Double Naught Spy
New member
So we are back again to the same problem John mentioned that after decades, not everyone can agree...
Pistol Caliber Effectiveness from a Medical Point of View
- Thread starter dirtd0g
- Start date
- Status
So we are back again to the same problem John mentioned that after decades, not everyone can agree...
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Webleymkv:
Is it really "slight"?
From one of the link previously posted:
From another:
Now, if I were concerned about defense against something other than humans, my judgment wold probably be different.
I'm not sure about just what you think you gain from the "extra power", but if the smaller round has adequate terminal ballistics, the real question is how much the recoil slows your rate of controlled fire, isn't it?
Is it really "slight"?
How "unpleasant" the recoil may be is not the main issue.
From one of the link previously posted:
From another:
Now, if I were concerned about defense against something other than humans, my judgment wold probably be different.
They determined that before the formal tests were even started and it was determined that it was too much for everyone.
Here is a link to Urey's notes and timeline
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
Because at some point recoil control is no longer the limiting factor, it's just how fast you can line up the sights and press the trigger.
I can't shoot my Ruger MkII any (appreciably) faster than my CZ Tac sport and the Ruger is even compensated.
Says every 9mm fan, it's still a 10-20% wider wound track on average.
And bigger holes will turn some timers into switches and shorten some timers.
Dont know if I missed it or not.
Seeing as the conversation is about ineffectiveness of pistol rounds because of the relatively low velocity. How do or would high velocity pistol rounds work out?
Thinking the Five-Seven at 2100 fps or 357 Maximum at 2000 fps or 357 Sig. I understand there may not be any real world data. However I would tend to think that they would have rifle like terminal effects. I know that handguns like the 454 Casull and 460 S&W would give rifle results. But, dont think anyone could conceivably carry them on a day to day. Shot placement would still be key to DOA. However, in my theory the trauma caused by the HV rounds would equate to stopping the threat with less than lethal shots. IE: you will no longer be capable of fighting if your shoulder explodes (think 30-06 to deer shoulder). Not sure if any of those handgun rounds are capable of doing that. Maybe I should be looking for a 460 Derringer.
Seeing as the conversation is about ineffectiveness of pistol rounds because of the relatively low velocity. How do or would high velocity pistol rounds work out?
Thinking the Five-Seven at 2100 fps or 357 Maximum at 2000 fps or 357 Sig. I understand there may not be any real world data. However I would tend to think that they would have rifle like terminal effects. I know that handguns like the 454 Casull and 460 S&W would give rifle results. But, dont think anyone could conceivably carry them on a day to day. Shot placement would still be key to DOA. However, in my theory the trauma caused by the HV rounds would equate to stopping the threat with less than lethal shots. IE: you will no longer be capable of fighting if your shoulder explodes (think 30-06 to deer shoulder). Not sure if any of those handgun rounds are capable of doing that. Maybe I should be looking for a 460 Derringer.
Walt Sherrill
New member
jmhyer said:
jmr40 said:
I've heard about the effectiveness of HP ammo enough that I've become a semi-believer. That said, I also continue to read about R&D data and experimental evidence, and claims, like above, that the best HP is about 85-95% effective at stopping the threat with a solid hit.
I can NEVER find sources for these sort of claims. (I'm not saying they're false claims, but I'd sure like to know more.. and be able to evaluate some of the evidence for myself.)
I see a lot of different Ballistic Gel results, but I try to keep in mind that they are BALLISTIC GEL results, a material intended to approximate pork tissue which is found to be similar to human tissue. Sometimes the tests are done using POR tissue (ribs and meat) embedded in Gel, so that the bullets used have to penetrate actual or simulated bone before hitting anything else. Sometimes the tests include clothing (denim, leather) in multiple layers. Penetration is frequently measured, but accuracy is not addressed, and I don't see much testing done with FMJ rounds in these sort of tests. I do know that some HP rounds don't expand when they must pass through materials (heavy denim) or barriers (or, perhaps bone.)
WHERE DO WE GET GOOD INFORMATION TO BACK UP THESE CLAIMS!? Most of the available data seems to be available as a piece here and a piece there, requiring the reader to INTERPOLATE and make judgments; interpolation is something that not all of us are properly equipped to do well.
More recently, I spent some time pouring through the Ellifritz study, which includes (in a most general way) the results of over 1000 shootings and involves a wide range of calibers. That's a pretty comprehensive test, given the fact that many (perhaps most) shootings aren't evaluated or recorded all, and with most shootings, its hard to find out anything about the shooter who was successful (i.e., shooter effectiveness). Of that 1000+ shootings, it was almost impossible for Ellifritz to get the data needed to compare FMJ to HP ammo -- I think he may have been able to get some 9mm data -- as that sort of information isn't always available.
Two things seem clear:
1) you want the fight to stop as quickly as possible, to reduce the time YOU are at risk 2) Fights stop quickly ONLY when you hit something critical (brain/CNS, heart heart/lungs), when someone is hit and is "psychologically" disabled, or when the bad guy decides that taking on an armed opponent isn't worth the risk.
Well-aimed shots that penetrate far enough to do the job seem to be the only sure way of getting there from here. While HP round rip up ballistic gel very visibly -- it seems unclear whether that these HP rounds hit something critical with more precision and frequency than do FMJ rounds. (Perhaps they do, and I'll welcome evidence that supports that claim. In the meantime, I'll continue to use HP ammo in my carry gun, but that may be the ballistic equivalent of whistling in the dark...
In a real shootout, it may be more the INDIAN than the ARROW, and we can't really assess that... but even the best INDIAN needs his arrow to go to the right place.
Last edited:
To stick with the same analogy, until you come up with the self guided seeker arrow that homes in on a vital organ all on its own, it is ALL about the "Indian".
And while not a perfect analogy, hollow points are broadheads FMJ are field points. Both work, one usually works better, but ONLY when the Indian does their bow work right. Both fail when the Indian does.
And while not a perfect analogy, hollow points are broadheads FMJ are field points. Both work, one usually works better, but ONLY when the Indian does their bow work right. Both fail when the Indian does.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Walt Sherrill:
Hitting those areas requires both penetration and the right entry points and angles. Since the "right entry points and angles" are a to a large extent a matter of guesswork, "lucky" may be a better description than "well aimed", which would imply that the defender would know where to aim to hit something inside the body. Remember, we are discussing a three dimensional target, moving and probably not squarely facing the defender.
To illustrate that point, someone posted a bunch of penetration and wound channel information on another board, and buried in the post was a series of illustrations showing how minor variations in entry angles caused by movement of the attacker, together with minor variations in points of entry, can impact whether or not something critical would be hit by a angle shot. The illustration addressed the heart, which may not be the best example for effecting a quick stop, but any small internal target could have been shown to make the point.
What it says to me is just what Sharkbite said earlier:
I would say it differently. Shots that hit those critical areas are the only way to do it.
Hitting those areas requires both penetration and the right entry points and angles. Since the "right entry points and angles" are a to a large extent a matter of guesswork, "lucky" may be a better description than "well aimed", which would imply that the defender would know where to aim to hit something inside the body. Remember, we are discussing a three dimensional target, moving and probably not squarely facing the defender.
To illustrate that point, someone posted a bunch of penetration and wound channel information on another board, and buried in the post was a series of illustrations showing how minor variations in entry angles caused by movement of the attacker, together with minor variations in points of entry, can impact whether or not something critical would be hit by a angle shot. The illustration addressed the heart, which may not be the best example for effecting a quick stop, but any small internal target could have been shown to make the point.
What it says to me is just what Sharkbite said earlier:
Last edited:
Yes, this opinion is incorrect. A good synopsis of the initial tests and results is detailed here...
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/4/16/throwback-thursday-the-fbi-ammo-tests/
As the article reports:
So the decision to load the 10mm to 950 fps with a 180 gr. bullet was made before the 10mm was adopted or tested by smaller agents. That decision led to the eventual adoption of the 40 S&W.
tipoc
I gotta agree with Walt, or at least the gist of his comments made above.
There is no actual evidence to back up the opinions which are often presented to us as "studies". Ellifitz, the article which was linked to that opened up this thread, the "studies" from the "medical" point of view like the brief essay that sits in post 1, none are actual studies.
It has been the case for many decades that most debates about caliber and power in handguns are small scale reflections of the debates around long gun caliber selection and use.
A more powerful round is just that, more powerful. It is generally good to hit the target with as much power as one can reasonably handle to stop the threat rapidly. This is, of course, given that the other crucial considerations are met, platform, task, ability to hit with speed and accuracy, etc.
tipoc
There is no actual evidence to back up the opinions which are often presented to us as "studies". Ellifitz, the article which was linked to that opened up this thread, the "studies" from the "medical" point of view like the brief essay that sits in post 1, none are actual studies.
It has been the case for many decades that most debates about caliber and power in handguns are small scale reflections of the debates around long gun caliber selection and use.
A more powerful round is just that, more powerful. It is generally good to hit the target with as much power as one can reasonably handle to stop the threat rapidly. This is, of course, given that the other crucial considerations are met, platform, task, ability to hit with speed and accuracy, etc.
tipoc
In spite of the fact that all of the normally measured parameters rate the 10mm well above the 9mm, no one has ever been able to conclusively demonstrate that the 10mm provides a measurable improvement in stopping power/incapacitation rate/incapacitation speed over the 9mm.
In light of that, which makes more sense? Does it make more sense to point out that if there is a difference no one has been able to demonstrate it and therefore it would be prudent to be skeptical about the practical value of such a difference, if it exists? Or is it wiser to claim that there’s obviously a practical difference even though no one can prove it?
Your assessment is based on the assumption that the extra power of the 10mm actually provides a practical benefit in terms of stopping power/incapacitation rate/incapacitation speed and yet you have no evidence to demonstrate that this is true.
Theoretically if you are strong enough, you can completely overpower the recoil and keep the muzzle on target. If that’s the case (and it isn’t for most mortals) then your range times and accuracy scores should prove it.
If the scores are the same then shoot the one you like best. If a particular caliber instills confidence, can provide sufficient penetration with expanding ammunition and doesn’t hamper your practical shooting performance then carrying it makes sense. But if range time demonstrates that you’re giving up measurable accuracy/speed in return for a “benefit” that can’t be demonstrated, let alone quantified/measured; that doesn’t make sense.
Precisely. Until someone can conclusively demonstrate that there’s something to be gained, why should we be willing to give anything up?
So how exactly do you define "adequate" terminal ballistics? One can find any number of cases where just about any caliber from .22 Short up to .44 Magnum incapacitated someone immediately and numerous cases where the same cartridges failed to incapacitate someone quite spectacularly.
If all the methods for measuring cartridge effectiveness (energy, diameter, momentum, etc.) are meaningless next to shot placement and penetration, then why is a 9mm "adequate" while everything bigger/more powerful is "overkill"? Afterall, with the right bullet selection, nearly every common handgun cartridge from .22 LR up can be made to penetrate adequately, so why isn't a 9mm "overkill" when smaller calibers can penetrate 12" or more and do it with less recoil thus enhancing controllability?
There are two issues with that. First, it is supposedly from the FBI who is apparently trying to justify their choice to switch back to the 9mm. Remember this is the same FBI which, when they decided to adopt the 10mm said this:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
Now I won't go into all the possible reasons that the FBI has made such an about-face in its opinion of the 9mm cartridge because it's conjecture and off-topic. Suffice to say, however, the fact that they don't seem to be able to make up their minds disinclines me to take their opinion as gospel
Also, they specified "premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles". To me, this sounds like they're referring to ammunition made by mainstream ammo companies marketed directly at law enforcement customers such as Winchester Ranger and Federal HST. None of these premium law enforcement lines of ammo include 10mm and, honestly, I doubt that any recent testing that the FBI may have conducted included any 10mm ammo at all, much less 10mm loaded above their "FBI Lite" specs.
You posted that before and I didn't dispute it. However, you've still failed to explain why, if 9mm is better than .40 S&W due to it being "more manageable," an even smaller, lighter recoiling caliber wouldn't be better still. What is so special about the 9mm that makes it the baby bear "just right" cartridge?
Last edited:
So why draw the line at 9mm? Why is it the baseline? There are certainly calibers which can be demonstrated to be easier to shoot quickly and accurately than 9mm. If no one can conclusively demonstrate that one caliber is a measurable improvement in in stopping power/incapacitation rate/incapacitation speed over any other, then would it not make the most sense to choose whichever caliber is the easiest to shoot quickly and accurately? If this is the case, then there are several other common calibers which should be considered superior to 9mm due to their reduced recoil.
So what evidence is there that the extra power of a 9mm provides a practical benefit over a 9x18 Makarov, .380 Auto, .32 Auto, .25 Auto, or .22 Long Rifle? The reduced recoil of any of those cartridges would, in a comparable gun, make them demonstrably easier to shoot quickly and accurately than a 9mm. Why should the 10mm be considered sub-optimal due to it's heavier recoil when the 9mm isn't the lightest recoiling cartridge commonly available either? If the fact that there is no consensus on why or even if one cartridge is more effective than another means that we should discard any notion to that end, then why should we not simply seek out whichever cartridge gives us the lightest recoil and thus the greatest degree of controllability?
But you're still giving up something with the 9mm aren't you? Afterall, you can get a gun in a smaller caliber that's smaller, lighter, and more convenient to carry such as a Kel Tec P32 or Beretta 950 Jetfire. You could get a gun in a smaller caliber that has significantly less recoil and is thus easier to shoot like a Ruger Mk. III or Browning Buckmark. You could even get a gun in a smaller caliber that is higher capacity like an FN FiveSeven or Kel Tec PMR-30. It seems to me that no matter which gun you choose, you're going to give up something as compared to some other model.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Webleymkv:
Where did you get that idea?
Things change. Today's premium bonded JHP bullets perform better.
There you go again. Doesn't the statement "There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto" imply that tree might be a noticeable difference in smallar rounds?
Maybe. I can't find too many of the former, but then, I'm not looking.
Where did you get that idea?
"Trying to justify", or explaining the basis for a decision?
"Make up their minds"? Really?
Things change. Today's premium bonded JHP bullets perform better.
Don't you think there's a reason for that?
I don't need to explain it. Others already have.
There you go again. Doesn't the statement "There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto" imply that tree might be a noticeable difference in smallar rounds?
I had to smile when I read that.
Reminds me of what I once heard a scientist say about how they could find/come up with any results one was looking for. I would have loved to have been there to see if he/she said that with a straight face. But how very true that is.
After all they have to create the test for validation.
(and if the grant is big enough they'll milk it to high heaven)
Keep up the good work here men this is becoming a daily read.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by mavracer:
And to me, diagrams would seem to support that idea. But I'm not really qualified to judge. I'll rely on experts.
The comment I have quoted is contained in the May 6, 1914 Executive Summary Report from the FBI Training Devision, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA.
The report also contains this comment: "Given contemporary bullet construction, LEO’s can field (with proper bullet selection) 9mm Lugers with all of the terminal performance potential of any other law enforcement pistol caliber with none of the disadvantages present with the “larger” calibers."
And this one: "...an operating room surgeon or Medical Examiner cannot distinguish the difference between wounds caused by .35 to .45 caliber projectiles."
I have no reason to question those comments.
Some years ago, I bought a steel-framed .45 ACP pistol for carry and for use at a defensive pistol shooting class.
I "knew" about the Moros and the US Army testing and the reputation. I could observe the difference in expanded diameter. I could feel the kick, though I should have known that the only contribution was negative.
The first thing I learned was that those shooting high capacity 9mm pistols (not compacts) could get a lot more rounds on multiple targets more quickly than those with .45s and .40s.
Then, after the training, I became aware that the generally accepted belief that the .45 was markedly superior to the 9mm was no longer as "generally accepted" as it once had been. That should not have been a surprise, at that point.
If human targets (and what the FBI, their law enfacement partners, and the civilian concealed carrier have in common is that in the city, the targets will very likely be human) were water jugs, homogenous and unitary, any hit with adequate penetration and expansion would suffice.
But the targets are really three dimensional envelopes that conceal blood vessels, nerves, tendons, and other key elements, including the CNS.
Any hit may not suffice.
So, more hits, fast, will be better.
All other things being equal, I should think that larger bullets would be better, too. But I haven't been paid to study volumes of scientific data, and all other things are not equal. I would not want to sacrifice speed of controlled fire against a close target moving at 5m/sec, or magazine capacity, for a few millimeters of additional diameter when the experts do not see the need.
I should think that an expanded .45 would cause a larger permanent wound cavity than an expanded .356 projectile.
And to me, diagrams would seem to support that idea. But I'm not really qualified to judge. I'll rely on experts.
The comment I have quoted is contained in the May 6, 1914 Executive Summary Report from the FBI Training Devision, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA.
The report also contains this comment: "Given contemporary bullet construction, LEO’s can field (with proper bullet selection) 9mm Lugers with all of the terminal performance potential of any other law enforcement pistol caliber with none of the disadvantages present with the “larger” calibers."
And this one: "...an operating room surgeon or Medical Examiner cannot distinguish the difference between wounds caused by .35 to .45 caliber projectiles."
I have no reason to question those comments.
Some years ago, I bought a steel-framed .45 ACP pistol for carry and for use at a defensive pistol shooting class.
I "knew" about the Moros and the US Army testing and the reputation. I could observe the difference in expanded diameter. I could feel the kick, though I should have known that the only contribution was negative.
The first thing I learned was that those shooting high capacity 9mm pistols (not compacts) could get a lot more rounds on multiple targets more quickly than those with .45s and .40s.
Then, after the training, I became aware that the generally accepted belief that the .45 was markedly superior to the 9mm was no longer as "generally accepted" as it once had been. That should not have been a surprise, at that point.
If human targets (and what the FBI, their law enfacement partners, and the civilian concealed carrier have in common is that in the city, the targets will very likely be human) were water jugs, homogenous and unitary, any hit with adequate penetration and expansion would suffice.
But the targets are really three dimensional envelopes that conceal blood vessels, nerves, tendons, and other key elements, including the CNS.
Any hit may not suffice.
So, more hits, fast, will be better.
All other things being equal, I should think that larger bullets would be better, too. But I haven't been paid to study volumes of scientific data, and all other things are not equal. I would not want to sacrifice speed of controlled fire against a close target moving at 5m/sec, or magazine capacity, for a few millimeters of additional diameter when the experts do not see the need.
1: like you said yourself it doesn't make any gosh dang sense
"I should think that an expanded .45 would cause a larger permanent wound cavity than an expanded .356 projectile."
2: they've (FBI and LEO) lied to you before to get what they want.
remember when they wanted to use hollow points and made up the whole overpenatration thing. 70-80% of their shots miss and they're worried about one of the 20-30% going thru. lol
JohnKSa said:
Can you give me a quantifiable difference between survival rate of a 17 round capacity over a 14 round capacity?
or of a .16 second split vs a .17 second split?
One shot stops is a stat that is tremendously spotty because of the statistics available. but the one thing that does come up all too frequently is that no matter how sparse the data are the .357 magnum is VERY good at stopping a threat quickly. The 10mm having similar energy levels on average is enough for me. If I can handle a 10 even close to as well as a 9mm it's worth carrying.
- Status