Slow and heavy or fast and light: requesting definite answer

After being exposed to the cynical sarcasm of our beloved Mike Irwin; my first inclination was to ask you if you were being intentionally obtuse. However, seeing as how your location is outside the US, I'll take the possibility of a language barrier into account.
Click to expand...

Come again? Obtuse? For asking a question as to in any particular caliber which is most effective, light and fast or slow and heavy? English is not my primary language but I fail to understand your comment. The question has nothing to do with comparing calibers but the effectiveness of light and heavy bullets. So the answer is no. I was clear and precise in thought and expression.
 
Is there a physicist or mechanical engineer that can shed some light on momentum and energy concepts and how do they relate to the topic at hand?
 
The problem with the OP's question is he asks you for an answer that depends on variables he/she doesn't want to consider. It's like asking the following:

"Which is better? A 5.4L engine or a 5.7L engine?...leave horsepower and fuel mileage out of it, though."

It leaves you with no way to answer the question correctly. I'm sorry, but you just have to deal with the shot placement discussions, as it's the only way to explain it.

Quote from the OP:
The question has nothing to do with comparing calibers but the effectiveness of light and heavy bullets.
Click to expand...

Shot placement does not only apply between calibers, but also applies between bullet weights. It doesn't matter which weight and velocity bullet you use...that's the only true answer. A physicist isn't going to be any help with this issue, as he/she isn't going to know the first thing about bullet impact on the human body. Energy numbers mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
Is there a physicist or mechanical engineer that can shed some light on momentum and energy concepts and how do they relate to the topic at hand?
Click to expand...
Energy relates to the potential of the projectile to do work/damage while momentum relates to how hard it will be to stop the projectile.

You can't have kinetic energy without momentum and you can't have momentum without kinetic energy. They go together and anything done by the projectile gets done to some extent by both.

Rate of change of momentum is force. The more rapidly the projectile is decelerated (the momentum is reduced), the more force is applied to the target.

Rater of change of energy is power. The faster energy is "dumped" into the target, the more power is applied to the target.

Momentum and energy are important in understanding projectiles and what they can do, but a grasp of those concepts just provides the basics.
 
This topic has been boarded plenty of times in this and other forums but I have never encountered a definite answer
Click to expand...

Many here have replied to this issue using fairly academic and/or colorful terminology, but all leading to essentially the same conclusion; Simply stated, the reason you have yet to encounter a "definite" answer is because such an answer may not truly exist (outside of bias and/or mixed results).

Is this a bad thing? Not at all. It simply means we all have several effective choices. To me, this is great news.
 
Last edited:
As can be seen, there is no 'Definite answer'. Different strokes for different folks. Personally I like heavy and fast. For personal defense considerations I load my magnums with Buffalo Bore heavy loadings.
 
watch my rope; I'm goin' back in

Anecdotal evidence suggest that high-speed JHPs incapacitate assailants fastest.
Best results come from 135g/155g/165g .400" JHPs, 124g/125g .355/.357" JHPs, and rifles.

Head-shooters report the best incapacitation results from .451" 230g JHPs (and under certain circumstances, 230g FMJ).

Anecdotal evidence has been collected since the 1400s.......and I notice someone is now marketing 50cal "SLAP" loads LOL.
 
WESHOOT2 said:
Anecdotal evidence suggest that high-speed JHPs incapacitate assailants fastest.
Best results come from 135g/155g/165g .400" JHPs, 124g/125g .355/.357" JHPs, and rifles.
Click to expand...

Well, some anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not always the case.


Prior to transitioning to .40 S&W, the CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers. Yet despite the decrease in velocity, the CHP has continued to report greater success in OIS incidents (both better terminal performance, as well as intermediate barrier ability) with their .40 S&W 180 gr JHP than with the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP they previously issued. originally posted by DocGkr

I did not post this to try and make the point that lighter .40 S&W loadings are not effective, they are. If the light loadings shoot good and work well in your handgun, by all means use them. If fact, in my personal opinion the 165 grain .40 seems like a nice balance of speed and weight and is what I use.

Look at the following list of acceptable duty and defense loads:

The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use:

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 105 & 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (RA9B/Q4364)

.40 S&W:
Barnes XPB 140 & 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP
Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)
Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)
Winchester Partition Gold 165 gr JHP (RA401P)
Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)
Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)
Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (Q4355 or S40SWPDB1)

.45 ACP:
Barnes XPB 160 & 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2)
Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)
Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

While not it does not include all acceptable choices, it does demonstrate that a wide variety of projectile weights are acceptable for defense. Not just light fast ones and not just slow heavy ones.
 
I've been thinking on it, and tested.

In my 3rd reply to this thread, I'll share some comparisions.

Frist reply was based on a single shot, ie.. the one shot stop.
2nd reply I decided the 165 gr. 40 might be best based on KE.
3rd reply is based on speed, accuracy.

I've run several "tests" where I compared speed of follow up shots in different pistols (elapsed time from 1st shot to 2nd shot). The goal was to have both shots hit inside the 10 ring (4'' x 6'') of a B27 target placed about 6 yards (18 feet) away. If both shots did not hit then the time wasn't counted. If I felt "slow" then I didn't count it either. I got from 3-5 times that met the accuracy requirement for each pistol and averaged.

Glock 19 with Winchester 127 gr. Ranger T +P+ = .46
Glock 23 with Winchester 165 gr. Ranger T = .47
Springfield XD45 compact with Winchester 230 gr. Ranger T = .46

I'm equally quick (or slow ;) ) with equivalent accuracy with these 3 pistols. You might consider conducting a similar test to see if one pistol / caliber combination works best in your hands.

Since they are equal in speed & accuracy (at what I would consider typical for SD) wonder how much power they deliver?

I did not chrono the 9mm. Given equal speed & accuracy I would use one of the bigger bore pistols.

Average for 5 shots:
Glock 23 with Winchester 165 Ranger T = 1,125 fps / 464# KE
XD45 compact with 230 Winchester Ranger T = 865 fps / 382# KE

Now which to carry? Slow and heavy or Fast and "light"?
I have a Blade-Tech UCH for either. Either pistol would be carried at 3:00 IWB with a forward cant. Both pistols have night sights.
The one I've been carrying is...
:)

XD45 compact with Ranger T.
 
They all go bang when you pull the trigger, they all make holes in paper, and they all kill when placed in the right spot, and you can't kill something deader than dead.

I hate when self defense gets too scientific.
 
There has been a debate about this for over a century. There is a debate because they both work. That they can both work is the answer.

With a well constructed bullet ,and if we are talking about standard service calibers, both can work equally well for self defense.

tipoc
 
Maromero,

People here have provided you with answers and helped to point you in the right direction.

Physicists are not required.

Several books can be helpful. One is Robert Rinker's Understanding Firearm Ballistics. Also helpful is Bob Forker's Ammo and Ballistics now in it's 4th edition I believe. Useful also is Cartridges of the World by Barnes. There are others as well.

Look these over and give things some thought.

For a couple of decades Elmer Keith and Jack O'Conner debated out and had many heated exchanges on this topic as it related to rifle rounds (where the debate began actually). As the construction of bullets improved over the years the harshness of the debated was moderated as lighter and faster bullets proved their worth when properly made.

Fact is you are asking a question that is not very useful. The useful question is... "What gun, what caliber and what type of bullet do I need for the task in front of me?". Once you decide what the job is than you can work on which tools will work best for you to do that job.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
Fine. Let's abandon the search for truth and settle for a good fantasy.
Click to expand...
The search for truth has not been abandoned--it's just that currently there's not a definitive answer to the question.

Both approaches can be used effectively, both have advantages, both have disadvantages.

Given that it's not possible to come up with a definitive answer in terms of terminal performance, it would be prudent to consider other aspects of the overall situation that will be affected by choosing one approach over the other.
 
By the way...why do you want a definite answer?

If you had one what would you do with it?

What caliber do you want the answer for?

P.S. There is a definite answer...it's that there is none. Until you get specific.

tipoc
 
+1

There is a definite answer...it's that there is none.
Click to expand...

That is the truth.
One can say that "there ought to be...", "there's got to be....", "there should be....". "I can't believe there is no...", and such like statements over and over, as has happened in this thread, but the bottom line is that one has to be willing to accept that sometimes the answers are going to be "but there isn't", no there doesn't..", "shoulda, woulda, coulda, NOT", "disbelief doesn't change the reality."
Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top