observations taught me something.

Some individuals will be better served by 9mm as .45 recoil is not easy for them to control and they won't take the time or effort to become proficient. For others, proficient shooting comes much more naturally or they are enthused enough to devote the time to become quite proficient.
Click to expand...

Rob Pincus addressed that very well: "Physics dictates that the 9mm is going to be a more manageable round (lower recoil) than the .40 S&W out of any particular firearm. So, no matter how much you train and how much you practice, everyone should be able to shoot a string of Combat Accurate 9mm rounds faster than they can fire a string of .40." (Emphasis added).

A proficient shooter will notice a strikingly small difference in time between follow up shots between 9mm and 45, should they feel it isnt a waste of time to measure it.
Click to expand...
Or should they measure it--it doesn't matter.

John has shown us with a few simple calculations how the "strikingly small" difference can make a difference.

Rob addressed that, too: " Of course, if you consider a 4×8 sheet of plywood your “combat accurate” area, you’re going to have to go to a relatively long string of fire to be able to measure a difference in time, but if you stick with a probable target size (high center chest) at a plausible distance (10-15’), it shouldn’t be hard to see a difference at a reasonable number of rounds (3-6)."
 
Substitute a citizen for the officer, ex: citizen being attacked by determined sociopath with impact weapon:
Click to expand...
You're kidding right?
I see a guy advance on another guy with a stick, then proceed to end up shooting stick guy.
I'm pretty sure that would net you - - at the very least - - manslaughter charges or aggravated assault charges here in Ohio.

A citizen can't go hunting down trouble like that & then call self defense.

Not cool...
 
Hal said:
You're kidding right?
I see a guy advance on another guy with a stick, then proceed to end up shooting stick guy.
I'm pretty sure that would net you - - at the very least - - manslaughter charges or aggravated assault charges here in Ohio.

A citizen can't go hunting down trouble like that & then call self defense.

Not cool...
Click to expand...


Big picture, generalize the main idea:
Sociopath attacking with impact weapon, continues toward defender despite taking rounds.
 
Ok - so - despite not wanting to know, I gather a "split time" refers to the time between one shot and a follow up shot.
I couldn't care less & to be 100% frank, I believe it goes against everything I believe in about defensive shooting.

Call me "ancient school", but, stuff like that didn't even exist back when I learned to shoot. (thank God)!

I learned to make every shot count and to conserve ammunition.
You learn that when all you have is 6 rounds - plus (if you're lucky) another 12 rounds in a dump pack & help is a fair piece away.
Click to expand...
.

Hal unless "ancient school" means sometime in the 18th century, the idea of being able to shoot fast accurately is nothing new. I imagine even gunfighters and law enforcement in the old West discussed split times, although they may not have used that term! You don't like the video showing how quickly things happen in a life threatening attack, but how many rounds would you have fired before stopping to see if the maniac with the bat was going to stop? How long would that have taken?
 
Last edited:
K Mac,

Shooting fast and accurately might translate in to permanent sleep. It ain't your speed and accuracy that will determine your survival. It's a bad guy's proficiency with his weapon that that oughta give you pause for life. Too many bad guys are authentic trained killers who have committed murder and who have received military trained killer training.

A good guy's speed accuracy ain't anywhere near as detrimental to life as a bad guy's. If you believe that, and it's gospel, then you gotta believe that the longer you remain in a bad guy's sight picture the more sure your mortician will be that he'll prepare your corpse for wake. God forbid, were you in a gunfight and you took time to align your sights for an accurate shot, you'd be a fool. Get the hell outta a bad guy's sight picture unless death becomes you.
 
Here is what I do know:

The only way to survive a gunfight is to not get in one.

If avoidance is not an option, do not get shot!

The 9MM is my minimum for saving my life. However, I do not own a 9MM.

I ain't sure which way I'd go were I in the most life endangering predicament of an imminent gunfight that I could not avoid: a Sig P229 with 13 180 grain Federal HST Tactical rounds with another dozen ready to go inside a couple seconds or a 1911-A1 loaded to the hilt with 9 230 grain Federal HST Tactical rounds with another 8 ready to go inside a couple seconds.

I do know that I'd probably be better off bringing a knife to a gunfight than a revolver.

Good thing this is learning. The real world of gun fighting is a very deadly classroom, one that's best left unopened.
 
SA 1911 you continue to pound the avoidance drum. If avoidance was always possible there would be no need to carry a weapon of any kind. We are discussing what happens when running or hiding isn't an option.

Most of us also understand that the advantage almost always goes to the attacker. Situational awareness can minimize that, but not always. It is also true that there are many dangerous people who are just looking for the opportunity to hurt others. With this knowledge what do you recommend to the person who is looking to give him/herself the best chance of surviving in a dangerous world?

I have been taught that being able to quickly and accurately put rounds on target in a violent attack gives me the best chance of survival. Being able to do so while moving improves my chances. Most of us who carry a gun understand that if we are in a situation where it is needed we are in real trouble. We don't get to decide where and when trouble will find us. All we can do is prepare as if it will, praying that it won't.

For the record, a revolver in .22lr would be far better than the biggest knife if the stuff hits the fan!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top