Muzzle Velocity vs FT LBS

R

robert1811

New member
its a pretty common conception that when it comes to self defense a rifle bullet vs a handgun bullet, the rifle is always superior for stopping power.

This is leading me to question why that is, and what to look for when looking at a velocity chart (which also lists grains etc. im looking at ballistics101.com) when it comes to stopping power.


A 223 which is 50 grains (im looking at Corbon FMJ) is moving at 3000 FT/sec with 1099 Ft/lbs of energy.

I have seen what this round can do from brassfetcher on youtube and it is devasting.

Now, in the handgun realm im talking big bore here, 44mag and the 460 magnum (I recently bought a 44 mag and a book on big bore revolvers!)

So im looking at Buff Bores 44mag, 270 gr. ft/sec of 1450 and ft/lbs of 1260

And

Buff Bores JFN 300gr, ft/sec 2060 and ft/lbs 2826

Obviously the 460 crushes the 223 and 44mag in terms of both catergories and weight. I thought I throw it in there to show that handgun velocities can get fairly close to rifle velocities. But I feel the 44mag is comparable with the 223 when speaking of lower velocity rounds in both catergories (and in someways trumphs the 223 IMO).

So why is the common saying that a rifle round has better stopping power than a handgun round? The 223 is lighter, travels faster but has almost the same ft/lbs'. The 44 is heavier travels slower but hits with greater ft/lbs.

Please do not post overpenetration is why 44 mag is a worse choice or that a 460 has extreme recoil and is the worse choice. That is not what this question is about.

I am truly curious, why and what should you be looking at when it comes to stopping in power (IMO the damage done) in terms of ballistics? What is the determining factor? Is ft/lbs or energy and or bullet weight a greater determing factor or is ft/sec?
 
Edit

Obvoiusly there a heavier rifle choices out. I wanted to use the 223 to illustrate how devastating a non traditional hunting round can be but also how close a handgun round can be when meeting it. It wouldnt be fair for me to compare handgun rounds to each other because the weights,velocities, and ft/lbs are all relativly similar when looking stopping power results in .40 .357 45 acp. 10mm and 9mm, which is the premise of my rifle handgun question.
 
A very large handgun can indeed be more devastating than a small rifle.

The energy is a good indication of a round's effectiveness..

However; a hollow point round will normally be more devastating than a similar full metal jacket (FMJ). It will expand and make a larger hole than a FMJ.

The .223/5.56 has a design that sets it apart.
It tends to make a small hole like a FMJ in hard objects. But with sufficient velocity it will "tumble" in soft objects.

This tumbling effect can create truly horrible wounds.

Any explanation of how they designed the round for this tumbling effect must be directed to someone much smarter than I.
 
robert1811 said:
Is ft/lbs or energy and or bullet weight a greater determing factor or is ft/sec?
Click to expand...
This is the classic Big Slow Bullet vs. Small Fast Bullet question that has been debated over and over again ever since the advent of smokeless powder in the late 19th century. (With black powder, the Small Fast Bullet generally isn't a viable option.) There isn't One Correct Answer; if there was, the debate wouldn't have continued. :D
Aguila Blanca said:
Size of wound channel.
Click to expand...
Also...

Recoil and recovery for follow-up shots; the Big Slow Bullet generally has more recoil, making recovery more difficult.

Bullet drop and energy retention at very long range; the Big Slow Bullet generally has more of both, assuming the ballistic coefficient is the same, which it usually isn't. (FWIW using the two cartridges the OP initially discusses, .223 is the clear winner in this regard, as its ballistics are far superior due to the generally long, slender, and ballistically efficient bullet.)

Wear on the firearm. The Big Slow Bullet tends to shake things apart due to the higher recoil, but generally does not erode the bore as quickly.

Weight and cost of ammo. This is one comparison where the Small Fast Bullet is almost always the clear winner, which is why military cartridges have generally become smaller over the last century. A soldier can carry more cartridges if they're smaller, so he can fight longer without needing to be resupplied. OTOH this is less important for SD or hunting. Most SD encounters involve 2-4 shots and very few involve more than 10. Few hunters fire more than a couple dozen shots before returning to camp, and the handful of common hunting tactics that involve high round counts are usually performed from a fixed position where the ammo can be staged beforehand (e.g. prairie dog shoots), rather than having to be backpacked in.
 
Complex question.

There's a lot to it.

First of all "stopping power".
I really wish that term would drop off the face of the earth. If there's anything to "stopping power", beyond destroying the CNS, it comes from hydro-static shock. Hydro-static shock comes purely and totally from speed. A wider bullet at speed may produce more Hydro-static shock than a narrower bullet at speed but neither will produce any at low speed. Virtually no handgun round is fast enough to reach the minimum speeds required (about 1,800fps minimum) to produce Hydro-static shock. Some will get there, yes, but at what cost? The blast, recoil, follow-up shots, gun weight, everything is nuts in terms of SD.

Kinetic Energy versus momentum.
There's more to life than kinetic energy. Momentum is a big factor. Slow, heavy bullets have a lot of momentum. Momentum can be good or bad. Momentum is responsible for penetration. That's important. Kinetic energy doesn't produce penetration, momentum produces penetration. Penetration is good... isn't it? Maybe, it all depends what's on the other side.
Kinetic energy is what expands the bullet. It takes energy to bend metal.

You say "Please do not post about..." but that's really what it comes down to. A howitzer would be awesome for SD but the recoil and muzzle blast are a big obnoxious, not to mention the recoil and over-penetration.;)


In any case, the points and opinions can be argued one way or another but what CAN'T be argued is that there's a lot more to it than ft/lbs. That's why ft/lbs is the determining factor in a SD choice.
 
Rifle bullets generally cause much more hydrostatic shock, than pistol rounds. This is why you can turn a deer's heart and lungs, into soup, with a chest shot, rather than just making a big hole through them.

Rifle bullets, with correct weight and construction, for your intended target should pass through, creating a small entrance wound and generally a much larger exit wound. The fact that the rifle bullet is traveling so fast, then expanding creates devastating hydrostatic shock, as it quickly sheds energy. You could potentially kill someone with a high powered rifle without a direct hit to a vital organ. A hit to the shoulder could cause enough hydrostatic shock, to potentially, stop the heart, or rupture blood vessels in the lungs, causing them to fill with blood. Pretty much any pistol round, no matter the caliber, would just make a hole through the spot that was hit. Expanding bullets in pistol calibers tend to just make bigger holes. They shed energy faster so you have a potential loss of penetration (which wont matter if your HP's are passing through the target already)

Generally more speed= more hydrostatic shock. Lighter rifle bullets tend to travel faster, but lose velocity faster. If they are too light, and lightly constructed, there's a chance the bullet could just stop or shatter with the first bone it hits. Heavier bullets have higher sectional densities and ballistic coefficients generally but have a slower initial velocity. This means velocity over a range isn't lost as quickly, and the superior SD causes increased penetration. It's about finding the right bullet weight for the target you intend on shooting. Something smaller like .223 might be a little more picky with bullet weight, since generally bullets are light, and the cartridge doesn't develop a whole lot of energy compared to larger rifle rounds like the .270 which can shoot much heavier bullets at the same velocity as .223
 
This tumbling effect can create truly horrible wounds.

Any explanation of how they designed the round for this tumbling effect must be directed to someone much smarter than I.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'm smarter than you are (probably I'm not), but I do know a few things that apparently, you do not.

ALL rifle bullets tumble. Its because of their shape. The bullet base is heavier than the nose, so after a certain amount of penetration, the bullets swaps ends. The .223/5.56mm round got a huge reputation for this, only because of its small bullet size, combined with the use of a FMJ bullet.

Traditionally, .22 caliber centerfire rifles were always regarded as pest & varmint calibers. The were always loaded with bullets designed to expand as violently as possible (because a bullet holding together for penetration is actually counterproductive when your target is a small animal).

By the early 20th century, the majority of the world's militaries were using approximately .30 caliber rounds (or something between .26 and .32 calibers). These bullets DO tumble after impact. However, most of them do not tumble until after over a foot of penetration of soft tissue. This being the case, the point were a larger bullet tumbles is often after it has exited a person.

This was well known, but not anything of any real importance (or use) until we changed to the very small caliber bullet of the .223. Combining a very small bullet with the military full metal jacket design showed that it begins its tumble after only a few inches of penetration. This does result in larger wounds than if the bullet did not tumble, and was beaten like a cheap drum as justification for using the small bullet (small compared to previous standards).

Oh, and by the way, "truly horrible wounds" are those inflicted on myself, or my friends, only. Wounds inflicted on people I meant to shoot are not horrible, they are efficient.;)

I am truly curious, why and what should you be looking at when it comes to stopping in power (IMO the damage done) in terms of ballistics? What is the determining factor? Is ft/lbs or energy and or bullet weight a greater determing factor or is ft/sec?
Click to expand...

I think you are missing an important point. And that is partly because of the terms we use to discuss these things.

Stopping power? What is that? Its a nebulous idea referring to one round supposedly being better at stopping (a person, usually) than another. And we look at things including size, weight, speed, shape, etc.

And it involves another vague concept, what amount of (the various factors named above) is needed to stop an attacker, without actually killing them. I say this because #1) if you kill them, they are stopped, and #2) the point of a defensive shooting is to stop, not to kill. If the attacker happens to die as a result of being stopped, so be it.

So, we look at what it takes to stop an attack, in terms of energy, or velocity, or some other easily quantifiable factor.

But what is being missed is that it is the placement of the hit, followed by what the bullet does after the hit, that not only matters most, it is the ONLY thing that really matters.

And, to further complicate things, when talking of 'stopping power" one must not include any cases where the attacker, once shot, decided to cease the attack.

What real world results shows us is that any bullet that gets in the right place works. And that above the minimum needed for that there doesn't seem to be a real world effect. Stopped is stopped, and dead is dead.

However, since it is potentially our selves and our loved ones at risk, and because we have a virtually ingrained "more is better" mentality, we tend to opt for more when practical.

The point at which the speed of the impact becomes a factor (beyond what the speed allows the bullet itself to do) is close to 2000fps. It is at around this point that hydrostatic effects do become a factor. Only the largest most powerful handgun rounds approach this level. The majority of rifle rounds begin well above it.

But shock alone rarely compensates for the bullet not going where it needs to go to stop the fight. Blow off a hand with a magnum rifle hit (or an artillery shell) and the attacker isn't stopped, unless they decide to stop (most would, I think, but history is full of examples, usually in war, of guys taking huge wounds-but not instantly fatal, and not stopping).

Stopping power is a very complex idea, and involves, or should involve a lot more than just the physical properties of the rounds used. They are certainly a big factor, but they aren't the only factor that needs to be considered.
 
The handgun velocities you are listing are a bit optimistic. While they are obtainable from guns with 8" or longer barrels most people shoot the ammo in guns with 4" or shorter barrels. While a 44 mag might be listed at 1400 fps, 900-1100 fps is much more realistic. Rifle ballistics are taken from 24" barrels and shorter barrels will lose some velocity, but even a 16" carbine length barrel is going to be pretty close to advertised speeds. You'll still get around 2800 fps instead of 3000.

Using energy numbers can be very misleading. It is a good way to compare the effectiveness of rounds that are very similar. If you are comparing 44 mag, 45 acp and 45 Colt the numbers mean something because the rounds are similar. Same with comparing 308, 30-06 and 270. But if you try to use energy numbers as an argument in a 270 vs 44 mag debate they are useless because the 2 rounds kill game, or humans in very different ways.

If bullet impact speed is around 2000fps or faster, you will see a shock effect that puts stuff down much faster than the energy numbers would indicate, especially on smaller animals or humans. You can't get that kind of speed from handgun rounds so they depend on larger diameter, heavier bullets. Both methods work, just in different ways. A 223 soft point at 2700-3000 fps is going to put down a small deer or human fast. But on a much larger game animal the small bullet won't penetrate enough to reach vital organs. That is what the big bore handgun rounds are made for.

The big bore handgun rounds look good on paper. But they are designed to penetrate deep inside game much larger than humans. On a 1,000 lb brown bear they are the ticket. On a human, a 50 gr 223 softpoint @ 2700-3000 fps is the better stopper.
 
Personally, I think bullet tumbling is overrated. Yes it's better than a FMJ simply penciling through your target, but if you have the option to use expanding bullets why wouldn't you? It's one thing if you're only limited to FMJ rounds because you're in the military or something, but no hunters that I know ever try to get their bullets tumbling. They like expanding bullets with enough 'oomph' to leave an exit wound.
I don't think any pistol cartridges can reasonably achieve 2000-2200fps in a pistol, except, the 5.7x28, and 4.6x30 which use extremely light bullets (around 23-31grains) but these are pretty anemic rounds, and likely don't have enough energy to create serious hydrostatic shock in a human or human sized animal, even though they fall in the 2000-2600fps range. The rounds were mainly designed to penetrate armored targets that could be fired from small SMG's and pistols, usually with high capacity magazines at a high rate of fire to make up for the lack of power.

Also no rifle or handgun has 'stopping power' until you get into anti material calibers, IMO.
 
JDX

Hey JDX in regard to a rifle round penetrating straight through the target and doing immense damage.

I thought the object of hydro static shock (this was the correct term to "damage done" I was looking for) was to dump as much of the bullets energy into the intended target so it all implodes in the target.

Or is this rule of thumb strictly for convential handgun calibers, due to lower velocity? (again I know the target plays a HUGE HUGE factor here)

Oh and thanks for explaining that higher velocities is what creates this effect. I thought it was a higher ft/lbs. Am I understanding this right?


:D I understand a lot of this has to with what the target is, but as soon I try to label the target in my head, I already start thinking. A 240gr JHP 44 mag moving at 1200 ft/sec and has 767 ft/lbs of energy VS. a 357 mag (buff bore) JHC 125gr bullet moving at 1700ft/sec with 802 ft/lbs of energy, (the 44) may be the better choice when say hunting an ELK because of the 44 mags ability to penetrate due to sectional density.
 
IMO there is such a thing a stopping power, notice I didnt say knockdown power. Im simply relating the effect of hydro static shock, which can vaporize soft meaty things in the body without touching them, force whatever your shooting to stop moving. IMO this would cause a one shot stop. How often is debateable, but I dont think there is any mistaking my claim.
 
I don't make any differentiation between "knock-down power" and "stopping power". Neither exists in any particular definable condition. No firearm that is portable by a human is capable of literally knocking down a man sized (weight) target. It might fall down, it might jump and lose it's balance as a reaction but there is not, can not be, enough force to "knock" it down.

Hydro-static shock is not "knock down power". It is a shockwave that passes through the in-compressible fluids in the body and disrupts/damages the NERVES, mainly, in the various tissues. Any remote damage (ruptures) in the tissue is a result of pressure waves in an closed space (a "bag of water", essentially). For instance, I have seen a deer's heart torn open even though the bullet remained intact, wasn't within several inches of the heart and there was no wound channel (such as from bone) leading to the heart. This is from the pressure wave. It's the same effect that blows a milk jug to bits even though the bullet only hits a tiny spot.

While disrupting the nerves or rupturing the heart may very well cause the target to drop on the spot, it is not the same as the force of the bullet directly "knocking down" the target.

Handguns, certainly those typically carried for SD can not reach the velocities required for hydro-static shock, with a very few exceptions such as the FN5.7.
 
^ no kidding...... I understand what hydro static shock is and can do. Notice how i said it isn't "knockdown power". This term would imply that the shooter would also be "knocked down" upon firing the weapon due to equal and oppossite force/reaction (newtons 3rd law).

However, incapacitating a targets CNS will lead to them dropping dead on the ground. Hydrostatic shock can do this. This would imply stopping power, not necessarily knock down power which is why I didnt term it that. Again how often this will happen and what "magic bullet" can make this happen is debatable.
 
Last edited:
Robert, yes the idea is to dump as much energy into the target as possible, but there's a balance. Shed that energy too fast and you risk not wounding deep enough or not getting through bones that you need to penetrate through. I am okay with not dumping 100% of the energy if it means creating an exit wound. Again, it's about a balance, you obviously don't want to just pencil through with a FMJ, but with a good soft point, you could achieve impressive expansion which dumps a majority of energy in the target and still guarantees or offers an extremely high probability of an exit wound. I find that exit wounds tend to be a little more 'discouraging' to threats, and it can help you track your target.

Extremely light varmint rounds which dump their energy as quickly as possible could cause shallow 'explosions' which just blows a shallow chunk of flesh out, where the entrance wound is. Or the bullet could just hit a shallow bone and disintegrate, barely doing damage.
At the same time, if you go with something too heavily constructed for your purposes, you risk "wasting" energy because the bullet penetrated through and through before it had a chance to dump a large portion of it's energy, which is now going to go somewhere behind the target.
 
I don't know if I'm smarter than you are (probably I'm not), but I do know a few things that apparently, you do not.

ALL rifle bullets tumble. Its because of their shape. The bullet base is heavier than the nose, so after a certain amount of penetration, the bullets swaps ends. The .223/5.56mm round got a huge reputation for this, only because of its small bullet size, combined with the use of a FMJ bullet.

Traditionally, .22 caliber centerfire rifles were always regarded as pest & varmint calibers. The were always loaded with bullets designed to expand as violently as possible (because a bullet holding together for penetration is actually counterproductive when your target is a small animal).

By the early 20th century, the majority of the world's militaries were using approximately .30 caliber rounds (or something between .26 and .32 calibers). These bullets DO tumble after impact. However, most of them do not tumble until after over a foot of penetration of soft tissue. This being the case, the point were a larger bullet tumbles is often after it has exited a person.

This was well known, but not anything of any real importance (or use) until we changed to the very small caliber bullet of the .223. Combining a very small bullet with the military full metal jacket design showed that it begins its tumble after only a few inches of penetration. This does result in larger wounds than if the bullet did not tumble, and was beaten like a cheap drum as justification for using the small bullet (small compared to previous standards).

Oh, and by the way, "truly horrible wounds" are those inflicted on myself, or my friends, only. Wounds inflicted on people I meant to shoot are not horrible, they are efficient.
Click to expand...

Very enlightening stuff, particularly the part in boldface.
 
I suppose if one does the math and follows the physics it leads them down a path to the best choice available to the shooter for his intended purpose.

I need a defense round, so the target is a man therefore I need X Energy.
X Energy given different calibers provide a range of choices which can be effected by barrel length, even the weapon type/action, etc.
This leads me to a range of choices for my purchase.
But I need to again consider the physics involved, less recoil means quicker follow-on shots and sometimes greater magazine capacity, barrel length effects the sight radius and accuracy.
Weight plays an important factor here too.
Barrel length and magazine capacity swing back into play when it comes to concealability.
And lastly you get down to preferences, the feel of the grips, etc.

Or just buy the nextest newest neatest everyone's gota get it bullet launcher you can afford and roll with it :rolleyes:


And don't forget, "If it was good enough for John Wayne ..."
 
I would love to see any non-pro shooter get into rapid fire with a .44 Mag. That would be a popcorn worthy YouTube video.
 
For self defense at normal self defense distance I put more emphasis on power factor.

Lets take two of the rounds you quoted, the 50gr 223 moving at 3000fps makes a power factor of 150, the 270gr 44 moving at 1450fps makes a power factor of 391.5.

I would easily choose the 44 at handgun distances.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top