Rekindling the caliber war: the *decisive* effect

O

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
If I recall correctly, sometime in 1942 a British fleet got severalItalian heavy cruisers on radar and fired on the point blank (at 2 km) with 14" guns. It took two hits apiece to sink two of the ships. (Now, I may have got details wrong but you get the gist)

I am pretty sure that two hits with 12" or 16" guns would have had a comparable effect. Perhaps HE instead of armor-piercing shells would have done similarly, too.

By contrast, had the opponents used their 5" guns, the damage would have been entirely survivable.

Transferring this to handguns:

We know with a good degree of certainty that a .44 mag will often succeed where a .25acp failed. A .357 JHP is also likely to work much better than a training plastic bullet.

However, let's compare similar choices. Can we say with conviction that the differences between a 9x19 Silvertip is significantly better than a Gold Dot or an FMJ placed identically?

The reason I am wondering is a case I read where a man filling up his car got ambushed by a junkie. The assailant fired several rounds across a car and hit the victim in the jaw. When he came over to finish the deed, he got a magazine full of .45acp in the chest and troubled no one after that. The victim lost two teeth and said that he was fortunate that the attacker used a Blaser FMJ, else he would have probably sustained much more damage.

So, within the same caliber but different bullet types or between similar calibers (.380/9x19 or .22/.25 out of short barrels), just how significant is the difference? I am not talking about obviously disparate rounds (.32acp vs. .30 Tokarev) or JHP vs. blanks. Among reasonable choices (various brands of JHP, FMJ, lead, Glasers), can we expect an overhwelming statistical difference over numerous shootings assuming similar shooter skills and circumstances?

And please, this is idle speculation on a topic in which we cannot line up a thousand volunteers for empirical testing...all we have is attempts at logical reasoning in the absence of hard info. Anecdotal info is welcome.

------------------
Oleg "cornered rat" Volk

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
I still have much to learn about this subject but in all the discussions I have had and all the medical articles I have read, I still have not seen nor heard any significant evidence that would lead me to believe that a JHP is "better" than a FMJ.

If anything, coming from discussions with those in the medical field, I am led to believe that the FMJ's *may* actually be more *deadly* as (again I am led to believe) they tend to penetrate deeper and have a greater chance of producing both and entrance and an exit wound. Again, these would be my own conclusions based on many different sources of input.

It seem the more I learn, the more I question, the more I DO NOT see real evidence of significant bullet type differences.

If any of you are omnipitent, please fill me in on the real truth... ;)

CMOS

------------------
GOA, TSRA, LEAA, NRA, SAF and I vote!
 
Greetings Oleg, Realizing the effects of a
gunfight; I believe I would prefer the Federal Hydra-Shok ammunition, in any
caliber from say 9m/m thru .44 Magnum.
I have seen many perp's shot with this
ammo; 98% were fatal, when a vital organ
was struck, or the central neverous system
wrecked.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

Message edited by Dan H. Ford on 02-03-00
 
I think CMOS has managed a Center X hit here. The advantage of the FMJ is in it's ability to produce both entry and exit wounds. This, unfortunately, is also it's greatest disadvantage as anyone standing behind the intended target might take exception to being included in the fray. Thus we have the advantage of the JHP with its entrance wound, greater tendency to produce internal tissue damage, while expanding/fragmenting, and stay in the body.

This is not fact, just studied opinion.

------------------
If you're not a little upset with the way the world is going, you're not paying attention.

[This message has been edited by John Marshall (edited February 03, 2000).]
 
Bullet/caliber effectiveness in REAL gunfights is so up in the air, because of the many variables that occur in such incidents, that its impossible to say "This round, in this bullet configuration, is the ultimate fight stopper." Its this reason(well, one of them.), that I chose the 45acp. In this caliber, I carry 230gr Hydra Shok. If the bullet doesnt expand, as many JHP's are prone NOT to do, then at least I've got a 45 caliber hole, with alot of momentum pushing that heavy bullet deeper. Personally, I dont rely on bullet performance, but rather shooter performance. Putting a big bullet where its needed to stop an aggressor. Whether its a JHP or a FMJ really doesnt matter alot to me. Adressing the issue of over-penetration, most people, cops and civilians alike, miss more than they hit in real gunfights. Instead of worrying about over-penetrating a target, I think we should worry more about hitting said target in the first place. Just my humble opinion,

------------------
"To die as a warrior means to have crossed swords and either won or lost without any consideration for winning or loosing. There is just not enough time and generally not enough strength in the resolve of any man to do otherwise"-Miyamoto Musashi
 
I put the emphasis on me, not my handguns. I look at all easily carried handguns as just that: HANDGUNS. Chosen for portability, not power. Unless I really do my part well in major tissue/artery/nerve disruption of the bad guy(s), it doesn't matter what I shoot them with. I can't count on them oohing and aahing over my choice of caliber.

After taking some training courses, I feel comfy with either 9mm or .45 ACP as I can shoot well with either and I'm just as convinced they both feel wimpy in comparison to my rifles.

Having said all that, I prefer 230 gr .45 ACP Hydra Shoks.

Edmund
 
I think the difference is the energy loaded into the cartridge.
.40 caliber is .40 caliber. You take a look at the variable loads offered and you may find wide spectrum of performance. 135 grain bullets flying out at 1300 FPS (or faster) or 180 grain bullets moving at 980 FPS. Kenetic energy and momentum. You can take the .45 and load a 230 grain HP or FMJ, and laod its velocity from 800 FPS to over 1,000. The difference in terminal balistics will be very large I think.
Take the same loading and have the variable by ONLY FMJ or HP... well, we could expect the HP slug to expand, damaging more tissue each inch of penetration, but not reaching the same depth as the FMJ. At least thats how its supposed to work.
So that being said, I have no conclusion.
:D

------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
 
Hello, all. I fully agree that the "power" of various calibers over others does contribute, significantly, to that bullet's effect on a target, but still opine that placement is the overriding determinant. As an example, I just returned from a small game hunt in Texas in which I saw a poorly hit javelina lead us on a long trail after being shot with a .45-70. That same morning a 9mm handload dropped one in its tracks. No one would ever say that a 9mm was more powerful than the .45-70, but once again, a heart hit with a lesser round did more than a gut shot.
And so it goes. I believe firmly that going with any "reasonable" handgun round and practicing until you are able to deliver it with precision is the most important factor in such matters. Best to all.
 
This is sort of slim pickings, but I watch "Trauma" on TLC often, and the majority of bullets removed from patients are of the FMJ variety.

This would lead me to conclude that either:
1. Most people shot with HP bullets do not survive to get to the emergency room, or
2. Most people are shot with FMJ bullets and do survive.

This being said, all my carry ammo is JHP, usually +P. I am a devotee of 9mm myself, as I shoot my P7M8 better(faster, more accurately) than any other pistol I've tried.

I don't consider ANY handgun round to be an effective stopper.

------------------
My brain's a hand grenade...catch. Ice-T, OG.

The M-16 is a damn fine weapon, but your best, your most lethal and effective weapon is between your ears. Ssgt Brown, Parris Island, 3rd Bn, H co. 1984.
 
Artech , even .50 AE? I haven't shot anything but wood yet with my Desert Eagle, but if any handgun round would be a stopper it would be .50AE JHP.
 
Without getting lost in the esoterics of primary and secondary wound channels, and velocity/penetration studies, a good rule of thumb is heavier is better. I like the 9mm round very much, but if I had to choose only one caliber for a life and death situation I would pick the .45ACP. Mass is a very important, and often overlooked, factor when considering stopping power. A 230 grain bullet has more kinetic energy upon impact than a 147 grain 9mm traveling at the same speed. Kinetic energy is what creates the "knock down power" of a round.

However, as stated elswhere, there is no hand gun caliber that will have stopping power if it doesn't hit it's mark. The most important thing is really not the power of the round, but where it lands. I teach my students that placement is more important than what caliber is used. A Howitzer will do you no good if you can't hit what you are aiming at.




------------------
Joe Portale
Tucson, Arizona territory

"The unarmed man is a subject, the armed man is a citizen."
 
Originally posted by artech:
This is sort of slim pickings, but I watch "Trauma" on TLC often, and the majority of bullets removed from patients are of the FMJ variety.

This would lead me to conclude that either:
1. Most people shot with HP bullets do not survive to get to the emergency room, or
2. Most people are shot with FMJ bullets and do survive.


That could also lead one to easily conclude that most street shoot-outs occur between the kind that carries crappy guns and cheap ammo. FMJs are cheap. The same also attributes to the fact that the "most deadly" round statistically is .22. But statistics is a tricky thing...

[This message has been edited by Emin (edited February 05, 2000).]
Click to expand...
 
All I have to say on the subject is: Good shot placement beats big caliber every time!!!

------------------
Just as there is no such thing as too much fun,
there is no such thing as owning just one gun!!!

Now, go do the right thing, and buy that Walther!!
 
I never really understood the "energy dump" debate. I kept hearing about kinetic energy being the important factor in bullet effectiveness. And then, of course, the other side of the choir singing that its not really the impotant factor that determines a bullet's effectiveness. I read something recently that helped clarify this issue for me.

The following is from a review of the book "Gunshot Wounds" by Dr. DiMaio (the source of the review can be found at the end of my post*). The reviewer quotes the following from page 14 of the book:

"In dealing with rifles, the severity of the wound is determined by the amount of kinetic energy lost by a bullet in the body."

A bit further on in the article the reviewer points out a problem with a comparison made in the book to prove this point:

"He compares the kinetic energy of the M16A1 55 grain bullet to that of the 405 grain lead 45-70 bullet. They have the same kinetic energy and he claims, therefore, they are 'capable of producing the same sized temporary cavities' (which, according to Dr. DiMaio, equates to their being of equal "effectiveness"). Actually, the 45-70 produces a smaller temporary cavity than the M16: a greater percentage of its kinetic energy goes into producing its large permanent cavity -- a far more reliable tissue disruption mechanism than the temporary cavity. Any knowledgeable hunter knows that the M16 cartridge is a medium power "varmint" class round that will reliably kill prairie dogs, woodchucks, and possibly coyotes up to 200 yards. Most state game laws do not permit the use of the .223 Remington (the civilian version of the M16) for shooting even the smaller types of deer because its wounding capability makes clean kills unlikely. The 45-70, however, has been used successfully for many years in hunting the larger species of big game -- such as moose, elk, and buffalo. The claim that the M16 has the same killing power as the 45-70 is simply absurd. The absurdity follows from the fallacy that kinetic energy is the sole measure of bullet effectiveness (tissue disruption), or that the size of the temporary cavity determines the effectiveness of rifle bullets. The deep penetration and the 45 or larger caliber hole (depending on degree of bullet expansion) made by the 405 grain 45-70 bullet is the factor that gives the 45-70 bullet the capacity to bring down the largest game on this continent: yet this permanent tissue disruption is completely ignored by Dr. DiMaio's temporary cavity theory."

So kinetic "energy dump" doesn't seem to be a very reliable indicator of bullet effectiveness. How can a theory that would equate the wounding capability of a 55 gr. .223 with a 405 gr. 45-70 bullet tell us anything useful?

* The book review of "Gunshot Wounds -- Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques" can be found in the Fall 1999 issue of Wound Ballistics Review which is published by the IWBA (here is their web site: www.iwba.com ). The review was written by Martin L. Fackler, MD, FACS and Richard T. Mason, MD, Medical Examiner of Santa Cruz County, CA.


------------------
Wound ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles:
Wound Ballistics

Great daily commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective:
Daily Commentary

[This message has been edited by adad (edited February 05, 2000).]
 
No, Ozzie, I don't even think the .50 AE would be a great stopper from a handgun. Before anyone flips out and starts flaming, let me mention that it is almost surely a good killing round in that capacity, as are many other handgun rounds. I'm going to try and explain myself.

Almost every bullet in every caliber is capable of producing a fatal wound, and even the .22 short is capable of lethal one shot stops IF THE PLACEMENT IS PERFECT. Almost any impingement on the central nervous system is enough to shut down any organism, man or beast. Therefore, at least in my tiny little brain, shot placement outweighs any other consideration of handgun selection.

There are tons of hangun calibers and cartridges, and all of them will do the job if they are placed properly, conversely, none of them will do the job if you miss. When we start talking about peripheral hits, it gets confusing, because every case is different, and it seems a stopping hit one time won't stop the next guy.

Adrenaline, drugs, angles, lines of sight, no two shootings I've read about are the same. Even in hunting, how many times do you hear about a perfect shot through the heart and the animal going several hundred yards before it goes down? It happens all the time, and that is with magnum rifle cartridges. The only real stoppers are central nervous system shots, and these are not caliber dependent.

There are many facets to this argument, and there can be no doubt that the muzzle of a .45 is more intimidating than that of a .22, and in fact, intimidation may well be considered a "no-shot stop", if you will. In this case, any large bore handgun would fit the bill.

If the bullet is not placed in the CNS, I don't believe that there is a true stopping caliber available in a conventional hand-held weapon, as nothing short of dismemberment will really stop someone high on drugs that thinks you are all that's between him and what he wants. If there was, then one calber would have a 100% stopping rate, and none of them do in any study that's ever been done.

I realize that not too many people will share this view, as implicit faith in your weapon is important to most people, but I think that anyone that believes that one, or even several, handgun rounds will stop someone every time is fooling themselves, reguardless of the round involved. Not even rifle cartridges will do that. In my mind there is no DECISIVE caliber or bullet.

Ok, I got my Nomex firegear on. Bring it! :D

------------------
My brain's a hand grenade...catch. Ice-T, OG.

The M-16 is a damn fine weapon, but your best, your most lethal and effective weapon is between your ears. Ssgt Brown, Parris Island, 3rd Bn, H co. 1984.
 
I am an Emergency MD, and have 20 years' experience with GSW's. Further, I started reloading in the mid '50's, and still do so.

Therefore, I feel I have a working knowledge of internal, external, and terminal ballistics.

To answer the original question of this thread; is there a difference between bullet types and loadings within a given caliber?
No, not really. Unless you are comparing a .32 ACP to a 30-06. Disparate loadings, however, were excluded from this question. Most modern handgun calibers are loaded rather similarly. A few hundred fps. are not going to make a difference. FMJ, JHP, SWC will all perform similarly.

To address the further issues brought up, let me tell you what I have gleaned from my experience.

ANY handgun is a marginal stopper on a human being. IF a person goes down with one shot, it is an anomaly. This is the problem that I have with Marshall and Sanow's data; they exclude all shootings in which the perp was hit more than once, yet in the vast majority of shootings, multiple hits are the rule.

The mechanism of disabling a person shot with a handgun bullet is almost always bleeding. You have to lose about 20% of your blood before you may become disabled. Compensatory mechanisms such as vessels going into spasm, generalized peripheral vasoconstriction, clotting, and the heart output increasing under stress all contribute to prolonging the ability to fight back.

Thus, the best way to incapacitate someone is to put large holes through vital organs, and repeat until the person is incapacitated. There are no magic bullets or magic calibers. It does seem rational, however, to assume that other factors being the same, a large hole will bleed more than a smaller one.

Therefore, my advice is to shoot the largest caliber you can shoot accurately. As noted above, placement is all important. Given good placement, differences in velocity or bullet type will have a rather minor contribution to the overall effect.

As always, comments, criticisms or questions are welcomed.

Walt
 
denfoote: "Good shot placement beats big caliber every time". Maybe, maybe not. I say good shot placement WITH a big caliber beats anything else.... :)

------------------
"To die as a warrior means to have crossed swords and either won or lost without any consideration for winning or loosing. There is just not enough time and generally not enough strength in the resolve of any man to do otherwise"-Miyamoto Musashi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top