Slow and heavy or fast and light: requesting definite answer

Deep penetration? Quick expansion?

I have a different theory. How about: which specific types of ammo actually work on the street. Many deep penetrating bullets do, since they also expand. And some expanding bullets, with too shallow penetration for many, also work very well.

To exclude a bullet that works well because it doesn't fall within one's personal parameters is what arguments are all about. Especially when one's own parameters have to do with concepts they read somewhere, rather than being based on street effectiveness.


For example, the HST in .40 cal. works fine in 155, 165, and 180 gr. Don't know of anything that works better than the 155Gr., but many absolutely insist on the heavy slow 180 in that caliber.

In some calibers like 9mm, the heavy and slow isn't the way to go, since the 147 takes a back seat to the hot 115gr. +P or +P+ or the 124gr. +P.

In .45ACP, the heavy and slow works well with the better bullet designs.

The criteria for some is "I've carried it for years and feel compfy with it". Never used it, of course, but it sure makes them feel warm and fuzzy even though better bullet technology has been available for some time. Don't even want to get into those who choose SD ammo based on cost.

To Paraphrase: What ammo works best on the street in real shootings? Pick that stuff. DPX, HST, Speer Gold Dot, and even the older Golden Saber isn't far behind.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:
 
If you hit key internal plumbing and structures, you're right. I don't know that if I'm in a fight for my life, that I will actually have a choice as to which part of the body is presented for perforation; shout, "Show me your heart?" Obviously, a heart shot is preferable to a through-and-through to the arm, but if all I have available is an arm?
Click to expand...

If you are saying that you need a round that will penetrate deeply enough to hit vital organs in a variety of different scenarios, then we agree. I think the FBI standard of 12"-18" in ballistics gel is pretty reliable here.

I am just disputing the "two holes is better than one" argument - an exit wound doesn't do anything to increase the amount of blood loss. If we take two wounds to the same organs caused by the same caliber, the blood loss will be practically identical whether they exit the body or not. The tiny amount of extra blood loss from the extra inch or two of muscle tissue damaged as one bullet exits and the other doesn't will be inconsequential from a "blood loss stopping the fight" standpoint.
 
Is this the general idea?

I think the big question is:

If a 200 LB man is 10 feet away and is in the process of drawing a gun out of his clothing / holster after shouting "I'm gonna kill you"

Would you want which of these four rounds:

Hypothetically, all are from a compact semiauto like Glock 19, 32, 23, 30, typical of concealed carry pistols.

9mm 115 gr. JHP +P+
357 Sig 125 JHP
40 S&W 155 JHP
45 acp 230 JHP

Unknowing to you, your firing pin will break after you fire the first shot.
 
That is absolutely the best example that epitomizes how ridiculous the subject of the controversy of the post is. Still, the question stands.
 
IMHO, the answer has very little to do with "heavy or fast bullet & etc."...
Other than shot placement, "most of the time" it just depends on the released adrenaline amount in the body of the "unfortunate" that has just been shot...
At least this is the most logical explanation that I've heard throughout years.
I am neither a doctor nor a scentist, but I've seen quite a few "tiny" guys, that could not be sustained by "five" strong men at times of extreme stress.

Phenomenal, I know...:)

In summary, I personally do not care if I had a .32acp or 9mm or .45acp. If I have a choice I will have the one that I am used to. But I won't give much credit to a shot being heavy or fast or bigger bullet etc.
But everyone thinks different..:)


All the best
 
Last edited:
Maromero, why in the world would you ask for a definite answer to a question which you yourself know to be one which really has no definite answer? If you have seen this question batted around other boards with no answer to your satisfaction, then I would submit to you that a.) getting the answer here is no more likely, and b.) go do some research and come back to enlighten us. I would love to hear all about it.
 
I own and carry examples of each.

That said, I carry every day, and most frequently carry a .45 acp semi-auto. Second place goes to a .41 Mag S&W N-frame, third to a .45LC N-frame. Those two combined might add up to 60 days per year.

Fourth (by a good stetch) is a tie between a K-frame .357 S&W and a Kahr PM9 in 9mm+p+. I might carry either of these two between five and ten days per year.
 
Jhenry:

this is a topic which has intrigued me ever since I became familiar with guns. It is irrelevant when you rationalize it. I have done plenty of research about it and my conclusion is the more I think I know, the more I realize I don't. Like most of others have posted, there're different schools of reason.

All have merits. Pure logic dictates to me that a single stack 9mm is the ticket. Logic also dictates five to eight rounds should be enough. Still, I have a 870 and a HK45 for HD and my cc is a Glock 36 (borrowed from my wife and she wants it back).

The reason I post this topic was to listen to others peoples theories since I believe this forum has a knowledgable population (which fluctuates by the way) and I'm not arrogant enough to pretend to be infalible. After all, this is a place to exchange ideas and dare I say learn a thing or two.
 
Why not demand a definitive answer to easy questions like blonde or brunette, Chevy or Ford, Pepsi or Coke, bourbon or scotch, and the other pressing issues of the day?

Jim
 
You have an interesting question that requires some sound examination.
In this age of endless handgun caibers and bullet designs, it gets quite confusing trying to seperate the facts from the hype.
Another factor, and probably the most important is the determination of the threat that is being shot to live and fight back.
We have all heard over and over again of police involved shootings in which suspects (especially on pcp or crack) have been shot multiple times with some of the most popular calibers and still managed to muster enough strength to fight back, or in some cases, kill the officer.
In my humble oppinion, fast and light or slow and heavy are irrelivent...
Experiance and the ability to place shots in the most stressful of situations are far more important.
 
recent practice: it ain't theory

I note SIG and Federal took modern "theory" and translated it into the 357 SIG (which we all know was designed specifically to emulate the performance of the 125g JHP 357 Magnum, except in a autoloading more-rds / easier-to-reload package, with better barrier penetration characteristics based on projectile).
Ay?
 
Always refer to this picture when questioning this subject. What to note is how similar they all are. .357sig 125gr has about the same temporary cavity size as a 230gr .45acp round. It's a difference of 444fps as well.

Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg
 
nah.

As noted - there is no definite answer.

it seems like debating which is stronger, the unmovable object or the unstoppable force.
Click to expand...

That "debate" is also impossible because it is based on a fallacy. The two elements of the debate cannot exist simultaneously and thus cannot be effectively compared. (If you have an "immovable object" then you cannot have an "unstoppable force".)
 
I have studied terminal performance for years on game animals and worked as a big game guide for many years so I have quite a bit of experence on game animals. Years ago this debate had advocates for both sides. Basicly faster bullets were of lighter construction an either disentagrated or expanded very rapidly thus reducing penatration. When they worked they dropped game like lightning, but when they failed they failed miserably and many times let the animal escape with horrible wounds. The heavy slow camp had bullets of heavier construction thus increasing penatration, but the results are less spectacular but they were USUALLY consistantly reliable game stoppers. However this was before the advent of the newer far better bullets. Now lighter bullets going faster seem to stay intact thus increasing penatration, but the faster the expansion the less penatration than with heavier bullets. You must always consider what you want to do with the bullet. For me, my personal defense guns are stagger loaded alternately with top quality hollow points then with flat point fmjs, that way at least every other shot is appropriate for the task at hand.
 
I'm no scientist buy I believe that as a general matter physics favors the big slow bullet. For example, a 500 grain LBT bullet from a 45/70 at 1,500 fps will out penetrate the .416 Remington with a 350 grain bullet at 2,700 fps. There are factors such as hydrostatic pressure blah, blah, blah - you might get three feet with the .416 and the old .45/70 will go six feet plus. Another example would be a Buffalo Bore 150 grain hard cast wadcutter at 900 fps out of a 1 7/8" barrel J frame will go through two feet of ballistic gelatin or in the real world will shoot through any two legged creature.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top