Pistol Caliber Effectiveness from a Medical Point of View

[Nanuk]

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.

Having been a career LEO working in some very violent parts of the country and a life long hunter I have seen lots of people and animals shot. I can say without a doubt that bullet wounds that have significant exit wounds destroy much more tissue than those that do not. This does two things, it causes more pain and more bleeding which aid in stopping an attack.

I will take wasted energy.

 

[manta49]

I have seen lots of people and animals shot. I can say without a doubt that bullet wounds that have significant exit wounds destroy much more tissue than those that do not. This does two things, it causes more pain and more bleeding which aid in stopping an attack.

I will take wasted energy.

How do you know. ? ( significant exit wounds destroy much more tissue than those that do no.) If a bullet stops just under the skin not exciting, the only extra damage it will do if it exists is to the small bit of skin it exits through.

 

[mavracer]

That's dead wrong.

I guess so, but only because you attributed work as what causes the permanent cavity and I went with it.
However you are correct work is a change in energy which has little to do with the permanent cavity, the permanent wound channel comes from conservation of momentum. The work done from energy has more to do with temporary stretch cavity.

 

[OldMarksman]

posted by mavracer:

.... the permanent wound channel comes from conservation of momentum.

No way. Never has.

The crushing of flesh, bone, or stone; the compression of a spring; the lifting of a load; the pulling of a plow; or the cutting of wood, meat, or metal; or the generation of electricity by turning a generator, involves work, or the application of force over a distance. That's force times distance, not mass times velocity.

Now, in some of those examples, the force changes over distance and you have to do a little integral calculus, but in all of them, it involves a change in energy.

Good examples that demonstrate the conservation of momentum include firearm recoil; knocking over a steel plate with a bullet; knocking over a bowling pin with a bowling ball or a bullet; moving the eight-ball by hitting it with a cue ball; generating thrust with an old fashioned propeller, or lift with a helicopter rotor; jet propulsion; or rocket propulsion.

 

[44 AMP]

Nine pages now, and we've been chasing our tails for some time, but by gosh, if we just run a little faster, we'll catch that sucker!


The OP was about how Docs can't tell what (or rather which) of the common defensive calibers was used from the wound track. Ok, fine. I got that, DOCS can't tell that. Makes sense, the difference in size between the common rounds is small, and tissue is elastic.

Now, ASSUMING that they are all equal, because the docs can't tell the difference, from after the fact examination, is, I think, flawed.

Think of the "permanent" wound channel as a fossil record. Its not the same as the complete beast.

The unquantifiable variable in stopping power is what happens during the bullet's travel. The record left behind does not, and cannot show this.
it only hints at it.

And as to the laws of physics, while they are important, the most important laws in a self defense situation are the laws of Murphy!

 

[mavracer]

No way. Never has.

Then please please please explain how a 240gr 44 Special going 750 fps and has only 300 ft.lbs of energy will leave a larger permanent crush cavity greater volume than a 124gr 9mm going 1200 fps that produces 400 ft.lbs. in any controlled medium?
Please explain how a standard BP 45/70 round will shoot through 2 gel blocks and a 5.56 won't go through one when they have about the same amount of energy?

Please by all means explain how permanent crush cavity is caused by energy?
I'll give you a hint it isn't It's caused by conservation of momentum, weather it's pushing a pepper popper over or pushing flesh, it's momentum.

Energy has long been mistakenly used to evaluate firearms, it confuses people because most of the time as momentum goes up so does energy.

the most important laws in a self defense situation are the laws of Murphy!

AMEN I'm a lot more worried about crossing a "Jack McCall" than I am about my skill level or what I happen to be carrying

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

Then please please please explain....

Please explain...

Please by all means explain how permanent crush cavity is caused by energy?

I do not mean for this to sound either pedantic or insulting, but my best advice to you now is to enroll in school, or to give it up and accept what those who know tell you. You really do seem to lack sufficient understanding of the underlying concepts to grasp the essence of the discussion. I have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to explain it to you.

I'll give you a hint it [(permanent crush cavity)] it isn't [(caused by energy)] It's caused by conservation of momentum,...

Permanent crush cavity (or permanent wound volume, if that's what you mean) is most certainly not caused by conservation of momentum. It cannot be, and the suggestion that it is just ludicrous.

Rather, it is caused by the diameter of the expanded bullet, by the speed which the bullet expands, by the configuration of the expanded bullet, by the extent to which the bullet holds together as it penetrates, and by how far it penetrates.

Some aspects of that have to do with energy, and other aspects, with bullet design and construction.

 

[mavracer]

I have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to explain it to you.

Because you're wrong, I understand that's a hard thing to get your head around being an engineer and all.
explain how a 240gr 44 Special going 750 fps and has only 300 ft.lbs of energy will leave a larger permanent crush cavity greater volume than a 124gr 9mm going 1200 fps that produces 400 ft.lbs. in any controlled medium?
The reason you can't is because it's momentum at work and the 44 Special has about 20% more momentum.
That's the difference between an engineer and a physicist an engineer says it works because I said so and the fact it doesn't is something else and you just don't understand.
The physicist says it works and can show why it works.

 

[Sharkbite]

Again, we are talking WOUND physiology not applied physics. The Medical experts attest that the wound mechanism is indistinguishable between common defensive calibers.

There is NOTHING else with handgun rounds. No hydro static shock at the low impact velocities. No magic "knockdown power".

There is the damage done by the bullet impacting and destroying whatever structures it impacts...period

If the Medical experts cant see a difference, that tells me there is not enough difference to matter.

Assuming the same exact hit with any modern defensive ammo...the effect will be close enough to the same as to not matter.

So, shoot what you shoot best, as fast as you can get mutiple hits high in the Thoracic cavity and hope the organs impacted cause the attack to cease. Alternately, a single round thru the base of the Brain will stop the attack (if you can make that shot).

All the debate over which one is "best" is only debating the tip of the iceberg. There is SO MUCH more to worry about

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the permanent wound channel comes from conservation of momentum...

In what universe? Certainly not in this one.

• Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

  In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

  
  
• And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

  The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

  
  
• And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

  Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

In other words, the permanent wound cavity is made by the bullet physically crushing or cutting the tissue through which it passes.

...The physicist says it works and can show why it works.

But you're obviously not a physicist.

 

[chrisintexas]

how would rate .380 compared to .38 special and 9mm?

 

[Sharkbite]

how would rate .380 compared to .38 special and 9mm?

The 380 does not reliably penetrate to the FBI standard. Sometimes it makes it sometimes it doesn't. The lighter bullet combined with lower velocity just doesnt make it a great choice.

That said i have and carry one on occasion. A Keltec 3AT makes a ultra small carry gun when something more effective cant be carried. I understand the ballistic handicap im under when thats what i have in hand.

 

[mavracer]

In what universe? Certainly not in this one.

Oh good lord, two of your three quotes expressly say it isn't energy that wounds.

In other words, the permanent wound cavity is made by the bullet physically crushing or cutting the tissue through which it passes.

Yes and it's the momentum of the bullet being conserved that dictates just how much tissue is crushed cut and moved out of the path of the bullet.

But you're obviously not a physicist.

Then prove I'm wrong and explain how a 240gr 44 Special going 750 fps and has only 300 ft.lbs of energy will leave a larger permanent crush cavity greater volume than a 124gr 9mm going 1200 fps that produces 400 ft.lbs. in any controlled medium?

 

[dirtd0g]

The OP was about how Docs can't tell what (or rather which) of the common defensive calibers was used from the wound track. Ok, fine. I got that, DOCS can't tell that. Makes sense, the difference in size between the common rounds is small, and tissue is elastic.

Really my OP was to shift focus and energy from arguing about calibers, terminal ballistics, and projectile composition to discussing the importance of good defensive shooting. Bigger does not mean better especially if you can't hit your target.

In terms of medical examination after an individual has been shot it doesn't matter what caliber was used. The damage is either fatal, critical, or superficial. The entire point of the OP was the ALL calibers, big and small, can create superficial wounds that wouldn't stop a rat from eating your cheese.

Any caliber, shot well with the intent to do MAJOR bodily harm will achieve that end. This includes .22 LR and everything beyond that. If you think a .22 pistol won't kill, people like Robert Kennedy and Mark Coates have a story for you. To see examples of how poor shooting with any caliber is ineffective one need only search for the scores of people shot DOZENS of times with "service calibers" only to survive, continue to fight, or flee.

Now, I will dip into projectile composition a little as a bullet that is designed to do "something" upon impact MAY increase your chances or damaging a critical area... However don't buy into "wound channels" and gel testing. The human body is not a solid mass. It has compartments and organs that are enveloped in tough sheets of protective material. There is fascia and connective tissue that have different strengths and characteristics. The "expanding" channels seen in gel may just politely move organs aside in living tissue.

If they could develop a 9mm round that penetrated 3 inches into its target and then explode violently I would buy it in a heartbeat.

This G2 RIP stuff looks interesting, though...​

We do have some data on the subject from an article by Ellefritz:

But what do these numbers even mean? In a vacuum it looks as if a .22 is the worst and everyone should grab a .357! However, this may be due to the fact that a .22 is common and many novice shooter use them. I don't think there are too many brand new, untrained, and undisciplined shooters who jump straight for a .357. It is logical to assume that .357s seem to incapacitate successfully more often because they are being SHOT by better shooters...

Now look at this data:

Wow. Those .22s don't look so bad! Wait a minute... It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the sheer VOLUME of that caliber being used, could it?

Well-placed shots have the desired effect. Regardless of caliber. Regardless of load.

Now, as I've stated before, if you can shoot your .357 or .45 just as well or better than a smaller caliber, go for it... And, I wouldn't choose a .22 for defense because rim-fire is historically less reliable than center-fire. I do want to KNOW my gun will go boom when I squeeze the trigger. Some with more reliable .22 pistols may think differently... And, obviously, 22s have been used effectively for everything from self-defense to assassinations.

But, please... Preach a gospel of training, knowledge, and skill development before waxing poetic on calibers. As a man who hasn't been carrying or shooting as long as many of you I would appreciate advice on improving my effectiveness before you start pointing me to heavier bullets. The WORLD would appreciate it.

That being said, I do appreciate an energetic discussion on any topic. And, all of you are bringing a lot to the plate. Keep it civil, keep it on topic, and I will continue to read and post!

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Yes and it's the momentum of the bullet being conserved that dictates just how much tissue is crushed cut and moved out of the path of the bullet....

You are using words in a clumsy, obtuse fashion in the hopes that it will give your argument greater weight. You are trying to make a simple thing complicated.

How much tissue is crushed/cut/damaged is a function of the diameter of the bullet and the penetration of the bullet. How deeply the bullet will penetrate is a function of velocity and mass (momentum) and the sectional density of the bullet (the ratio of cross sectional area to mass).

So momentum is a factor (as is sectional density) insofar as it affects penetration.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...We do have some data on the subject from an article by Ellefritz:

But what do these numbers even mean? In a vacuum it looks as if a .22 is the worst and everyone should grab a .357! However, this may be due to the fact that a .22 is common and many novice shooter use them...

Nope, that's not what they mean. Ellifritz indeed tells us what they mean.

In his study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

1. There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
   
   
   • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
     
     
   • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
     
     
   • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
     
     
   • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
     
     
   • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
   
   
2. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
   
   
   • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
     
     
   • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
   
   
3. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
   
   
4. From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
   
   
5. Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

   ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
   
   The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

 

[JohnKSa]

It only takes 2 shots to prove "more" exists and actually Mr. Newton has a law that says it must exist.

I can't really tell if you're intentionally ignoring what I post or if you really aren't picking up on it. I am talking about practical/significant real world benefit--improved incapacitation/reduced incapacitation times. You keep talking about wound volume differences.

If you have some data that conclusively demonstrates that the wound volume differences between the various service pistol calibers can be shown to result in practical/significant changes in incapacitation times then I would like to see it. So would everyone else who's remotely interested in this topic.

No it's really not, saying that you can't quantify more doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Again, I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that you're mischaracterizing my comments.

I didn't say that the differences don't exist, I'm saying that no one has shown that they make a practical/significant difference in the real world.

Do you have a way to quantify how much advantage 1 or 2 rounds of capacity is?

It is possible to demonstrate that the chances of success (as defined by a certain number of hits given a certain hit rate) improve when capacity increases. Here's an entire thread on the topic.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494257

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.

The 12" figure is derived from basic human anatomy. It's a generalized figure based on averages and on the realities of how gunfights play out. It's a figure which is universally accepted by U.S. law enforcement.

I understand that it is critical to your argument to attack this figure but you're going to have to demonstrate that the entire U.S. law enforcement community is wrong and you're right to get any traction.

It's easy to see in "hindsight" where more penatration or a larger cavity...

If it's so easy to see then why has no one been able to demonstrate that the differences in question provide a practical/significant real world benefit?

No, actually work would be the same as momentum...

Kinetic energy is the potential of a moving object to do work. Energy and work are essentially two sides of the same coin.

Work and momentum are most certainly not the same thing.

These formulas demonstrate that work is the energy associated with the action of a force, so work subsequently possesses the physical dimensions, and units, of energy.​

The work done on a body that caused the body to be set in motion with some speed v can be expressed as function of the body's final speed v and mass m, independent of type of force that acted on the body. We call this function the body's Kinetic Energy.​

The work-energy theorem
There is a strong connection between work and energy, in a sense that when there is a net force doing work on an object, the object's kinetic energy will change by an amount equal to the work done:​

Because you're wrong, I understand that's a hard thing to get your head around being an engineer and all.

Impressive chutzpah for someone having just demonstrated a rather glaring lack of understanding of the basic physics of moving objects.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Well-placed shots have the desired effect. Regardless of caliber. Regardless of load....

Really? Always?

Don't tell that to LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

The bottom line is:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do, so:
   
   
   • More holes are better than fewer holes.
     
     
   • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
     
     
   • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
     
     
   • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
     
     
   • There are no magic bullets.
   
   
6. There are no guarantees.

 

[Brit]

Frank your quote below is beautiful!

The bottom line is:

Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.


Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.


Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.


For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.


And that's probably as good as we can do, so:


More holes are better than fewer holes.


Larger holes are better than smaller holes.


Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.


Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.


There are no magic bullets.


There are no guarantees.
__________________

My experience in the average person will carry what is easy to carry, not that which is adequate.

But if you weigh all that history of shootings tell us? Some factors come to the top, bullets that work, when fired into the right place, are good!

More of them ready to go, actually in your gun, is a good thing.

The whole package, gun/spare mag/flashlight, are of a size and weight, that you will carry always. And I mean always, going shopping, to going out well dressed to a function.

My own choice, the light weight Glock 19, a spare G17 magazine, a surefire flashlight, next to, and just behind the magazine. To utilize the effectiveness of the pistol, as most confrontations happen in reduced light conditions, Truglo fiber optic night sights are a must.

There is no such thing as muscle memory! But carrying all your kit, in the same place, always, is a good thing.

A quote I heard from a wicked, incredible scrapper first, even though he did not invent it, "Do unto others, as they would do unto you, but do it first!"
Tried to follow that credo, in 5 violent years, working on the door of Clubs in Liverpool UK.

 

[mavracer]

You are using words in a clumsy, obtuse fashion in the hopes that it will give your argument greater weight.

Nope it's just I weren't a english major.

How deeply the bullet will penetrate is a function of velocity and mass (momentum) and the sectional density of the bullet (the ratio of cross sectional area to mass).

And you can't break the laws of physics with bullet design only play within them, so a bullet that has more momentum has the potential to crush more tissue.


John, as somebody a few pages back said you can talk yourself into not wearing pants if you want.

Since the difference between 9mm and 40 is small you obviously can choose to ignore it if you want even say it doesn't exist(physical laws be damned)

One could argue that the 12" figure should be adjusted for the ever increasing obesity in this country.

One could argue that since the incapacitation rates and studys haven't really changed in 100 years that technological advancements of ammunition really haven't made any difference and it's still all about shot placement.

So if you choose to believe 12" is a magic number and is the very definition of sufficient that's fine good luck with that.