Limnophile
New member
My interpretation of the FBI's 05/06/14 memo is that if one can shoot a .45 Auto or .40 S&W well accurately and at speed, that person will almost certainly shoot a 9 Luger well more accurately and faster. Recoil matters.
Pistol Caliber Effectiveness from a Medical Point of View
- Thread starter dirtd0g
- Start date
- Status
My interpretation of the FBI's 05/06/14 memo is that if one can shoot a .45 Auto or .40 S&W well accurately and at speed, that person will almost certainly shoot a 9 Luger well more accurately and faster. Recoil matters.
Round and round the rabbit hole we go.
So the people that brought you the 12" threshold say more is better, but you choose not to believe that because it can't be proven with statistics or that some Dr's can't tell a difference. But these same statistics and Dr's show/say that there's no difference between 380 and 9mm but you choose not to believe that because the FBI says 12" minimum and more is better
9 pages, many opinions! And some very good statements from Dr's, and trauma room ones at that.
The only sure way to cause cease and desist with a pistol, of most any caliber, is to place multiple rounds into areas of the body that the most organs are, reasonably quickly.
Your skill, is right in there with the important factors. And you have to be carrying a handgun all the time, so as to use that skill.
What pistol, with most capacity (more is better always) can you carry on you, comfortably! All day.
I have settled on the Gen4 Glock 19, 15+1 capacity. Of course in 9mm.
A spare G17 magazine on the off side (mainly for malfunction of the one in the pistol reasons) and I can shoot that combination well. And it sits unnoticed all day.
When the reality of statements made by many, can not be argued, skill at 20 yards is not realistic in most self defense distances, there is one area of said skill that is imperative, the skill to hit a small target, that is all that is presented to you. The individual who fired at you, say on a parking lot, well lit, as ours tend to be here in Orlando, then stepped behind an SUV, which are half the vehicles on these parking lots!
But at 10 yards, left you with his sneaker, in full view! A 147g Winchester Ranger HP at 1000fps, might be all that is required to end that confrontation!
That is were accuracy is paramount, something smaller to hit.
The only sure way to cause cease and desist with a pistol, of most any caliber, is to place multiple rounds into areas of the body that the most organs are, reasonably quickly.
Your skill, is right in there with the important factors. And you have to be carrying a handgun all the time, so as to use that skill.
What pistol, with most capacity (more is better always) can you carry on you, comfortably! All day.
I have settled on the Gen4 Glock 19, 15+1 capacity. Of course in 9mm.
A spare G17 magazine on the off side (mainly for malfunction of the one in the pistol reasons) and I can shoot that combination well. And it sits unnoticed all day.
When the reality of statements made by many, can not be argued, skill at 20 yards is not realistic in most self defense distances, there is one area of said skill that is imperative, the skill to hit a small target, that is all that is presented to you. The individual who fired at you, say on a parking lot, well lit, as ours tend to be here in Orlando, then stepped behind an SUV, which are half the vehicles on these parking lots!
But at 10 yards, left you with his sneaker, in full view! A 147g Winchester Ranger HP at 1000fps, might be all that is required to end that confrontation!
That is were accuracy is paramount, something smaller to hit.
OldMarksman
Staff
posted by tipoc:
The question is, how "well" is well enough?
I wouldn't.
What are the "criteria" for controlled rapidity of fire?
What "formula"? A penetration threshold has been put forward, but we have seen no speed "formula".
More speed is always obtainable if there is less recoil.
What "criteria"?
Dirt, great post. My experience goes back a couple more years than yours. I saw a lot of shootings as an inner city cop and EMT. Many with the Saturday night specials prevalent in the 80's and many with 38's and 357 magnums.
The single most consistently effective handgun round I saw was the 357 magnum. The HP's were more effective than the non HP's but more people were instantly out of the fight after been hit with it in the torso than anything else.
Lethality is not something I worry about, with Paramedics and trauma centers in fresh supply. It is not a reliable indicator anyway, I want the person to STOP, living or not is really irrelevant at that point.
What I have seen the last decade or so it that all service pistol cartridges behave in a similar manner, so pick your poison.
The single most consistently effective handgun round I saw was the 357 magnum. The HP's were more effective than the non HP's but more people were instantly out of the fight after been hit with it in the torso than anything else.
Lethality is not something I worry about, with Paramedics and trauma centers in fresh supply. It is not a reliable indicator anyway, I want the person to STOP, living or not is really irrelevant at that point.
What I have seen the last decade or so it that all service pistol cartridges behave in a similar manner, so pick your poison.
The only sure way is a CNS hit, other than that it's mostly a crap shoot, as we know the brain and motor function can be sustained for 15-30 seconds after the heart stops pumping, hits to the large blood bearing organs or lungs after that won't have any effect.
I've found a fondness lately for my FNS40 14+1 filled with FBI contract overrun 180 gr Rangers, and a sneaker at 10 yards would be childs play
Well yeah. I keep saying X. You keep claiming I'm saying Y and then jump on me because Y is false. I'm not going to admit to saying Y because it's false and because I haven't said it and apparently you're not going to stop claiming that I'm saying Y. So where does that leave us?
Yes, they say that more is better but that it might take thousands of shootings before the "more" can be proven to exist. That is the same thing as saying that the "more" while "better", doesn't seem to make a practical/significant difference in the real world.
That means that it's far more important to focus on things that very obviously do make a practical/significant difference in the real world.
The 12" minimum stems from understanding basic human anatomy and the reality of how shootings unfold; it's not some manufactured formula or pet theory that someone developed to try to find differences between calibers even when those differences can't be demonstrated to make a practical/significant difference in the real world.
You seem to believe that one must either accept everything the FBI says or reject everything that they say. That's ridiculous. Just because someone doesn't fully understand a subject doesn't mean that everything they say must be rejected. And just because someone gets something right doesn't mean that everything they say is automatically gospel.
What I choose to believe is what can be demonstrated/proven. It can be demonstrated/proven that with less than 12" of penetration, reliably reaching the vitals is problematic. I have never seen it demonstrated/proven that there is a practical/real-world difference in terminal performance (i.e. improved incapacitation/reduced incapacitation times) between the service pistol calibers. So yes. I choose to believe what has been demonstrated/proven and to be extremely skeptical about what has not.
There's a lot of truth to this. Which is precisely why it's important to put as many accurate rounds on target as quickly as possible to try to increase the chances of winning the "crap shoot".
It only takes 2 shots to prove "more" exists and actually Mr. Newton has a law that says it must exist.
No it's really not, saying that you can't quantify more doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And again do you have any proof that capacity alone increases ones odds of surviving? Do you have a way to quantify how much advantage 1 or 2 rounds of capacity is?
If not then how do you know there is a significant/practical advantage?
No, it really can't any more than (less than 13", less than 14" or less than X" can) all the evidence you're using to claim there isn't a practical difference between service calibers show that there is little to no difference between the 380 and 9mm.
Which is why I keep saying you're saying Y because you are.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by mavracer:
If you are referring to the stopping effectiveness, it would very probably take thousands of shots to prove any conclusions that "more" penetration than that provided by an effective round would actually be more effective--or not materially so.
That is because of the many variables involved in what the bullets penetrate, what among critical body parts they damage, and how the body reacts.
The magnitude of the statistical difference will depend upon the specifics. Eight rounds could be a lot more desirable than five. There is likely very little difference between seventeen and fifteen for a purely defensive encounter.
If you are referring to penetration in any medium, yes, the penetration of two shots will likely differ.
If you are referring to the stopping effectiveness, it would very probably take thousands of shots to prove any conclusions that "more" penetration than that provided by an effective round would actually be more effective--or not materially so.
That is because of the many variables involved in what the bullets penetrate, what among critical body parts they damage, and how the body reacts.
To which of Newton's laws do you think you are referring?
No one would claim that, but, if all other things were equal, additional capacity could make a difference.
The magnitude of the statistical difference will depend upon the specifics. Eight rounds could be a lot more desirable than five. There is likely very little difference between seventeen and fifteen for a purely defensive encounter.
That is patently absurd, and we rely not upon evidence provide by John. The difference is considered to be material by most people who know anything about the subject.
Ok I'll try one more time
If you have more mass (M) or more acceleration(A) then you'll have more Force(F)
When combined with his third law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction a bullet with more force will require more tissue to be moved out of the way to stop it, hence a larger hole left behind
Actually that shouldn't take any shots a remote understanding of anatomy and a little common sense should take care of that. It's easy to see in "hindsight" where more penatration or a larger cavity would have been benificial and distinguish that from one where it wouldn't have made a lick of difference
That would be the second law F=MA
If you have more mass (M) or more acceleration(A) then you'll have more Force(F)
When combined with his third law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction a bullet with more force will require more tissue to be moved out of the way to stop it, hence a larger hole left behind
But in this case all other things aren't equal and just the same additional penatration could make a difference.
This thread and the FBI's latest "conclusion" are based on reports that ER Drs and statistics show little difference in effectivity in service pistol calibers, these same reports and statistics show little difference between 380 and 9mm you can deny it all you want but it's fact.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by mavracer:
If one were able to analyze the behavior of individual shots in shootings of real people (the operative word was "actual"), one would find that total penetration would depend upon, for example, whether they first strike an extremity and then have to create an exit wound, where they enter the rest of the body and at what angle, and what it is that is critical that they happen to strike. Then there is the matter of how the individual reacts.
That's a lot of variables, and when one take into account the number of types of bullets, it is clear to anyone with any degree of scientific background at all that John is right.
Thousands.
But, of course, it is not possible.
But that resultant velocity is virtually zero, except in the movies, and it is meaningless anyway.
Do you see anything in the test results about the .380?
That wasn't the issue.
If one were able to analyze the behavior of individual shots in shootings of real people (the operative word was "actual"), one would find that total penetration would depend upon, for example, whether they first strike an extremity and then have to create an exit wound, where they enter the rest of the body and at what angle, and what it is that is critical that they happen to strike. Then there is the matter of how the individual reacts.
That's a lot of variables, and when one take into account the number of types of bullets, it is clear to anyone with any degree of scientific background at all that John is right.
Thousands.
But, of course, it is not possible.
Well, almost. Force is very important. But before the collision, the acceleration of the bullet in flight is essentially zero.
The Third Law has nothing to do with it. It tells us about recoil, and about how fast the target will move after having stopped or slowed the bullet.
But that resultant velocity is virtually zero, except in the movies, and it is meaningless anyway.
True, and that's why John is correct when he says thousands.
Yes, additional penetration could make a difference, unless of course there had already been enough penetration.
The "conclusion" (recommendation) is based on (1) the results of testing in calibrated media and (2) measurements of the speed of controlled fire.
Do you see anything in the test results about the .380?
Good lord would you please educate yourself so we can have an intelligent conversation.
Application of Newton's first law stating that an object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by another force. Meaning that once the bullet accelerates force remains constant until something slows it down.
Again if you had a grasp on physics, you'd see why you are wrong, the parts of the body that make up the permanent cavity most certainly move at the same velocity as the bullet because two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
2ndsojourn
New member
Girl, girls...you're all pretty.
Now we're into Newton's first, second, third and who knows what else. The past couple posts reference acceleration. There is no acceleration once the bullet leaves the barrel, so a lot of this theoretical brainstorming is for naught.
Now we're into Newton's first, second, third and who knows what else. The past couple posts reference acceleration. There is no acceleration once the bullet leaves the barrel, so a lot of this theoretical brainstorming is for naught.
2ndsojourn said:
You failed physics didn't you
The three laws all go together
Yes the bullet already accelerated hence the reason it's kinetic energy instead of potential energy.
OldMarksman said:
Oh but it is you and John are trying to say something (advantage of a more powerful round) doesn't exist, so I really only need one event to disprove your theory
I am with you.
Power (velocity) absolutely matters. Take the example of the 38 Special VS the 357 magnum. With the exact same bullet the only difference is velocity. Why is the 38 special a marginal caliber and the 357 magnum so effective it is legendary? Simple answer....Energy...The potential to do work.
So when is too much power a bad thing, if a 357 mag works, a 44 mag with the proper bullet should work better and a 308 should work even better? I have seen people shot with 12 gauge slugs and high powered rifles there is NO way I will believe that a 9mm is equally effective.
Not that it's a bad thing, but any energy after the exit wound is wasted energy, and does not count when trying to evaluate the impact on the target. More energy, more depth. Energy is relevant up to the point that the bullet exits. You cannot penetrate any deeper than an exit wound. Then the characteristics of the wound channel become the tie breaker. That is determined by the size, shape, and contruction of the bullet, and how it changes on impact.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by mavracer:
Astrophysics and quantum physics not so much, but I am very conversant with the theory of Newtonian physics.
The permanent cavity is created by crushing and cutting. To do that takes work, which is defined as force times distance, which is the same as energy.
As that energy destroys flesh and bone and causes the bullet to expand and deform, much of it is converted from kinetic energy into other forms of energy.
The behavior of the bullet as it enters the body will depend not only upon its initial kinetic (mass and the square of the velocity), but also upon sectional density, the shape of the ogive, and effect of the construction of the bullet on the way the projectile expands and deforms as it enters and travels through the target.
I happen to have an engineering degree and a theoretical and working knowledge of basic physics.
Astrophysics and quantum physics not so much, but I am very conversant with the theory of Newtonian physics.
How fast "parts of the body move" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
The permanent cavity is created by crushing and cutting. To do that takes work, which is defined as force times distance, which is the same as energy.
As that energy destroys flesh and bone and causes the bullet to expand and deform, much of it is converted from kinetic energy into other forms of energy.
The behavior of the bullet as it enters the body will depend not only upon its initial kinetic (mass and the square of the velocity), but also upon sectional density, the shape of the ogive, and effect of the construction of the bullet on the way the projectile expands and deforms as it enters and travels through the target.
Neither John nor I have been trying to say anything of the kind. We have said two things:
- The increment of additional power over and above that which is already sufficient is not useful; and very importantly,
- addional momentum (read: recoil) will slow the rate of controlled fire, which can reduce the likelihood of hitting and damaging critical parts of the body timely.
Horsehockey.
That explains a lot.
Sure it does the faster a given mass of the body moves away from the path of the bullet, the farther it will move, not all of the human body is real elactic the further you stretch a vessel the more likely it is to break.
yes
No, actually work would be the same as momentum, which is different than energy
Yes, but you can't cheat physics in the process, you can change the charicheristics of the hole with bullet design, but you can not make a lighter, slower bullet create the same wound volume.
What is the formula for sufficient?
Least we forget....
We are talking about shooting people and most defensive loads use some form of JHP. Adding velocity sometimes results in LESS penetration and MORE recoil.
Some of the 9mm +p+ loads show shallower penetration in gel then their slower standard pressure (slower) loads.
So even though the theoretical energy is greater the effect (depth of penetration) is lessened. With these loads the permanent crush cavity is marginally larger, but id rather get the depth then a little more width
Shots thru the arm and then into the torso still need to reach vitals. Depth of penetration is all we can count on.
We are talking about shooting people and most defensive loads use some form of JHP. Adding velocity sometimes results in LESS penetration and MORE recoil.
Some of the 9mm +p+ loads show shallower penetration in gel then their slower standard pressure (slower) loads.
So even though the theoretical energy is greater the effect (depth of penetration) is lessened. With these loads the permanent crush cavity is marginally larger, but id rather get the depth then a little more width
Shots thru the arm and then into the torso still need to reach vitals. Depth of penetration is all we can count on.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by mavracer:
I missspoke slghtly. Work is the change in energy. Always has been.
If the bullet stops in the target, the amount of work performed is the same as the initial kinetic energy of the projectile. If it keeps going, the work performed in the target work is the energy that is dissipated in the target.
Momentum is mass times velocity.
The recoil of the gun is measured in terms of momentum. The amount is the same as the velocity of the bullet times its mass. plus the velocity of the other ejecta times its aggregate mass.
Energy is mass times the square of the velocity divided by two.
If, in a particular instance against a particular target, a projectile effects a stop, and if in similar circumstances against similar targets it would likely do the same constsistently, it is sufficient.
One may want a safety margin to take into account variations. But that does not mean that more is always better.
That's dead wrong.
Yes, momentum has always been different from energy.
I missspoke slghtly. Work is the change in energy. Always has been.
If the bullet stops in the target, the amount of work performed is the same as the initial kinetic energy of the projectile. If it keeps going, the work performed in the target work is the energy that is dissipated in the target.
Momentum is mass times velocity.
The recoil of the gun is measured in terms of momentum. The amount is the same as the velocity of the bullet times its mass. plus the velocity of the other ejecta times its aggregate mass.
Energy is mass times the square of the velocity divided by two.
There is no "formula" for it, but there is such a thing as "sufficiency".
If, in a particular instance against a particular target, a projectile effects a stop, and if in similar circumstances against similar targets it would likely do the same constsistently, it is sufficient.
One may want a safety margin to take into account variations. But that does not mean that more is always better.
- Status