Just some simple ballistic facts to share.
- Thread starter Sawyer.N
- Start date
Yes, there are quite a few documented "scary guy" stories out there apart from Michael Platt of the Dade County shootout, who did not go down until he was shot for the 12th time at point blank range.
One Richard E. Blackburn is serving a life sentence for killing South Carolina State Trooper Mark Coates. Mark Coates shot Blackburn 5 times center mass at near point blank range with his 357 Magnum revolver. I have heard conflicting reports as to whether his revolver was loaded with 357 Magnum or 38 Special +P rounds. Blackburn not only survived but remained non-incapacitated enough to shoot Trooper Coates with a .22 caliber handgun that hit Coates in the armpit area missing his vest and entering his aorta. You can watch a dashcam video of the shooting on youtube that shows exactly how long it took Coates to go down after being shot in the aorta with a .22. (Spoiler alert: it was not absolutely immediate but it didn't take long). I remember hearing an interview with Blackburn in which he said the gunshot wounds felt like little beestings.
Bob Stasch is a Chicago cop who survived 14 separate gunfights. Massad Ayoob did a long interview with him which can be found on youtube. The interview is worth listening to if you want to hear from someone with real gunfighting experience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd3v_fssabI
In that interview, Stasch describes in detail his first gunfight with a 23 year old Cuban immigrant drug dealer who came at Stasch's partner with a butcher knife. The partner shot the Cuban 6 times at point blank range in the chest with his .45 Long Colt revolver. The Cuban continued to lunge and grapple with Stasch's partner who managed to get on top of him, draw his backup J frame revolver loaded with 158 grain 38 Special +P, and fire 5 shots into the center of the assailant's back. The Cuban assailant continued the fight and managed to get on top of Stasch's partner when Stasch entered the building lobby where the fight was taking place.
Stasch started taking shots from about 15 feet, closing as he fired and shot the guy twice in the upper torso with his S&W Model 29 loaded with 240 grain .44 Magnums. This did not seem to faze him. Stasch concluded the guy must be wearing body armor (he wasn't) and started going for pelvic shots. He hit low, once in the guy's thigh, and his fourth shot took out one of his kneecaps which finally ended the fight after the perp had been shot 15 times at close range. The guy had a relatively low blood alcohol level of .05, and no drugs in his system on toxicology screen. He lived for 10 days after the fight.
I have seen a fair number of gunshot wounds. Some people who were shot described it as the worst pain they had ever experienced. Others didn't even realize they had been shot. I remember one individual brought into the Trauma Unit at Cook County Hospital by the Chicago Police after they shot him. The guy had been waving a pistol around in a threatening manner. At the time, I was a medical student and back then (late 1970s) the Chicago Police were still by and large carrying 357 Magnum revolvers. The guy was hopped up on PCPs, manic, and talking at 60 miles a second. The bullet had hit him in the dominant elbow, largely blew away the bones there, and immediately ended the threat. The individual was completely unaware that he had been shot, or appeared so. When someone pointed out that his arm was dangling loosely and he was bleeding all over the floor, he glanced at his elbow with as little interest as if they had pointed out to him a boring picture on the wall, and carried right on.
One Richard E. Blackburn is serving a life sentence for killing South Carolina State Trooper Mark Coates. Mark Coates shot Blackburn 5 times center mass at near point blank range with his 357 Magnum revolver. I have heard conflicting reports as to whether his revolver was loaded with 357 Magnum or 38 Special +P rounds. Blackburn not only survived but remained non-incapacitated enough to shoot Trooper Coates with a .22 caliber handgun that hit Coates in the armpit area missing his vest and entering his aorta. You can watch a dashcam video of the shooting on youtube that shows exactly how long it took Coates to go down after being shot in the aorta with a .22. (Spoiler alert: it was not absolutely immediate but it didn't take long). I remember hearing an interview with Blackburn in which he said the gunshot wounds felt like little beestings.
Bob Stasch is a Chicago cop who survived 14 separate gunfights. Massad Ayoob did a long interview with him which can be found on youtube. The interview is worth listening to if you want to hear from someone with real gunfighting experience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd3v_fssabI
In that interview, Stasch describes in detail his first gunfight with a 23 year old Cuban immigrant drug dealer who came at Stasch's partner with a butcher knife. The partner shot the Cuban 6 times at point blank range in the chest with his .45 Long Colt revolver. The Cuban continued to lunge and grapple with Stasch's partner who managed to get on top of him, draw his backup J frame revolver loaded with 158 grain 38 Special +P, and fire 5 shots into the center of the assailant's back. The Cuban assailant continued the fight and managed to get on top of Stasch's partner when Stasch entered the building lobby where the fight was taking place.
Stasch started taking shots from about 15 feet, closing as he fired and shot the guy twice in the upper torso with his S&W Model 29 loaded with 240 grain .44 Magnums. This did not seem to faze him. Stasch concluded the guy must be wearing body armor (he wasn't) and started going for pelvic shots. He hit low, once in the guy's thigh, and his fourth shot took out one of his kneecaps which finally ended the fight after the perp had been shot 15 times at close range. The guy had a relatively low blood alcohol level of .05, and no drugs in his system on toxicology screen. He lived for 10 days after the fight.
I have seen a fair number of gunshot wounds. Some people who were shot described it as the worst pain they had ever experienced. Others didn't even realize they had been shot. I remember one individual brought into the Trauma Unit at Cook County Hospital by the Chicago Police after they shot him. The guy had been waving a pistol around in a threatening manner. At the time, I was a medical student and back then (late 1970s) the Chicago Police were still by and large carrying 357 Magnum revolvers. The guy was hopped up on PCPs, manic, and talking at 60 miles a second. The bullet had hit him in the dominant elbow, largely blew away the bones there, and immediately ended the threat. The individual was completely unaware that he had been shot, or appeared so. When someone pointed out that his arm was dangling loosely and he was bleeding all over the floor, he glanced at his elbow with as little interest as if they had pointed out to him a boring picture on the wall, and carried right on.
7.62 x 25 Tokarev. "The pistol-fired bullet has various muzzle velocities around the range of 1300 to 1800 fps. A common velocity would be around 442 metres per second (1,450 ft/s) with about 544 joules (401 ft·lbf) of energy. Given the wide disparity in ammunition manufactured in many different nations, ammunition will be encountered that yields higher and lower velocity. Some newly manufactured ammunition intended for commercial use has a velocity of approximately 1,560 feet per second (480 m/s). Wolf Gold FMJ tops out at 1,720 feet per second (520 m/s) with 570 foot-pounds force (770 J) as does PPU ammunition. Some of this ammunition, such as the Wolf Gold and Sellier & Bellot, uses boxer primed brass cases that are reloadable." Wikipedia. Nuf said...
But the difference between say 9mm and 45ACP just isn't that dramatic. There is a difference I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is it is nowhere near as dramatic as people think. To me making judgements on something that is very subjective (how much more did one block wiggle as opposed to another) when we have penetration depth and the final wound channel, which I can compare more easily, is to me not overly useful.
OldMarksman
Staff
That is exactly why we observe the differing effects on steel plates.
However, it has nothing to do with wounding effectiveness.
I don't suggest the gel block reaction is necessarily bore dia driven.
I'm willing to accept a 1250 fps 9 mm with an effective bullet can make me feel more pain/impact/distraction than a 230 gr 850 fps hardball.
I suspect there are 10 mm loads that would really get my attention if they hit me.
I'm saying you can compare penetration. Its a valid criteria. You can compare sliced gel bock permanent wound channels. Valid criteria.
But those two factors do not tell the whole story.By whatever mechanism,the violence of the impact ,as the cameras show it,seems to me like a factor.
I do not question that some folks for whatever reason can soak up a lot of lead,or put up a heck of a fight. I do not question that pretty much all handguns are marginal ballistic tools.
I don't understand what the point is about the guys who can take 16 rounds of whatever.OK.I believe you.
So if we were comparing a 45-70 to a 30-30 for a hunting rifle and someone told the story of a cape buffalo or rogue wounded Grizzly that soaked up 12 rounds of .470 Nitro and 9 375 H+H rounds... OK. What am I supposed to learn?I'm missing the point,I guess.
No disrespect intended.
I'm willing to accept a 1250 fps 9 mm with an effective bullet can make me feel more pain/impact/distraction than a 230 gr 850 fps hardball.
I suspect there are 10 mm loads that would really get my attention if they hit me.
I'm saying you can compare penetration. Its a valid criteria. You can compare sliced gel bock permanent wound channels. Valid criteria.
But those two factors do not tell the whole story.By whatever mechanism,the violence of the impact ,as the cameras show it,seems to me like a factor.
I do not question that some folks for whatever reason can soak up a lot of lead,or put up a heck of a fight. I do not question that pretty much all handguns are marginal ballistic tools.
I don't understand what the point is about the guys who can take 16 rounds of whatever.OK.I believe you.
So if we were comparing a 45-70 to a 30-30 for a hunting rifle and someone told the story of a cape buffalo or rogue wounded Grizzly that soaked up 12 rounds of .470 Nitro and 9 375 H+H rounds... OK. What am I supposed to learn?I'm missing the point,I guess.
No disrespect intended.
From your first sentence you should get what the point is that people are trying to make. The point is that handguns can suck at killing. Unless you make a hit to one of those critical areas the fight can well go on. The fact is that any of the standard pistol calibers can penetrate to the depth required with enough mass to damage that critical organ or CNS on a human target. The block wiggling may or may not translate to a person being out of the fight temporarily. Hitting one of those critical areas will translate to that person being out of the fight either immediately or very shortly. What people are doing is emphasizing that when it comes to handguns shot placement is the primary factor and hoping for incapacitation from shock is not a reliable investment. Given the impact that stress has on accuracy it can take a number of shots before that critical hit is made, hence the potential importance of capacity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Always the difficult choice when picking whether to carry my Glock 17 vs the 21.
Both carry about the same, both shoot well. The 17 is faster on follow up shots and holds more ammo, but the 13 + 1 of .45 ain't exactly unarmed either.
Usually just boils down to what I'm reloading that week and how much weight I feel like carrying.
Both carry about the same, both shoot well. The 17 is faster on follow up shots and holds more ammo, but the 13 + 1 of .45 ain't exactly unarmed either.
Usually just boils down to what I'm reloading that week and how much weight I feel like carrying.
Tunnelrat: I agree with what you said. There is a difference between ballistic effect of a cartridge and overall effectiveness of a handgun.
In general terms,considering magazine capacity and controllability, its about 3 rounds of 9mm per 2 rounds 45 ACP,more or less. Three hits 9mm vs two hits 45? Trauma edge probably goes to the 9mm.
If we are talking a 7+1 1911 vs a 21 or 23 round 9mm...the advantage potential is even greater.
IMO,all of that,while valid,is a different conversation than LuckyGunner gel block results.
If I were trying to decide between a 9mm or 45 ACP S+W Shield ...HMMM
Isn't the mag capacity difference one round? If it comes down to 7 rds 45 vs 8 rds 9 mm,I have some thinking to do and I might go 45.
But I also agree it is about shades of grey.
In general terms,considering magazine capacity and controllability, its about 3 rounds of 9mm per 2 rounds 45 ACP,more or less. Three hits 9mm vs two hits 45? Trauma edge probably goes to the 9mm.
If we are talking a 7+1 1911 vs a 21 or 23 round 9mm...the advantage potential is even greater.
IMO,all of that,while valid,is a different conversation than LuckyGunner gel block results.
If I were trying to decide between a 9mm or 45 ACP S+W Shield ...HMMM
Isn't the mag capacity difference one round? If it comes down to 7 rds 45 vs 8 rds 9 mm,I have some thinking to do and I might go 45.
But I also agree it is about shades of grey.
I believe there is a slight height difference between those two models, which is part of the reason the capacity difference isn't larger (to be fair I don't carry single stack pistols and though I've owned a 9mm Shield I no longer do, so my knowledge there is limited). But capacity isn't the only difference between the two calibers. There is also a difference in recoil and this can affect the speed and accuracy of follow up shots (of course that will depend on the shooter and his/her experience).
And no I don't think it is a different conversation. When I look at the Lucky Gunner tests for 9mm, 40SW, and 45ACP I don't see one that performs dramatically better then the other in the testing. Then you take into account the differences in capacity and how well a given shooter handles the recoil of that cartridge in the given firearm and to me it makes a case for 9mm. 9mm is also cheaper and allows the shooter to practice more (assuming an income limitation) in order to better get that shot placement when needed. You can say these are unrelated issues but I'd disagree. They're all part of an overall equation in terms of surviving a fight, which I think is what people have been trying to illustrate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And no I don't think it is a different conversation. When I look at the Lucky Gunner tests for 9mm, 40SW, and 45ACP I don't see one that performs dramatically better then the other in the testing. Then you take into account the differences in capacity and how well a given shooter handles the recoil of that cartridge in the given firearm and to me it makes a case for 9mm. 9mm is also cheaper and allows the shooter to practice more (assuming an income limitation) in order to better get that shot placement when needed. You can say these are unrelated issues but I'd disagree. They're all part of an overall equation in terms of surviving a fight, which I think is what people have been trying to illustrate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Agreed. At least for myself, I dont have enough time or money to get trained up to the place I would like to be, so I spend alot of time practicing by myself, dry fire and at range. I do not have any type of training to help me hone myself in during a life and death situation, so I do believe there is something to be said for capacity me, and less felt recoil of 9mm.
When this subject is revisited ad infinitum, there are always some who just have to make the point (that no one rightly ever disagrees with) that placement is more important than caliber size. But, because the subject under discussion is ballistic-related and not "tactical" in terms of the obvious (hit 'em between the eyes and a .22 is plenty) for the most part, I would make the point that, everything else being equal (for argument's sake-I know it can't be in reality), the question boils down to which is most important in terms of surviving a gun fight: a bigger bullet vs less recoil and more capacity.
Because bigger is generally better in terms of stopping power, the question becomes further evolved as to whether a 9mm/.40 cal. bullet can expand to what a .45 cal. bullet already brings to the fray, even if in hardball configuration, and more? Which then begs the question: if using the same technology that makes a lesser bullet in terms of size get bigger, wouldn't a .45 sized bullet get even bigger?
All of which is why I think the "debate" comes down to size vs recoil (more control when firing repeat shots quickly) and capacity. Which factor is most important can never be decided objectively and probably isn't at all significant if the shot is placed in the best place.
Because bigger is generally better in terms of stopping power, the question becomes further evolved as to whether a 9mm/.40 cal. bullet can expand to what a .45 cal. bullet already brings to the fray, even if in hardball configuration, and more? Which then begs the question: if using the same technology that makes a lesser bullet in terms of size get bigger, wouldn't a .45 sized bullet get even bigger?
All of which is why I think the "debate" comes down to size vs recoil (more control when firing repeat shots quickly) and capacity. Which factor is most important can never be decided objectively and probably isn't at all significant if the shot is placed in the best place.
OldMarksman
Staff
Since less recoil can enable more rapid firing of aimed shots, and since that is likely to increase the chances of hitting something important, and since the difference in terminal ballistics is really very small, the answer has to be the latter--most of the time.
If bullets from each just happened to hit in the same places on identical targets, the answer might be the former--by at least some small margin.
That's not the issue. Size can make some difference, but not a lot--compare the wound volumes of the various service bullets with the volume of the upper torso, and then look at the areas in which hits would not be effective regardless of diameter.
There is only so much penetration that can be put to good use against a human target, and premium loads in all of the service rounds will provide it.
Yep!
Well, yes it can. A combination of anatomical analysis, actual firing at moving targets, and anatomical simulation can give a pretty objective answer.
But most people just don't need that kind of proof. The last of those tools can reasonably be dispensed with.
But therein lies the rub. A single shot is unlikely to be "placed in the best place" in a real world situation. Placement becomes a stochastic matter, and proper placement is best ensured by more hits--by rapidity of controlled fire.
Purple Bikerr
New member
When I see these type of discussions, I direct those interested to this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2916964/posts
The author makes a compelling point, who sees firsthand, the results of a lot of shootings on the autopsy table.
His conclusion, bigger is better.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2916964/posts
The author makes a compelling point, who sees firsthand, the results of a lot of shootings on the autopsy table.
His conclusion, bigger is better.
Last edited: