Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term

[Riktoven]

Thank you Gunman.

If the bullet doesn't deform (FMJ), then no significant amount of energy will be radiated outward. You are just going to poke a hole clean through the target.

Hollowpoints do deform, and as they do will transmit more energy outward from the wound path, but will it be enough to have an effect? The answer depends entirely on your target's, state-of-mind. Physiologically speaking, there just isn't enough energy there for the small fraction radiated outwards to have a RELIABLE effect*.

*I am going off of the FBI and other related studies when making this statement. While I am not the most trusting of authority figures, the FBI physicians who put the studies together have no reason that I can see to falsify their findings. Therefore, I see no reason to question those findings especially given the fact that there has been no evidence cited to show that anyone, ever, has been killed by a pressure wave from a handgun wound. A published case study (not an anecdotal story) of vital organs being destroyed away from the bullet path would suffice, but not a news story about someone 'stopping' or 'surrendering' after being shot.

 

[Kentak]

LG,

I didn't say the wound channels are the same, the bullet diameter is. There is only so much a 9mm/.357 bullet can expand and still hold together. So, they both have about the same expansion diameter potential. I think it's generally accepted that the .357 HP is a pretty reliable expander due to it's high velocity. But, a properly loaded 9 HP is no slouch, either. Still, unless someone corrects me, the .357, the higher energy round, is the better stopper in real life shooting incident reports. Of course, few LEA still use .357 revolvers, as do bad guys.

K

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I didn't say the wound channels are the same, the bullet diameter is.

If the bullet diameter is the same, and the bullets do not deform, the wound channel would be the same. A 357 mag FMJ produces a wound in human tissue the same diameter as a 9mm. I don't know, or really care, what it does in gelatin. I don't think there would be as much difference in stopping power if you compared a 357 mag FMJ to a 9mm FMJ. I think the 357 magnum would only start performing significantly better if you used expanding bullets. It is much easier to get consistent expansion with a 357 magnum JHP than it is with a 9mm JHP.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Look at brassfetchers results in comparison of rifle and pistol rounds. If a rifle round going 2500fps expands to .70 inch and penetrates 15 inches it has the same stopping power as a .45 round travelling 850 fps that does the same. RIGHT?!?!?!?!?

The answer is no. Pistol ammo is meager, in comparison to rifle rounds yes. But do me a favor. Cut a length of copper rod .355 inch in diameter. Now take it and punch it completely through two cars doors. Or try it through a 2x4. I'll bet my M&P can punch those holes a lot easier than you can by hand if you can at all. The pistol round does have enough energy to do quite a bit of work. The meager, weak pistol round arguement is a bit played out. The problem is the resilience of the human body, not the weakness of the round.

 

[Kentak]

LG,

What do you call a .357 Mag round that has less kinetic energy?






A 9mm.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Oh, and some one please name ONE "FBI Physician" who was involved in the writing of the HWFE. It was written by Special Agent Patrick, not a mythical group of FBI physicians. HE cited many sources, some of them were doctors and some contributed to his studies. What are SA Patricks credentials that we treat his work as gospel? How many years ago was this?

 

[Riktoven]

Show me some work to contradict that gospel. Anything.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I assume you carry a .357 with 145 grain sivertips right. The gospel and its writers the FBI said this was the preferred load.

 

[brashboy]

Why would shooting humans be viewed any differently from shooting game animals, when it comes to bullet-caused mortality? Isn't the goal incapacitation and/or a fast kill? Game animals don't shoot back, but sometimes they try to eat, stomp or gut you. Anyone who has ever gut-shot a dangerous animal and had to go find it understands this well, so the analogy is sound.

It's about bullet energy and penetration. Call it energy transfer, shock or whatever, but while a .45 and .22 might have equal penetration, the .45 is LIKELY to be far more incapacitating - a goal when shooting both BGs and game animals. This is because it causes more damage, even if it penetrates no better than the .22. All penetration is not created equal. The goal is to have a powerful round that expends its energy in the BG and causes maximum damage. That is all the shooter can hope for. The .22 may ultimately be fatal, even days later (.22s are real killers, actually), but unless the shot is nearly perfect through the brain or something, the .22 fails the incapacitation and fast-kill tests in almost every situation.

Hitting the BG poorly might fail to cause incapacitation or a fast kill, just like with the water buffalo, no matter how powerful the round. But the possibility does not suggest we should go to less powerful rounds. Look for power and penetration. The FBI did a study on the stopping power of different rounds based on police reports, meaning that the round stopped the BG. The smaller the round, the less effective it was. 9mm did better than .380, .380 did better than .32, etc.

While a big round is no magic talisman, a heavy bullet that plows through the guy is what I am looking for.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Besides, your right. Special Agent Patrick was able to completely discount the writings of guys like Marshal and Sanow by flipping a coin and was able to "prove" guns don't have stopping power by saying, the force coming out the front is the same as it is coming out the back. He also took the time to explain how the fact that the "temporary cavity" doesn't result in permanent tissue damage, it therefore has no effect. Never mind the fact, if it was permanent tissue damage, it would be the permanent cavity, no the temporary cavity. Pure Genius. How he did this a mere 20 or so years ago and coincidentally proved it was the AMMO that resulted in the debacle at the Miami shootout not their mistakes and training is beyond me. Your right. I should have never questioned the "Gospel". Booyah

 

[easyg]

Lone_Gunman Quote:

If the bullet diameter is the same, and the bullets do not deform, the wound channel would be the same.

Not necessarily.

Don't forget to factor in bullet weight.

Same bullet diameter + the same non-deforming bullets + the same amount of penetration....but with different bullet weights = different results.

Which would you rather be hit in the head with...a hollow pipe made out of light-weight plastic or a hollow pipe made out of heavy lead?

 

[Warbow]

Kentak wrote:

9mm and .357 Mag. Same diameter, but the Mag has higher energy. Which one is more destructive and has better stopping ability?

Well, according to your link in post #73 there won't be much noticable difference.

It says:

In low velocity injuries the temporary cavity formation has little or no residual effect because there has not been enough KE imparted into the tissue.

They define low velocity as below 2,000-2,500 FPS. Are there any .357 Mag loads that can reach 2,000+ FPS from a pistol with a 6" barrel?

It goes on to say that velocities of 2,000-2,500 FPS and up are enough to where the temporary cavity will actually start causing tissue damage beyond the permanent cavity.

That seems to basically be what Lone_Gunman said of his experience in treating GSWs a few pages back in this thread...

 

[Smeg]

Smeg,

I was *not* advocating .22LR for defensive use. I was making a point that penetration can be obtained by a low energy round, like the .22LR, but one that is recognized as a poor stopper. The point being that penetration alone is not a reliable indicator of stopping ability. Obviously, *any* round can stop if the round hits and damages the heart, major blood vessel, or CNS.

I know exactly what you were doing, you were being a sophist, and I didn't let you get away with it. This business about a .22 being a good penetrator is patently false, unless, perhaps, you're assuming it doesn't hit bone (did you even read the rest of my post past the first sentence?).

Penetration and bullet diameter are the only reliable factors in determining the capability of a handgun round. If it doesn't penetrate deeply enough, it won't do its job. If the hole isn't big enough, it won't do its job. Penetration into a non-homogenous critter made up of bones and other substances of inconsistent densities is governed by how much inertia the object has entering said critter. The more inertia a bullet has, the harder it will be to stop.

The goal should be to select one's defensive round taking into consideration what will give the best chance at pulling off that elusive 1 shot stop in any circumstance, and the only way of absolutely 100% guaranteeing a 1 shot stop is a central nervous system shot.

Since no sane person would bank on pulling off a head shot, you have to select your round to penetrate sufficiently to reach the spinal cord and to maximize the chance of just *nicking* a nerve, paralyzing the attacker. That is why I would reach for the .45 when possible.

Back to the hunting example I gave that you either ignored or chose not to address. A 165 gr .308 Winchester round has ~22% more energy than a 500 gr .458 SOCOM round. The .458 SOCOM round has more than 50% more momentum than the .308 Winchester. Which would you rather have if you stumble across a grizzly? Can you think of any reason why you wouldn't want to use a Glaser Safety Slug to take on a grizzly? Can you tell me why a "high momentum" round would never be marketed as non-lethal whereas the "high energy" Glaser Safety Slug is?

There's a reason African game hunters use the Taylor index instead of energy numbers. You see, they would rather not get eaten.

A .223 Rem round is the same diameter as the .22LR, with a *little* more mass, at least three times as much velocity, and about ten times more energy. No one doubts a .223 is a much better stopper than the .22LR.

Try a more extreme comparison, say, a .223 vs. .44 magnum. Which would you rather have to defend your family when you stumble upon a grizzly? Remember, the typical .223 load has *oodles* more energy than your typical .44 magnum load. One of them has nearly double the momentum though...

 

[mavracer]

If the bullet diameter is the same, and the bullets do not deform, the wound channel would be the same. A 357 mag FMJ produces a wound in human tissue the same diameter as a 9mm. I don't know, or really care, what it does in gelatin. I don't think there would be as much difference in stopping power if you compared a 357 mag FMJ to a 9mm FMJ. I think the 357 magnum would only start performing significantly better if you used expanding bullets. It is much easier to get consistent expansion with a 357 magnum JHP than it is with a 9mm JHP.

so to expand on this you think a 32 acp fmj would cause the same size wound channel as a 30/06(actually the 32 should produce a larger .312 vs. .308 ) yes penatration and permanate wound cavity are King but adding more temporary wound channel from adding kinetic energy can't be a bad thing. can it?

I assume you carry a .357 with 145 grain sivertips right. The gospel and its writers the FBI said this was the preferred load.

actually I do carry 145 silvertips in my 2 1/4" tauri 605.its a proven load and I can put all 5 in a 6" bullseye at 25 yards. 125s shoot low and most 158s are too heavily constructed to expand consistantly from a 2 1/4" bbl

 

[Riktoven]

so to expand on this you think a 32 acp fmj would cause the same size wound channel as a 30/06(actually the 32 should produce a larger .312 vs. .308 ) yes penatration and permanate wound cavity are King but adding more temporary wound channel from adding kinetic energy can't be a bad thing. can it?

If neither bullet deformed, fragmented, or yawed, then given equal penetration yes they should be the same. Obviously the rifle round moving 5 times as fast WILL deform, fragment, or yaw creating a more greivous wound. Also, the heavier .30-06 bullet moving 5 times as fast doesn't tend to be stopped in it's tracks by bone.

The comparison makes more sense when talking about equal bullet weights with only the velocity being different. A .22 Short that goes clean through a target without deforming, fragmenting, or yawing will have an identical wound pattern as a .22LR that goes through the same space without deforming, etc.

Can adding KE be a bad thing? Of course. Anything that is guaranteed to slow down your follow-up shots has to come with a guaranteed bonus. Extra energy that at best *might* and in all likelyhood won't add anything to the wound seems like a ridiculous tradeoff. Gimme a 55gr+ projectile with 1000+ FPE and we'll talk. Until then, 3-4x 9mm fired in the same time span as 1-2 .357 magnum seems like it's going to do more damage to me.

This all assuming we are taking about defense against humans. If you are talking about defense against bears, you need quite a bit more penetration. In my mind that means increasing mass of the bullet (more momentum). If you are only concerned about skinny shirtless gang bangers, the Glaser Safety slugs probably are the best bet since they can create pretty nasty wounds 4-6" deep. If you're being attacked by someone weighing 260+lbs though, physiologically that ammunition can't consistently get deep enough to reach this much larger man's vital organs, and therefore if he stops it would be because he *chose* to, not because your actions *forced* that response.

 

[Kentak]

Smeg,

You make good points. Except, I deny being a sophist (consciously, anyway), and I think you're inferring some points I'm not implying.

I think if you will review my posts on this subject, I have repeatedly used the phrase, "...everything else being equal..." I've also said energy alone is not conclusive and that other factors, like caliber and bullet construction are important.

The .22LR will penetrate many homogenous mediums as well as many more powerful handgun rounds. Gelatin tests show that. But, I was making that statement to show the weakness of not considering energy along with penetration. You're absolutely right, a .22LR will be stopped or deflected by heavy bone. My purpose in comparing the the .223 to the LR was make a point (exaggerated, to be sure) that the .223, although only a little heavier than the .22, has a lot more punch. More energy *and* more momentum, of course. Which is more important? Depends, don't you think? I suspect sometimes momentum trumps, and sometimes energy does. A .233 might punch through a heavy bone that a .44 mag might only crack because the .233 has more focused energy. I believe (not sure, tho) that .233 will punch through a greater thickness of steel plate than .44 mag will. Not that we're threatened by steel plate, but to show that KE is meaningful.

As for the bear. Neither. I want a hi-cap, autoloading, 12ga slug gun. Seriously, I would probably say .44, because it has track record and this might be one of the instances where momentum trumps energy. Which will do more damage to a bear's shoulder joint? I don't know the answer to that, but it would make an interesting test. Also, I couldn't find *any* accounts of .223 results against brown bears. Surely, it must have happened sometime.

Here's one for you, against the bear: .45ACP, or .223? The .45 has more momentum than the .223, but 1/3 the energy.

K

 

[Kentak]

Smeg,

How about 12ga birdshot 1 oz. beanbag LE round. High momentum, non-lethal.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

so to expand on this you think a 32 acp fmj would cause the same size wound channel as a 30/06

There is no way to meaningfully compare 32 acp to 30-06 because of the extreme difference in the amount of energy involved. My comments are only valid when comparing low energy handgun rounds.

The energy from a 30-06 bullet is high enough to cause death of tissue around the wound channel, even tissue that the bullet does not directly contact. This effect is only seen with high velocity rifle rounds, and handguns don't usually have enough energy to do this.

But if you compared a 32 acp moving at 800 fps to one moving at say 1000 fps, and the bullets did not change in diameter on impact, and you could somehow keep penetration constant (which you couldn't), then I do not think there would be any difference in wounding capabilities.

 

[Smeg]

I have repeatedly used the phrase, "...everything else being equal..." I've also said energy alone is not conclusive and that other factors, like caliber and bullet construction are important.

This may be where a miscommunication lies. I do not intend to minimize the role energy plays in wounding, as it does have its place. My contention is that when it comes to the approximating the wounding potential of a round, all things being equal, momentum is a better indicator than energy since we're shooting humans made of both rigid and elastic materials rather than gelatin. All things not being equal, bullet diameter *and* momentum are better indicators than energy and anything else.

My purpose in comparing the the .223 to the LR was make a point (exaggerated, to be sure) that the .223, although only a little heavier than the .22, has a lot more punch. More energy *and* more momentum, of course. Which is more important? Depends, don't you think?

The reason I don't like this comparison is because it is between two rounds, one of which is clearly the superior in all regards - roughly 4 times the momentum and 10 times the energy. However, I think if one were to guesstimate the performance gain of the .223 over the .22, a 400% increase in performance (as it relates to wounding) would be a more reasonable guesstimate than 1000%. That is only an opinion, however.

A .233 might punch through a heavy bone that a .44 mag might only crack because the .233 has more focused energy. I believe (not sure, tho) that .233 will punch through a greater thickness of steel plate than .44 mag will. Not that we're threatened by steel plate, but to show that KE is meaningful.

Again, energy has its place, and if we're talking about armor piercing rounds, a heavy, high speed tungsten-alloy core shaped like an arrow will do better than any .44 magnum hemisphere. However, if we're looking at 2 armor piercing rounds of the same caliber, the heavier of the two will always penetrate better than the lighter, even though it may have less energy but more momentum. If you could get the lighter load's velocity to the point where the momentum numbers were equal, then it would, by default have much more energy, and the comparison would be invalid.

You can see this for yourself. Pick any load for any gun you own. Say, a 9mm for example. Buy a box of 115 gr and a box of 147 grain from the same manufacturer. Shoot them into a medium of your choosing from the same distance and from the same gun. You will see that the difference in the depth of their penetration can be better approximated by the difference between their momentums rather than the difference between their energies.

As for the bear. Neither. I want a hi-cap, autoloading, 12ga slug gun.

Ideally, sure, if you're expecting to be attacked by a bear you wouldn't want either a .223 or a .44 magnum - you would want something similar to what you describe (I'd take a .458 SOCOM with 500gr rounds, personally...). The point I was making is that the round with more momentum would be the better choice over the round with more energy.

Here's one for you, against the bear: .45ACP, or .223? The .45 has more momentum than the .223, but 1/3 the energy.

.45 any day of the week. The momentum values are basically equal for the two, but the .45 has the advantage of being the larger diameter, heavier round. If it should hit bone, it would be more likely to stay in tact and continue to penetrate better than the .223 simply by virtue of its construction, and it would make a much larger permanent cavity.

And haha Yeah I suppose you got me with the bean bag.

 

[Cosmoline]

Temporary cavity does not wound.

Maybe true of lower velocity rounds and handgun bullets, but for higher velocity rounds the tc is more than large enough to cause tissue disruption and even death. It cause that bruising inside an animal shot with a rifle's bullet.

Here's one for you, against the bear: .45ACP, or .223? The .45 has more momentum than the .223, but 1/3 the energy.

I'd go with the .223. The .45 ACP's bullet is a poor penetrator because of its low sectional density. Plus, I KNOW brown bear have been taken with a .223, but I've never heard of .45 ACP sidearm taking one. Now .45 Colt is another issue.

the heavier of the two will always penetrate better than the lighter

Only if they're the same diameter.

 

[Smeg]

Only if they're the same diameter

That is what I meant, I thought that was understood - comparing 2 rounds of the same caliber, the heavier will penetrate better than the lighter.

Edited accordingly.

I've never heard of .45 ACP sidearm taking one.

When I was looking into going on a bear hunt with my .44 magnum (and decided against it after much research), I came across a story of a guy taking a brown bear with a 1911. Anecdotal, sure. Most of this thread is, though.

A 240gr .44 magnum also has a lower SD than the .223, but I don't know anybody hiking through bear country bringing along their AR-15 for protection instead of the .44 magnum.

 

[mavracer]

But if you compared a 32 acp moving at 800 fps to one moving at say 1000 fps, and the bullets did not change in diameter on impact, and you could somehow keep penetration constant (which you couldn't), then I do not think there would be any difference in wounding capabilities.

you can keep saying this all you want it won't make it true.there will be some difference.the .45 230 hydro shock and .357 magnum 125 fed classic JHP both long concidered about equal and very sound stoppers ( many actually give the edge to the .357) but the 45 has more momentum 195500 to 181250 and will consistantly expand to a larger diameter and out penatrate the .357 through most mediums.IMHO the reason is kinetic energy transfer.I may be wrong but I don't think so.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't know anybody hiking through bear country bringing along their AR-15 for protection instead of the .44 magnum.

I know of and have seen many subsistence hunters carrying a .223 in some very rough bear country out west of here. Wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd take it over a .45 ACP--esp if we're comparing rifles to handguns.

As far as the .44, 300 grains or more of hardcast would be a much better weight than 240. The only expanding .44's I'd use for bear would be the 300 grain XTP out of a levergun.

 

[Cosmoline]

IMHO the reason is kinetic energy transfer.I may be wrong but I don't think so.

The momentum of the larger bullet will help in penetration, but how will "energy transfer" make it go further? Surely any energy transferred to the target slows the bullet down faster.

The light weight .357 is highly overrated as a manstopper, anyway. I use 158's or heavier.

 

[mavracer]

The momentum of the larger bullet will help in penetration, but how will "energy transfer" make it go further? Surely any energy transferred to the target slows the bullet down faster

sorry in my original post I asked the poeple who think KE has nothing to do with wounding could explain how
a .357 seams to perform as well as the 45 which has more momentum,penatration and expansion.