Pistol Caliber Effectiveness from a Medical Point of View

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

...as then is now larger more powerful rounds still make larger and deeper holes. And larger/deeper increase the odds of turning timers into switches and shorting the amount of time on timers.

At some point, I should think that deep enough is deep enough, and that once that point has been reached, more holes would be the better objective.

[In response to "your objective is to drop the game reasonably quickly"] As quickly as possible, so even if the motives are different the objective is the same.

Not exactly. You can accept having a deer run for ten or twenty feet before dropping.

[In response to "Ah, the voice of a true scientific expert"] Ah when your argument falls flat resort to personal attacks.

Nothing personal about it. A report from well-researched and critically reviewed scientific study contains a conclusion, and you have stated, without offering any objective reason whatsoever, that the conclusion is incorrect.

I suggest that if the conclusion in the report, which certainly does seem counterintuitive to lay persons, were really not supportable, that it would have by now been challenged by a person or person with a scientific basis for doing so.

We are still waiting for something from you to substantiate your accusation that the FBI "and LEO" lied.

 

[mavracer]

At some point, I should think that deep enough is deep enough, and that once that point has been reached, more holes would be the better objective.

At what point? 12" or 18"? If 18" is preferred and 12" is the minimum, why now have they changed their tune that 12"-13" now seams preferred and 15-16" is unnecessary?

A report from well-researched and critically reviewed scientific study contains a conclusion, and you have stated, without offering any objective reason whatsoever, that the conclusion is incorrect.

It's not a very inclusive study it's a typically political paper justifying the latest want. I have shown more than enough evidence that 40 and 45 make bigger deeper holes it's not my fault you bought into the propaganda and have turned a blind eye to logic.

We are still waiting for something from you to substantiate your accusation that the FBI "and LEO" lied.

Where do you want me to start.
They said the 115gr Silvertip load failed the newly established protocol yet it passes the heavy clothing test which closely mimics Dove's shot on Mattox.
They said no pistol has all the features they wanted when they adopted the 1076 and yet the nearly identical featured pistol the Sig P220 had been in service for a dozen years already.
and then there's this lovely quote from 10mm notes
"The fear of over-penetration is a misconception, which was created back when law enforcement was trying to overcome misinformed public resistance to the use of hollow point ammunition. In the process we began to believe it ourselves.
Who misinformed the public in the first place. LOL

 

[manta49]

It's not a very inclusive study it's a typically political paper justifying the latest want. I have shown more than enough evidence that 40 and 45 make bigger deeper holes

I must have misted that, what evidence did you post showing that .40 and .45 make deeper holes than 9MM. When you say deeper holes, do you mean better penetration. Do you think the only thing the authorities and civilians are looking for in a handgun calibre is the one that makes the biggest hole.

 

[tipoc]

From John KSA:

My position is that within the service pistol calibers, it is difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a practical difference in terms of incapacitation times/incapacitation rates due to wound volume, energy, diameter, and momentum. I take that position because I've not seen any conclusive evidence that contradicts it.

There are a couple of errors in the above logic (meaning that it is fatally flawed on a couple of levels) but I'll get past those to get to the meat...One can draw two conclusions from the above.

I draw the conclusion that is old school and time tested...in service caliber handguns this means to choose the handgun and caliber that is the most powerful that you can shoot well accurately and at speed and use that.

John draws the conclusion that it does not matter and therefore the 9mm is best.

That's the heart of the present discussion.

tipoc

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

If 18" is preferred and 12" is the minimum, why now have they changed their tune that 12"-13" now seams preferred...

I missed that. Perhaps you can point us to it.

It's not a very inclusive study...

I have only seen the Executive Summary. Can you point out any shortcomings in the study?

...it's a typically political paper justifying the latest want.

Do you have any basis at all for that assertion?

I have shown more than enough evidence that 40 and 45 make bigger deeper holes...

I do not recall any evidence at all from you that disputes the conclusion that wound channels made with premium service ammunition are essentially the same for all of the generally used service calibers.

... it's not my fault you bought into the propaganda...

I have seen nothing that would characterize the report as "propaganda".

... and have turned a blind eye to logic.

Your refusal to accept the conclusions without putting forth any objective reasons would seem to me to fall under the description of a "blind eye."

I agree that the notion that an expanded .45 bullet with sufficient energy would not create a noticeably larger permanent wound channel than an expanded 9mm would seem counterintuitive to a lay person, but member that the study was not conducted by lay persons.

In my professional career, I have seen quite a number of effectiveness studies with results that seemed counterintuitive, at least until they were explained.

But even if the .45 did produce a noticeably larger wound channel, the bullet has to hit something critical, and under realistic defensive combat situations, the likelihood of doing so without sufficiently rapid fire and combat accuracy is much reduced.

And as Rob Pincus points out, that is much more difficult for anyone whanmore recoil is involved.

That's basic physics.

I still have my .45. I know that I cannot shoot it as effectively under realistic combat conditions as I can a 9mm of adequate size and weight. I know that the supposed superiority of its terminal ballistics, in which I once put much stock, has come under serious challenge with today's technology.

The only real advantage that it seems to provide is materially lower dynamic sound pressure than a hot 9mm, .357 SIG, .38 Super, or .40.

Indoors, that advantage can be very beneficial.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by tipoc:

I draw the conclusion that is old school and time tested...in service caliber handguns this means to choose the handgun and caliber that is the most powerful that you can shoot well accurately and at speed and use that.

What was "old school and time tested" in 1908, when the truncated FMJ Parabellum bullets were tested against the FMJ bullets of the .38 Auto and the .45 ACP. has been overtaken by events.

What was "old school and time tested" in 1989, when the JHP bullets either did not expand reliably or did not penetrate reliably, has been overtaken by events.

The current report mentions advances that have occurred since 2007.

The bonded JHP bullets that I use were introduced at the Shot Show in 2012.

I would agree that, if I expected to have to shoot through barriers or to shoot large dangerous animals, the most powerful load that one can use effectively would be indicated.

But stopping the human target will require only so much in the way of terminal ballistics, and speed of combat accurate fire is much more important than is having more power than is necessary.

 

[mavracer]

I have only seen the Executive Summary.

So you haven't really seen any evidence that actually supports their conclusion and it doesn't sound right to you but you buy it. That's priceless.
I'm outta this, if in the immortal words of Yogi Berra "if the people don't want to come, you ain't gonna stop them"

 

[manta49]

I draw the conclusion that is old school and time tested...in service caliber handguns this means to choose the handgun and caliber that is the most powerful that you can shoot well accurately and at speed and use that.

How old school are you going, I thought most armies and police forces world wide over the last 100 years used 9MM and smaller calibers, and most still do.

 

[JohnKSa]

I do take minor issue, however, with the notion that 12" is the minimum to be reliably lethal. ... In a frontal shot on a small-to-average sized individual, it would likely take significantly less to reach the vital structures (anything much over 10" and you're fairly likely to have through-and-through penetration in a straight-on frontal shot).

Your point is well taken, I worded my statement poorly. It's not that 12" of penetration guarantees lethality, it's that less than 12" of penetration may not reach vitals when conditions are less than ideal. The figure is based on the idea that an arm or intermediate barrier may be in the way and/or the person may not present a straight-on frontal shot. As you say, in the "ideal" case, you can get away with less penetration which is why we don't totally discount the pocket pistol calibers. They have the potential to be lethal but when Murphy really starts acting up, they may not live up to that potential.

It would have been more accurate for me to state: "...the assessment is based on the fundamentals of human anatomy which demand that a bullet penetrate 12" or more in order to consistently provide the potential to be lethal/incapacitating even under less than ideal conditions.

So how would you define significant?

The first step would be to prove that there's actually any difference at all. From there, I would think each person would have to find the balance that makes him/her comfortable. Once a measurable difference can be demonstrated, one could run some probabilities and try to balance those figures against measured time/accuracy performance.

However, I would argue that "light magnum" class cartridges like .357 Magnum and full-power 10mm and "true magnum" class cartridges like .41 and .44 Magnum may not fit into this paradigm because they have not been studied in the same manner as the service class cartridges.

The wound volume figures I studied included .357Mag and 10mm data. I didn't see a clear break between their performance and the more run of the mill service pistol cartridges like there was between the rest of the pack and the .380ACP. I would agree that the .41 & .44 Mags do fit into a different performance class, however they also incur a very heavy time/accuracy performance penalty unless one loads them so lightly that they fall back down into the service pistol cartridge class.

An area that has not been explored too much, reliability?

It don't go bang, it ain't no good!

My interests being what they are, I spend a good deal of time watching shooting competition shows on TV. No matter how well a shooter performs, if their equipment chokes, their overall performance will generally be poor. If you follow Jerry Miculek at all, you will notice that he heavily emphasizes equipment reliability for that reason. If anything, it's even more important for us to be assiduous about insuring that our self-defense equipment is fully functional and as close to 100% reliable as is possible.

So when you say that there's some how a difference between 380 and 9mm...

There is a difference and it's been explained thoroughly and repeatedly on this thread.

...why now have they changed their tune that 12"-13" now seams preferred and 15-16" is unnecessary?

What is your basis for stating that the FBI's 12" to 18" penetration figure has officially changed?

I draw the conclusion that is old school and time tested...in service caliber handguns this means to choose the handgun and caliber that is the most powerful that you can shoot well accurately and at speed and use that.

Sure, that's a good approach. The key is that many people think that means it is acceptable to sacrifice significant accuracy and speed for power. I'd like to know what, if any, practical benefit I'm getting in return for the loss of accuracy and speed. The problem is that so far no one (and I'm not just talking about on this thread) has been able to answer that question with anything other than opinion.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Old Marksman
The .357 magnum has been studied at length. It is no longer in general use by law enforcement, but the .357 SIG is, and it was included in the FBI analysis.

The .357 Magnum may have been studied, but not to the same degree that semi-automatic cartridges have. Also, the .357 Sig, while similar in paper ballistics, typically performs much more like other comparable semi-auto cartridges than revolver cartridges due to the difference in bullet construction. To illustrate my point, consider the following excerpt from Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness:

Since the highest handgun velocities generally do not exceed 1400-1500 feet per second (fps), reliable fragmentation could only be achieved by constructing a bullet so frangible as to eliminate any reasonable penetration

Now, compare that statement with the results seen in this video (warning: the shooter's comments are a bit over the top and annoying):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8WNQxIjutc

Now, the results obtained in the video are fairly typical of what I've seen in other tests with that loading and similar ones like Federal's 357B. The bullet was still able to penetrate over 13" despite severe enough fragmentation to lose roughly 38% of its weight. This would seem to be in direct contradiction to the statement made by the FBI.

Now, I can only see two possible reasons for this contradiction: either the FBI was unaware of how the .357 Magnum performed or they simply chose to ignore it. I find the first explanation to be extremely unlikely because .357 Magnum loadings such as the one in the video had been available since the 1970's, over a decade before the above-mentioned paper was published. More likely, I think the FBI simply elected to ignore the .357 Magnum because they simply weren't interested in using revolvers anymore and neither was an increasing number of American police agencies (the intended audience for the paper) at the time.

The .41 Magnum with light loads was intended for law enforcement. It was not accepted.

Yes and that happened in the 1960's and 70's when the "police" loading consisted of a 210 gr LSWC bullet. The failure of the .41 Magnum to attract the interest of police 40+ years ago has little to do with it's performance today.

Lethality has nothing to do with it.

Agreed, that's why I took issue with the statement.

I would not call those "worst case" situations.

One would reasonably expect that a man attacking with a weapon might well have one arm in front of his torso. Should a bullet hit that arm, it will have to enter that arm, exit the arm (and that uses much more of the energy than the entry wound) and then enter the torso.

And why would one expect a frontal shot?

You've taken my comments out of context. I was attempting to illustrate the problem with the notion of a minimum penetration depth for reliable lethality.

 

[mavracer]

There is a difference and it's been explained thoroughly and repeatedly on this thread.

And there's a difference between 9mm and 40 and 45 it's also been shown repeatedly on this thread, it' just doesn't support your position so you choose to ignore it.
It's intelectually dishonest to say that there isn't as much difference in wound volume between 10mm and 9mm as there is between 9mm and 380 when it is very easy to see that it is far greater even the FBI light 10mm and 45 acp out class the 9mm by nearly 50%.

.380 ACP Winchester 95 gr Ranger-T: 9.3" penetration, 0.259 sq. " expansion, 2.41 sq. " total wound volume

9mm Winchester 127 gr +P+ Ranger-T: 11.2" penetration, 0.323 sq. " expansion, 3.62 sq. " total wound volume

.45 ACP Winchester 230 gr +P Ranger-T: 13.3" penetration, 0.471 sq. " expansion, 6.26 sq. " total wound volume.

What is your basis for stating that the FBI's 12" to 18" penetration figure has officially changed?

Who said anything about them releasing something official I said it seams, the basis for this is that the FBI currently uses 180gr 40 S&W Ranger ammo averages 15"+, few of the current crop of 9mm penatrate like that, so it would seam that they will settle for anything that makes the minimum.

 

[tipoc]

How old school are you going, I thought most armies and police forces world wide over the last 100 years used 9MM and smaller calibers, and most still do.

I'm going back over a hundred years here. Well over actually.

Yep most armies and police forces (other than in the U.S. where the 40 S&W seems to still hold promanence)currently choose the 9mm. But the criteria are different for their choices than that of an individual. In their cases the criteria that I referred to are still used but spread out over thousands of individuals. The 9mm is effective, it is easy to shoot well and accurately for broad numbers of shooters and appears in extremely well made and reliable handguns.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

One issue here is the attempt to employ the firearms equivalent of sabermetrics in baseball. While sabermetrics is useful in baseball and basketball to some extent it is far less useful in the shooting sports or in defensive handgunning.

You can see some of this here:

The first step would be to prove that there's actually any difference at all... Once a measurable difference can be demonstrated, one could run some probabilities and try to balance those figures against measured time/accuracy performance.

Here is an effort to render the simple profound and ends up making it complicated and useless.

Let's just look at one issue...the measured time/accuracy performance.

Any individual can do this at a range for themselves using a gun and caliber and load that they choose and decide for themselves which combination of gun, caliber, loading, etc. is best for them to use in a specific application. We all do this. It's a simple thing. This is how you learn if a 9mm, 40 S&W, 45acp, etc. is useful for you to use as a defensive handgun or not. If you can shoot rapidly and accurately with a particular combo than you take that for that choice and role.

But a study using information gathered from rag tag sources based on the use of shot timers (for time) and hits on targets (for accuracy) will tell you nothing about what an individual should choose. Neither could they be anything but a very rough guide. Only range time with specific guns can do that. Only that should do it, by the way. When ever possible choose the more powerful round you can handle well for the specific task.

tipoc

 

[mavracer]

The first step would be to prove that there's actually any difference at all. From there, I would think each person would have to find the balance that makes him/her comfortable. Once a measurable difference can be demonstrated, one could run some probabilities and try to balance those figures against measured time/accuracy performance.

Can you find any quantative verifiable evidence that 9mm actually works better than a 380?

 

[tipoc]

But stopping the human target will require only so much in the way of terminal ballistics, and speed of combat accurate fire is much more important than is having more power than is necessary.

Speed and accurate fire are critical, and firing the most powerful round that you can do those things with is what is "old school". That's what I advocate and was taught decades back. It is still the best way to go in defensive firing dependent on the role the gun is to play of course. Power, Speed, Accuracy still make the most sense. They require a gun one can shoot well loaded with a round one can shoot well, mated to the task.

To declare that the 9mm is the best round for all situations is based on the general assumption that it is a very good round for most folks to begin with. Which is true. Or based on the assumption that morgue attendants can't tell the difference between a wound from a .380 and a 45 Colt. Which may tell you more about the morgue attendants.

What was "old school and time tested" in 1908, when the truncated FMJ Parabellum bullets were tested against the FMJ bullets of the .38 Auto and the .45 ACP. has been overtaken by events.

What was "old school and time tested" in 1989, when the JHP bullets either did not expand reliably or did not penetrate reliably, has been overtaken by events.

It remains true with jhp rounds.

tipoc

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by tipoc:

Speed and accurate fire are critical, and firing the most powerful round that you can do those things with is what is "old school".

The issue is that with the same size, weight, and configuration of firearm, anyone can shoot more rapidly with combat accuracy with a round that has less recoil.

The issues then become (1) whether the round selected can be relied upon, when it enters the target at the point and angle that present themselves to do what is necessary, and (2) how rapidly the defender should shoot to have a reasonable chance of hitting something critical before it is too late.

Since neither the point nor the angle of entry can be foreseen, (1) the minimum terminal ballistics required remains a judgment call, and (2) the number and rapidity of rounds that have to be fired to provide reasonable assurance of effective hits is also something that requires estimation.

Either can theoretically be simulated, but neither can be defined with certainty, as both are subject not only to the laws of Newtonian physics but also to stochastic prediction.

In any event, what I thought when I bought my .45 some years ago most certainly no longer represents the best thinking. The speed of combat accurate fire is demonstrably slower than that of some other firearms, and the supposed superiority of terminal ballistics is, at minimum, in question.

I would not select one today.

Nor do I carry the same ammunition in my 9mm that I first used.

 

[tipoc]

A fella can talk his way out of wearing pants if he wants.

The issue is that with the same size, weight, and configuration of firearm, anyone can shoot more rapidly with combat accuracy with a round that has less recoil.

So why not choose the most powerful round that one can handle well in the gun with recoil that one can handle well? Why choose the 380 if the 9mm will works for you? Why the 9mm if the 40 meets the criteria? Why consciously limit oneself to satisfy an abstract formula?

There is no reason to choose a round that is less powerful if speed and accuracy are obtainable with the more powerful.

There is no good reason to settle for less power if one meets the criteria of speed and accuracy with more power.

If the bigger hammer is handled well...use it.

The argument is that more power does not translate into larger holes, deeper penetration, greater expansion, significantly harder impact, etc. (though they cannot prove this). So the argument goes, why use it? Because of the slight edge it provides one, that's why. In situations where sabermetrics don't reach...use a bigger hammer, provided there is no loss in efficiency.

I carry 9mm in my S&W Shield because it represents the best combination of size, power and shoot ability for me in a piece that size. Other guns, different purposes, different rounds.

I don't presume to tell others what is best for them. Practice tells.

tipoc

 

[.357SIG]

I, like the OP, have seen many hundreds of shooting and stabbing victims while working in a regional level 1 trauma center. I have been part of the receiving trauma team, I have been in the OR in these cases, and have seen the CT scans. I have seen the victims for many weeks post-shooting. I agree with the assessment he/she makes fully.

Also, I've been in LE with two large agencies, and have that experience on scene, and directly involved in situations. Once again, I agree with the OP, having "seen stuff."

Finally, I've been shooting for more than 15 years, all of which is defensive-type practice in nature (no bullseye). I have NEVER seen a single man, woman, or child who could shoot a larger caliber weapon better than a similar one in a smaller caliber. Ever. I certainly am not going to believe someone here on this forum can do it without proof. In fact, I've seen many people try to prove it wrong over the years, but with no luck. I've personally watched or facilitated it using the following:

• Beretta 92 vs 96
• SIG P220 vs P226 9mm
• 5" 1911 in .45 and 9mm
• Glocks of most chamberings and similar/identical size
• .38 vs .357 snub
• Beretta PX4 9mm vs .40
• Walther P99 .40 vs 9 vs PPQ 9 (when P99 not in DA mode)

Not to mention almost all the big HSLD, ex-mil instructors choose high-capacity 9mms over all else. Again, agreement with the OP.

It's obvious I have no problems carrying a 9mm over any of the others, even if JHP loads were not available. However, I have pistols in many calibers, and am not so dedicated as to rid myself of them in favor of only 9mm. Part of being a collector and shooter is the ability to choose what I want. I carry a Glock 33 most often, simply because I own it, like it, and don't have a G26 to compete for space in my pocket. Will you see me with my P220 and 9 rounds of .45, as opposed to my 226 holding 19 9mm HPs? Yes, but very rarely, because I see shooting victims damn near weekly, and have no illusion that pistol rounds are like Thor's hammer. The simple fact is no two people will react the same, unless you shoot them in the brain stem, or cross brain hemispheres.

Oh, and stab/cut wounds are nasty...much more so than most GSWs.

 

[JohnKSa]

And there's a difference between 9mm and 40 and 45 it's also been shown repeatedly on this thread, it' just doesn't support your position so you choose to ignore it.

That's a rather blatant mischaracterization. The difference between the service pistol calibers and the .380 is a threshold difference. They will do something reliably (penetrate to 12" with expanding ammunition) that the .380 can not do reliably. The thing they will do reliably creates a practical difference in performance that can be readily explained and demonstrated.

The differences between the various service pistol calibers have not been demonstrated to provide a practical difference in real-world performance--i.e. faster incapacitation times/reduced incapacitation failures/etc.

It's intelectually dishonest to say that there isn't as much difference in wound volume between 10mm and 9mm as there is between 9mm and 380...

It would be, however that is not the basis for the claim. The thing that sets the .380ACP apart from the service pistol calibers is NOT a difference in wound volume. That has been explained thoroughly and repeatedly on this thread--and now one more time.

Can you find any quantative verifiable evidence that 9mm actually works better than a 380?

Yes. All the service pistol calibers can reliably penetrate to 12" or more with expanding ammunition. The .380ACP does not. Basic human anatomy supports the rationale for requiring at least 12" of penetration.

Any individual can do this at a range for themselves using a gun and caliber and load that they choose and decide for themselves which combination of gun, caliber, loading, etc. is best for them to use in a specific application. We all do this. It's a simple thing.

I agree. I believe I've made a virtually identical statement more than once on this thread.

When ever possible choose the more powerful round you can handle well for the specific task.

As long as it doesn't handicap you significantly. The performance tradeoff should not be made without getting anything demonstrable in return.

In other words, don't trade away performance in terms of speed/accuracy if no one can prove you're getting something for the trade.

There is no reason to choose a round that is less powerful if speed and accuracy are obtainable with the more powerful.

Correct. If you perform identically with two different guns in different calibers and the more powerful platform doesn't handicap you in other significant ways (significant difference in capacity, concealability, etc.) then there's no reason not to go with the more powerful caliber. Based on Urey's assessment that it might take thousands of shootings to show a practical difference in real-world performance (improved incapacitation times/decreased incapacitation failures/etc.) we know it won't buy you much but since you're not giving up anything it doesn't hurt to try to get an extra edge--however tiny that edge might be.

To declare that the 9mm is the best round for all situations...

That's a very sweeping statement and I wouldn't be comfortable making or endorsing a statement like that. There may be some people who are really strong enough to overpower the recoil and reduce the accuracy/speed performance differences to the point that they're negligible. And there may be some people who can't even deal with 9mm recoil and may have to step down to a pocket pistol caliber.

 

[Limnophile]

Yes, larger rounds create more damage.

Assuming penetration that is equal or better, and roughly proportional expansion, yes.

Yes, hotter rounds penetrate deeper.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a hotter charge behind the identical JHP penetrates less because it makes the JHP expand more.

But none of that matters if you can't hit a damn thing.

Which is why the FBI proclaimed last year that the 9 Luger was the optimal LE sidearm. With premium JHPs it will expand reliably and penetrate adequately, and whatever beneficial terminal ballistics effects are lost due to the smaller bullet are more than compensated for by better and faster accuracy due to reduced recoil relative to the competing service semiauto calibers.