Example Of How Pistol Rounds Suck

[WrongHanded]

I have read it--a single paper, based on a small handful of observations, from sixteen years ago, peer reviewed only by the author's wife. lt has not been cited by anyone in the business, and no one else has come forward to support it. I am not impressed.

Firstly, anyone who believes such a paper to be faked or too small a sample to be reliable can easily get a muzzleloader and a hunting license and try to prove it wrong. That's how science works. The fact that the paper is not peer reviewed in now way proves or even suggests that it is invalid. To my knowledge no one has disproved their conclusion by repeating the experiment and publishing finding contrary to these. If you know of such a study, please provide a link.

Secondly, let's talk about. Do you believe an expanding projectiles with an impact velocity of approximately 1350fps cannot create wounding measurably larger than the diameter of the expanding bullet? If so, why do you think that?

 

[Kleanbore]

Firstly, anyone who believes such a paper to be faked or too small a sample to be reliable can easily get a muzzleloader and a hunting license and try to prove it wrong

I do not suggest that it was faked. I simply do not see it as convincing. I have no desire to try to perform experiments on deer.

The fact that the paper is not peer reviewed in now way proves or even suggests that it is invalid.

Of course not. It simply casts doubt on it, considering the elapsed time since its creation and the fact that it seems to have relegated to the archives.

To my knowledge no one has disproved their conclusion by repeating the experiment and publishing finding contrast to these.

There seems to have been little interest in it.

Do you believe an expanding projectiles with an impact velocity of approximately 1350fps cannot create wounding measurably larger than the diameter of the expanding bullet?

I am not in the business, but the collective body of published data seems to say no.
Of course, the next question would be about how much such a difference might have in real effectiveness.

 

[WrongHanded]

I do not suggest that it was faked. I simply do not see it as convincing. I have no desire to try to perform experiments on deer.

Of course not. It simply casts doubt on it, considering the elapsed time since its creation and the fact that it seems to have relegated to the archives.

There seems to have been little interest in it.

I am not in the business, but the collective body of published data seems to say no.

Of course, the next question would be about how much such a difference might have in real effectiveness.

Okay, so we can safely say that neither you nor I know of any data, testing, or evidence which has emerged subsequent to that study, which has disproved it or even attempted to do so. So logically, there's no reason to suspect the data or the study is anything but honest.

Here's a page from a website on ballistic studies. The page in particular is on .357 Magnum but it goes into some depth about velocity and wounding, including photographs of wounds (at the bottom) and details of the bullet and velocity. Which shows disproportionate wounding.

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.357+Magnum.html

And here's the point. Disproportionate wounding was thought to be impossible with handgun bullets, but it apparently is possible. And if we for a moment assume that the information in both of the sources I have linked to, is infact truthful (and we have no reasons to suspect it is not), it therefore must be possible to attain similar performance with off-the-shelf guns and ammunition, simply by matching closely the bullet velocity, expanded diameter, penetration depth in gel, and weight of projectile.

Two examples that fit nicely with the loads described in th links would be: a 125gr JHP at 1350-1400fps in .357 Sig; and a 155gr JHP at 1300-1350fps in 10mm.

And to answer your question regarding how much that would matter. Is it not obvious? To increase wound diameter substantially (which can be clearly see in the photographs) increases not just the potential for blood loss and the speed of that blood loss, but also the potential of actually hitting something immediately or rapidly vital. Surely anyone who looks at the size and extent of the wounds I linked to, can understand how such wounding could quickly prove more debilitating than a tiny hole only 0.54" - 0.68" in diameter of crushed tissue.

So without even discussing the potential of the ballistic pressure wave, or remote wounding, and simply looking at the potential for direct and disproportionate wounding of higher velocity and energy projectiles, we can see there is certainly a benefit.

 

[Jeff White]

Jeff was obviously referring to how police work is done, and not how they use their weapons when the need arises.

I was referring to posts saying things that are completely irrelevant and out of the scope of this forum: “A larger / stronger male officer likely would not have resorted to lethal force so quickly. In other words, diversity played a role in that man's death”

 

[wayneinFL]

Okay, so we can safely say that neither you nor I know of any data, testing, or evidence which has emerged subsequent to that study, which has disproved it or even attempted to do so. So logically, there's no reason to suspect the data or the study is anything but honest.

Here's a page from a website on ballistic studies. The page in particular is on .357 Magnum but it goes into some depth about velocity and wounding, including photographs of wounds (at the bottom) and details of the bullet and velocity. Which shows disproportionate wounding.

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.357+Magnum.html

And here's the point. Disproportionate wounding was thought to be impossible with handgun bullets, but it apparently is possible. And if we for a moment assume that the information in both of the sources I have linked to, is infact truthful (and we have no reasons to suspect it is not), it therefore must be possible to attain similar performance with off-the-shelf guns and ammunition, simply by matching closely the bullet velocity, expanded diameter, penetration depth in gel, and weight of projectile.

Two examples that fit nicely with the loads described in th links would be: a 125gr JHP at 1350-1400fps in .357 Sig; and a 155gr JHP at 1300-1350fps in 10mm.

And to answer your question regarding how much that would matter. Is it not obvious? To increase wound diameter substantially (which can be clearly see in the photographs) increases not just the potential for blood loss and the speed of that blood loss, but also the potential of actually hitting something immediately or rapidly vital. Surely anyone who looks at the size and extent of the wounds I linked to, can understand how such wounding could quickly prove more debilitating than a tiny hole only 0.54" - 0.68" in diameter of crushed tissue.

So without even discussing the potential of the ballistic pressure wave, or remote wounding, and simply looking at the potential for direct and disproportionate wounding of higher velocity and energy projectiles, we can see there is certainly a benefit.

Terminal ballistics is not an exact science, and it can be be cherry picked and parsed to death. There are a lot of variables.

To me the big question with this video is not whether the wound track is .356" or .250" or .712",, or what size bullet is the best, or how fast a bullet is best. I don't know why someone obsesses over questions like these unless they want a lot of different guns in a lot of different calibers. There are so many better questions.

Why didn't she tell the guy to take his hands out of his pockets way sooner?

Why did they send one cop? They could have at least tried a Taser on that big puffy coat.

Would distance have helped?

Why didn't she keep shooting after the first shot?

To apply this to armed citizens rather than police I might ask myself how I would handle the situation. I guess call the cops, because if I shoot a belligerent homeless guy property I'm probably going to jail. If the county sends a deputy, the whole thing kinda becomes the county's problem. (Or the next county's problem, because our sheriff's office used to give homeless people rides north to the county line. Heh.)

 

[WrongHanded]

Terminal ballistics is not an exact science, and it can be be cherry picked and parsed to death. There are a lot of variables.

To me the big question with this video is not whether the wound track is .356" or .250" or .712",, or what size bullet is the best, or how fast a bullet is best. I don't know why someone obsesses over questions like these unless they want a lot of different guns in a lot of different calibers. There are so many better questions.

Why didn't she tell the guy to take his hands out of his pockets way sooner?

Why did they send one cop? They could have at least tried a Taser on that big puffy coat.

Would distance have helped?

Why didn't she keep shooting after the first shot?

To apply this to armed citizens rather than police I might ask myself how I would handle the situation. I guess call the cops, because if I shoot a belligerent homeless guy property I'm probably going to jail. If the county sends a deputy, the whole thing kinda becomes the county's problem. (Or the next county's problem, because our sheriff's office used to give homeless people rides north to the county line. Heh.)

All good questions, that are not the point of the OP.

 

[Jeff White]

Why didn't she tell the guy to take his hands out of his pockets way sooner?

Why did they send one cop? They could have at least tried a Taser on that big puffy coat.

Would distance have helped?

None of this is relevant to this thread.

 

[Kleanbore]

Okay, so we can safely say that neither you nor I know of any data, testing, or evidence which has emerged subsequent to that study, which has disproved it or even attempted to do so. So logically, there's no reason to suspect the data or the study is anything but honest.

"honest"? How does that figure into it?

And to answer your question regarding how much that would matter. Is it not obvious?

No, it is not.

To increase wound diameter substantially (which can be clearly see in the photographs) increases not just the potential for blood loss and the speed of that blood loss,

How much would that matter in a timely stop in SD?

but also the potential of actually hitting something immediately or rapidly vital.

What does the math tell us about that?

 

[GarnetandBlack]

Pistol rounds are actually very, very good and almost always end the fight very very quickly. You can’t cherry pick one mentally disturbed and probably drugged massively obese man and pretend that anecdote applies to all. Pistol rounds work. Very well….and if you know anyone whose seem extended combat, they have plenty of anecdotes about dudes on Kaht or whatever taking multiple 5.56 and 7.62 rounds and continuing until they find out they’re already dead. You’ll always have outlier anecdotes, but that’s doesn’t tell the story.

 

[WrongHanded]

"honest"? How does that figure into it?

"Honest" meaning that the data has not been manipulated or falsified. Which means that one can come to their own conclusions about what the data means, without worrying that it may be fake.

No, it is not.

Which is why I then explained it. Because I suspected you could not or would not willingly come to the conclusion on your own.

How much would that matter in a timely stop in SD?

To hit something vital with a much wider wound channel, rather than miss it with a narrower one? To create a wound multiple times larger in volume? Stop playing games. Would a smaller hole be just as good as whatever your carry piece makes.

What does the math tell us about that?

That a wound channel of 1.5" diameter is more than twice as wide as a wound channel of 0.68" (optimistic expansion for a 9x19mm through clothing). Which would be 1.767 square inches of surface area, versus 0.363 square inches. We could then develope a wound volume based on the penetration depth of the faster round, and based on a cone shaped wound channel due to deceleration. Then compare that to the tubular wound channel of the slower bullet that is only crushing tissue directly in front of it. Guess which one wins that calculation.

But go ahead and tell us what you think the math tells us. Because I know from past conversations you believe you must hit "something vital" in the thoracic cavity. You never seem to explain exactly what that is, or how it will stop the threat immediately. But are you suggesting that you believe that a much larger wound won't help you accomplish it?

 

[hoardingthemanual]

I invested heavily (2,000 rounds) in Winchester Ranger T-Series 9mm 147gr.

 

[WrongHanded]

I invested heavily (2,000 rounds) in Winchester Ranger T-Series 9mm 147gr.

Why? Based on what criteria?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

To produce rapid incapacitation when aiming at the torso, a bullet must pass through the heart, a great vessel, or disrupt the upper spinal cord.

If the bullet doesn't damage one of these vital structures then there's absolutely no physiological reason why a person would be quickly incapacitated - regardless of caliber, velocity or "power" of the bullet.

 

[WrongHanded]

To produce rapid incapacitation when aiming at the torso, a bullet must pass through the heart, a great vessel, or disrupt the upper spinal cord.

If the bullet doesn't damage one of these vital structures then there's absolutely no physiological reason why a person would be quickly incapacitated - regardless of caliber, velocity or "power" of the bullet.

Does that apply to rifle bullets too?

 

[Old Dog]

So this thread is basically another regurgitation of people's opinions on stopping power, right?

I'm just asking because when I read through the thread, the signal-to-noise ration makes it difficult to understand what the thread is actually about.

Which makes it hard to understand how exactly the topic fits in "strategy, tactics and training."

 

[Jeff White]

I’ve spoken at length with Dr Roberts on wound ballistics. Here are some links to his work. As far as I know it’s still considered the gold standard.

https://primaryandsecondary.com/basic-wound-ballistic-terminal-performance-facts/

https://idoc.pub/documents/wound-ballistics-2013-gary-roberts-d4pqyvdg89np

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Does that apply to rifle bullets too?

It depends entirely on the wounding characteristics of the particular rifle bullet.

 

[WrongHanded]

It depends entirely on the wounding characteristics of the particular rifle bullet.

So rifle bullets are capable of causing rapid incapacitation even if they miss the heart, major blood vessels and CNS, under certain conditions?

 

[WrongHanded]

So this thread is basically another regurgitation of people's opinions on stopping power, right?

What else would it be? A guy gets shot twice at close range with a service handgun. He then walks away and after some 15 seconds sits down, and then flops over. The OP started a thread about how ineffective handgun cartridges are. Now we're debating that. I have provided a link to a paper describing the testing of handgun bullets at handgun velocities, the results of which challenge the established doctrine. No one has disproved those finding. Many have dismissed them, in favor of the decades old pre-established doctrine.

What are you looking for here?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

So rifle bullets are capable of causing rapid incapacitation even if they miss the heart, major blood vessels and CNS, under certain conditions?

Firstly, the title of this thread is in the context of pistol bullets, which is the context of my reply.

Secondly, many rifle bullets produce a temporary cavity approximately the size of a volleyball, which exceeds the ability of all soft tissues to tolerate without tearing or rupturing.

In addition, many rifle bullets also shed fragments when they upset, which, in combination with the larger temporary cavity, can be a major cause of tissue disruption.

 

[Jeff White]

So rifle bullets are capable of causing rapid incapacitation even if they miss the heart, major blood vessels and CNS, under certain conditions?

Yes and no. Like Shawn said, it depends on the construction of the bullet. To put it simply, if the bullet breaks apart in the body the fragments tear the temporary cavity and create a larger wound channel.

But to get back on topic, handgun bullets don’t usually have that effect and we need to train to hit the vital areas and to keep making hits until the bad guy stops doing whatever you’re trying to stop him from doing.

 

[DeepSouth]

My dad worked with a guy that took 6 38’s to the chest/stomach area, then proceeded to take the gun from the shooter and beat him bad enough with it to where the shooter spent longer in the hospital than the guy that got shot.
Not sure when it happened, the guy retired in the 70’s or early 80’s so it was well before that.


I work with a guy that was on jury where one of the witnesses took a 7.62x39 to the side of his head. He had serious scars but he was very much alive.

There are definitely no magic bullets, and a determined man can overcome a lot.

 

[WrongHanded]

I’ve spoken at length with Dr Roberts on wound ballistics. Here are some links to his work. As far as I know it’s still considered the gold standard.

https://primaryandsecondary.com/basic-wound-ballistic-terminal-performance-facts/

https://idoc.pub/documents/wound-ballistics-2013-gary-roberts-d4pqyvdg89np

I'm having a hard time reading the second link. Can you tell me if Roberts included anything in there about disproving (because it's from 2013 right?) The earlier work of the Courtney's (I think 2007) regarding the testing on Deer that I linked to up thread? The first link you have doesn't appear to have any such data in it.

 

[WrongHanded]

Yes and no. Like Shawn said, it depends on the construction of the bullet. To put it simply, if the bullet breaks apart in the body the fragments tear the temporary cavity and create a larger wound channel.

But to get back on topic, handgun bullets don’t usually have that effect and we need to train to hit the vital areas and to keep making hits until the bad guy stops doing whatever you’re trying to stop him from doing.

Well I think it is on topic. And I'd like to hear from Shawn.

However, you're suggesting that a rifle bullet can break apart and create a larger wound channel, that will cause rapid incapacitation. But that still doesn't hit the heart, major blood vessels, or CNS?

 

[WrongHanded]

Firstly, the title of this thread is in the context of pistol bullets, which is the context of my reply.

Secondly, many rifle bullets produce a temporary cavity approximately the size of a volleyball, which exceeds the ability of all soft tissues to tolerate without tearing or rupturing.

In addition, many rifle bullets also shed fragments when they upset, which, in combination with the larger temporary cavity, can be a major cause of tissue disruption.

How does the temporary cavity caused by a rifle bullet cause rapid incapacitation if it doesn't damage or destroy the heart, major blood vessels, or CNS?