Terminal ballistics of rifle rounds

The OP requested that I chime in on this thread based on a comment I made on another thread. While some of you know me and my credentials, many do not, so I will give a brief background. I am a court endorsed ballistics expert who has worked on multiple firearms failures, shooting reconstructions and I am pretty sure I was the first ballistics expert to combine the use of virtual autopsy with tissue energy thresholds to determine bullet entrance velocity into a human. I have worked as a consultant doing T&E on several cases involving rifle rounds as a threat to personnel and material for LEAs including HSA. Much of the knowledge I have I just simply will not post in an open forum as it is well beyond the need and may be used for nefarious purposes. On some of my cases, while the information is relevant to the OPs topic, the specifics can not be discussed as I have signed a NDA.

While to the lay person, it may seem that there are too many variables, what-ifs, etc., the math, physics and tools available to evaluate the physical aspects of terminal ballistics are very solid, and repeatable. What is not perfectly repeatable, is an individual reaction to an identical wound. While I have participated in live testing of animals related to TCCC and ballistics, the physiological response of animals is NOT the same as with humans. To take the reaction of a deer and equate that with a human is a mis-step scientifically. I have shot several hundred head of big game and often use game animals to test (obviously all within the legal confines of the state in which I am hunting) ballistics theories as well as taking extra time during field dressing to evaluate bullet performance. I have shot deer with 9mm pistols up through the medium and large bore calibers at ranges inside 100 yards.

Based on my observations and work, varmint grade bullets from about 55 grains and down are not what I would put in a SD .223. I will admit that years ago, before a lot of LE and Civilian shooting data with .223 was in existence, I thought a 50 grain Ballistic Tip at about 3000 fps was a good idea, but no more. There are several cases of LE shootings using 55 grain and lighter varmint grade bullets with failures to stop. 60 grain and heavier bullets are what I would look at now. In that realm, there are of course choices.

Light varmint grade bullet failures have been claimed in several cases I have reviewed after someone else did the analysis. I have opined on bullet failures in other cases. In most of those cases, heavy clothing, significant fat, appendages or large bone stopped the bullet. In a few cases, the entrance was on the edge of the torso. In my opinion, with the light varmint grade bullets, they lack the penetration when encountering pretty much anything. In the compilation, the limited set of data I have suggests 55 FMJ ball is a better stopper than varmint grade bullets.

OTOH, the high fragmentation rounds from heavier bullets did not have the same types of failures, and bonded bullets even less. While I agree that the FBI handgun 12" is not a good litmus, I also do not think deer hunting bullets, which we want to mushroom and then exit, are the best answer either.

I can not give you a one-bullet for all answer, and I am not sure that will ever be the case. Another constraint that LE has that a SD does not have is terminal performance at distance. There are some loads being sold to LE that past about 75 to 100 yards have a very high chance of failure due to the bullet design and loss of velocity, others are fine out past 300 yards. Distances and bullet selection are something you will have to evaluate based on your constraints. I do however feel confident in saying that if you use an AR for SD, pick a bullet of at least 60 grains or more.

I have been able to review the ballistic data from several mass shootings as well. Those shot with .223 had the highest death rate. Those shot with buckshot had the highest survival rate. When added together with LE shootings and justified SD shootings, it is clear to me that the .223 is a MUCH better stopper than a handgun which is better than a shotgun with buckshot. 12g slugs and battle (or hunting) rifle calibers are, of course, better than the .223, but they are used so little. I hope this helps some of you.
 
That's great info markco, thanks for sharing.

I am personally very surprised to hear that buckshot performed so poorly. I can understand why but still, very interesting.

What would be your personal choice of caliber and ammunition?
 
So from what I am understanding from marks post, is that the 60gr Hornady Tap load should be a good performer.

It is heavier at 60gr, while still exhibiting fragmentation when going through walls.

The 55gr Blitzking I have loaded now show deeper penetration than the 55gr vmax in the test I seen, but I may be switching to the 60gr Tap.
 
Most people are surprised that buckshot is a poor stopper, I know I was as well initially. However, when I started seeing this data I asked some old time hunters from the Northeast about their experiences on deer. Comparing only deer, buckshot appears to be a shoot and seek experience for a lot of deer hunters compared to handgun and slugs. In the Aurora theater shooting, 9 people were hit (2 in the face) with buckshot and all survived. The more data I see on buckshot, the more I view it as a poor option for most circumstances. Several PDs who authorize shotguns here in CO buy buckshot once a year, to pass quals, then issue slugs for duty.

I get asked a lot about my personal choices and I will freely admit that my answer has changed over the years. Some of that is based on better performing handgun bullets, some of that is based on my own proficiency and some of that is based on what I see and learn based on actual terminal performance in shootings.

My answer today is that I rely first on not shooting: conflict avoidance, personal awareness, diversion, verbal judo, escape, etc.. The last resort is whatever I have and if afforded the time to choose, a battle rifle is going to be my choice, but I can honestly say that I rely more on my training and shooting skill than the specific platform or caliber. Based on my work, I am home more often than not so I have a full battery at hand. If I am out, my options are reduced. If I have traveled outside my city and or state, I may have yet a further reduction. I am fine with a 9mm, a 12g with slugs or an AR. Answering the door in daytime, might be a handgun. Alarm goes off middle of the night, might grab an AR. Pounding on the front door might be the 12g with slugs. In some cases, I have a Sub2000 loaded with 115+P JHPs that are in the 1600 fps range since it is part of my trauma kit.

I think that the TSX (Barnes/Remington) or GMX (Hornady) solids from 60-70 grains offer the best performance across the board in the .223 carbines. You can buy the bullets and load your own or if you want factory ammo, the ones that are for "medium" game. In the "self-defense" lines, there are also some solids and some bonded and some JHPs (tipped and soft-points). I would go with the 77 grain bullets in this group first.

There is no magic bullet/platform. Time invested in training (annually) and practice is more important that splitting hairs over what-ifs with load selection. I compete often and I fully believe that the weapon handling, manipulation, familiarity and marksmanship gained through competitive shooting is also much more valuable than the caliber. As proficiency increases, the platform and caliber become less of an issue. I understand it is not for everyone and, that like everything, there are exceptions and pitfalls.

My advice is make your best choice based on all the information you can get. Shoot your ammo into a few watermelons, fackler boxes, covered gel if you can and go from there. I know I don't take what I read on the internet as absolute and I would not suggest you do either. If you think something in my opinion is flawed, go get some ammo and test it out and show me. I freely admit to learning, adapting and changing what I think and what I use based on new information, tests, technological changes, etc.
 
Last edited:
I had read that three people in the theater died from shotgun wounds:

Holmes also fired six shots from a 12-gauge shotgun inside the theater. While he fired far fewer times with the shotgun, it accounted for a disproportionate amount of injuries. In all, at least 22 of the 58 people in the theater hit by gunfire were wounded by shotgun pellets. Among the 12 dead, three were killed by shotgun fire...
 
The efficacy of buckshot drops quickly with range due to the dispersal of the shot. 22 people hit for 6 shots is indicative of moderate to longer for shotgun range even with a densely packed crowd as that is a 3.5 to one ratio. Inside of 10 yards buck tends to be devastating to the target....outside 30 yards not so much.

This is purely assumption but let's say the theater shooter was using 00 Buck. 6 shots = 54 pellets. Let's assume that everyone who was hit took only 1 pellet. That means 32 pellets either went into a seat or went high. I'm sure the number is actually a bit smaller however it is fully probable that close to 1/2 the pellets fired did not hit a person.

Fire 3 loads of 00 Buck from a cyl. bore @ 20 yards @ 3 different silhouette targets. See how many pellets hit each and look at the spread. You might be VERY surprised at what you see.
 
FWIW: The Austin, Texas, PD had a shooting incident where 00 Buck glanced off a glass display case in a jewelry store. Impact angle between 30 and 40 degrees. Replicating the event in a test, again, 00 Buck glanced. 000 Buck did not; shattered the glass.
 
In my own shotgun experiments and building materials, I discovered that some birdshot makes it back to the shooters face... Really really stings on exposed skin of the face.... Without eye protection, that would take you out of the game... Would you have time to don safety glasses? I don't recommend birdshot in home... Maybe buck, but not bird.
 
It seems that Holmes used some sort of birdshot in the theater shooting:

link1: There is a large spectrum in the size of BB shot used in shotgun ammunition. There was no indication that shotgun shells with "buck shot" were fired inside the theater, Higashi said.

Link2 is an image of survivor Carli Richards taking a selfie of her wounds. She had been hit with 22 pellets. Link3 and sold one to help pay her bills.

Despite using birdshot, Holmes killed three people in six shots with the shotgun. link4 He fired 65 rounds with the rifle and five with the handgun. I'm not sure we can say the shotgun is less effective than a handgun based upon this evidence. He wasn't using buckshot and he wasn't trying to stop an attacker but he inflicted far more damage per shot with the shotgun.


Greg Ellifritz seems to think that rifles and shotguns are about equal in effectiveness and both are much better than handguns. link5

I don't keep either a shotgun or rifle at the ready but I have no doubt that either would be more effective than the handgun I do carry.
 
The report I saw on the Aurora theater shooting by a ballistics expert, not a technician, contradicted several pieces of the information presented in the cited articles. In any event shotgun is hard to nail down. So many studies group birdshot, buckshot and slugs together, which is a large mistake.
 
Personally, I want different things from hunting ammo and self defense ammo. With hunting ammo, I want full penetration from any reasonable angle, regardless of hitting bone or heavy muscle and the ability to kill with one shot. With self defense ammo, I want the threat to stop. I also do not what excessive penetration. As previously stated, human vitals are not well protected, especially from the front such as an attacker facing you. Also, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't plan on taking my time and firing one carefully aimed shot as I do when hunting. I plan on firing repeatedly and quickly until the threat stops and that is exactly what I practice.

My home defense load is a 60 grain v-max just like Hornady's urban tap ammo and there are 30 of them in the magazine. I have a difficult time envisioning a threat that wouldn't stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top