Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

[Prosser]

Thanks Bozwell.

I was trying for a visual graphic that illustrated the wide variance of human bodies and conditions. By comparing a man and woman, visual a chest shooting, and where the fat would be distributed, and you get the picture.

I had this visual of some of these pornographic female stars, and how their implants make pretty near perfect testing media for bullets.

Also, how huge female breasts are can be 5-14" deep, and how you might have a 110 pound girl that wants to have the biggest implants in the world, and...
well you see how this issue is just a vivid, intentional salacious way of drawing
the brilliant line that people's body construction, and what can be done to it has a very large range of characteristics that would affect bullet penetration.1111111111111111111111111
Sorry. Cat typing. Please remove paws from keyboard.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You've been called out, and can't even respond to it.

Ah. So you believe that "calling someone out" is the way to decide these matters. Perhaps you will next type (ALLCAPS), "Man, you are so pwned!" to further support your argument?

And, perhaps, you "can't" even recognize that you have indeed been responded to.

Red herring? You mean like trying to change the discussion from handgun caliber selection to "calling out" and who's seen a GSW victim?

I guess you're bothered that I keep bringing you back on topic.

a fake

I have presented myself only as a competent, rational discussor of the topic. What is your basis for calling me a fake, please? Besides waving another red herring.

Now that you've tried to distance yourself from your horrid "You...just...can't....predict...what...a...bullet...will...do...to...a...person....period" gaff, which does indeed seem to disqualify you as a competent, rational discussor.

What I'm also saying is the benefits of a smaller round (capacity, recoil,...) will "wash-out" those of the larger round (diameter, less deflection,...).

Is this statement unsupported opinion? If not, what is your evidence that this "wash-out" occurs?

(If it's simply your opinion, that's fine. It just seems you claim evidence you can't reference, and opinions that matter more than someone else's.)

 

[357SIG]

"...never mind that I do not have any knowledge on the subject, and can't answer your questions....instead, look at these shiny keys!"

Sums you up perfectly.

Oh, a lawyer. No evidence. No knowledge. All you want to do is create doubt, so you can look like a winner. I finally figured it out.

 

[Bozwell]

It may be me, but it seems like at this point you guys are arguing over who's the better online debater more than caliber selection. It may be time to just let it go and agree to disagree and see if this thread can get back on topic.

 

[357SIG]

I think you're right. I was doing well staying on topic for a while, then got sucked into his off-topic argument. No more, and I apologize to the rest of you.

 

[Prosser]

If you like debating, how about answering the questions I posed, and actually come up with some sort of valid premise statements, not to mention conclusions, to justify the validity of any sort of caliber wars?

What really are the parameters for how to discuss the merits of one caliber against another?

 

[357SIG]

nevermind...figured it out.

 

[Prosser]

I didn't point this at anyone, but EVERYONE.
It's a general commentary on all these threads. The sad part is people fail to see the complexity of the issues, and round designs, and, what really gets me, is how they can have sort of emotional connection to a pistol caliber.

I can understand guys that actually hunt and use their rounds getting attached to them. They've been to war with that round, and it hasn't failed them. But, for probably 90% of the people in this forum, that isn't the case.

I also understand, sort of, that if you carry something everyday, you sure hope it's adequate.

I don't have many of those illusions. I carry heavy, 158 grain Plus P Buffalobore, or Fioochi .357 in my snubby. Both are close enough so that I don't think anything hit with them are going to know the difference.

I also have heavier stuff, but, going to the door for an unknown knock, taking out the trash, all the heavier guns are just that, heavier. In the unlikely event I'm assaulted, 5 shots of 158 grains at 1040 fps are going to have to do. That's not even close to my .45 Super, or heavier guns, but, it's what I can carry in a pocket without being observed.

 

[Loosedhorse]

What really are the parameters for how to discuss the merits of one caliber against another?

To whom is this question directed, please? If to me, I think I've answered this a couple times now (the first time at post 60, just before another poster started side-tracking the thread with his "uninformed" accusations).

Supposing the use for the caliber being selected is SD, then:

• Cost
• Recoil (because of its effect on accurate rapid fire)
• Capacity (as in you can fit more 9s than .45s into a given pistol; this doesn't really matter for some applications like hunting, IMHO; but for SD I think it does.)
• And whether or not a police-level SD load exists for that caliber (as in, yes for 9; no for .22LR)

That last "merit" is a stand-in for effectiveness (which I consider a good synonym for stopping power and knockdown power); to what extent effectiveness turns on diameter, wound track length, energy dump, or related parameters (such as velocity, sectional density or bullet mass) I am not sure. Obviously, there is some relationship.

I carry heavy, 158 grain Plus P Buffalobore, or Fioochi .357 in my snubby

I would have two concerns about that load (neither of which is effectiveness!)

First, I would worry about recoil afffecting MY accuracy (I'm sure you shoot it well; I'm talking about me); of course, in a snubby, we're not talking about long-range accuracy anyway (I wouldn't be, anyway).

And second, the risk of overpenetration injury. If you told me you've tested the load, and it rarely emerges from the far side of a pig-sized animal, no problem. If you said it goes through a pig like a laser and just keeps going, I'd have concerns. Just me.

 

[Prosser]

LH:

I guess I'm not clear. Those are all factors. But, SD loads are about bullets, their designs, their weight, velocity for load, etc. That's why the calibers wars are moronic to me. Are you talking about a medium, light, or heavy bullet for caliber? Those are three categories. Now, you take all the calibers, and compare
the merits of that particular bullet weight, the potential for velocity, bullet design, and how it's going to effect it's ability to do it's job.

In other words, lets take 9MM. The heaviest bullet you can get moving is a 147 grain @ around 950-1000 fps, lets assume a Truncated cone here, just because I like them, and, they are easy to figure penetration. That load is going to penetrate enough, not expand, and may not transfer a lot of energy. Wound channel diameter of 0.848" with a bullet with a meplat diameter of .357", and a striking velocity of 950 fps.

Now, Lets take .45 ACP, with a Truncated cone bullet. The lightest one I've found is 155 grains. I suspect that is also going to penetrate well, but, the perm wound channel is going to be considerably larger, Wound channel diameter of 1.356" with a bullet with a meplat diameter of .452", and a striking velocity of 1200 fps.

Given that, you might want to drop your TC in 9MM to 125 grains. This would
increase velocity to around 1200 fps, and give you a larger wound channel:
Wound channel diameter of 1.071" with a bullet with a meplat diameter of .357", and a striking velocity of 1200 fps.

Now you are getting into comparing things that make sense.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Are you talking about a medium, light, or heavy bullet for caliber?

Ah, I see what you mean. And strictly for comparing "caliber", you are of course correct.

I think of caliber more broadly. Let's say I choose 9mm. I try the 147 gr HP, but it doesn't run in my gun. The 147 FMJ penetrates too much, and I don't like the recoil. 115 gr is mild on the recoil, but I'm worried about too little penetration. So, I decide I'm rich (and hypnotized) and opt for the 115 gr all-copper HP.

In all that discussion, I still have in general been dealing with a caliber that's going to cost less, be (minimally?) less effective, have less recoil, and more capacity than if I'd run through the same rigamarole with .40 S&W.

Since I think that's usually how it's done (select caliber first--when the gun is purchased--and load later) that's how I think about it, when the emphasis is on the practicalities of "selection." But I do see your point, when the emphasis is on apples-to-apples "comparison."

If there is a fault with your method, it's that often people don't know (at the time they select caliber by buying their pistol) if they're going to prefer the light 9 and light .45, or the heavy 9 and heavy .45--or the light 9+P and the heavy .45 standard pressure. If they do, then your way works great.

 

[Prosser]

It goes further. We now have to factor in recoil energy, powder burning speed, powder charge size and weight, and how the pressure of the cartridge effects recoil. 9mm, 40, .357, are high pressure cartridges. Now, you have that you can compare the .45, .38, .44 special, and their low pressure, big cases, and the pluses and minus's of the different cases. I have this theory that powder speed, combined with capacity, and quality, are key factors in recoil.

I also have a theory that a LOT of commercial ammunition is made with left over bulk powders the ammo companies buy from major military powder makers. This powder is not designed to work with the particular cartridge, but it's a huge amount, cheap, and it works. So, they test it, it's ok, and sell it, and make a ton of money.

However, what that does mean is that people's perception of recoil can be effected by
bulk loaded let's say .40. The powder causes a ton of recoil, but, it sort of works.
However, everyone thinks that now the .40 is a devastating cartridge due to recoil.

I do remember my first and last box of Remington .44 special. It was 25 dollars for 20 rounds of soft, cast, lead round nose bullets, 244 grains, at what was supposed to be 900 fps. Out of my gun they went seeing eye dog speed, that is, I could see them go down range, had huge recoil, and a huge flash. As close as you can get to black powder without black powder.
My reloads, 231 IIRC, went 950 fps, were hyper-accurate, 240 grain HPS, and, recoiled about half as much, with out the cloud of black smoke.
Cost about 25 cents a round.

My questions started with the .40, because the case size is not all that much bigger then the 9MM. The pressure is similar. The only factors I can see are the slightly higher bullet weight, and the fact that a lot of guns were
converted to .40 from 9MM, without increasing the slide weight to compensate, and slow down the recoil.

If the powder charge is nearly the same, and the bullet weight slightly higher, a heavier slide can considerably slow recoil. The Glock 29 is an excellent example of a good design, a heavier slide slows the 10MM recoil.

 

[Wapato]

No problem. Let me make this clear...a .45 will create more damage than a 9mm. A .45 will probably have less of a chance of deflection. The more powerful the round, the more damage it will create. I do not dispute this as reality. What I'm saying is the differences are nearly insignificant when it comes to comparing the common service calibers used in civilian defense and LE today. What I'm also saying is the benefits of a smaller round (capacity, recoil,...) will "wash-out" those of the larger round (diameter, less deflection,...). What I'm saying is that each caliber of round has an equal opportunity to cause incapacitating damage in any situation. If someone is going to count on these extremely minor differences to aid in incapacitation, when so much more is involved, they are headed in the wrong direction.

So, your statements need to be more specific:
"9MM 130 grain, copper jacketed, .035" jacket, pure lead filled, at 950 fps, out of a 9 in one twist, and a 5" barrel deflected off the rib of a 380 pound man, with 40% body fat, after passing through 7" of fat, and highly unusual 3MM thick skin."

"BarnesX 90 Grain, 9MM pure copper LFN with a meplat of .25", out of a 9 to1 twist 5" barrel at 1450 fps went through the skin of a 200 pound, 45% body fat female, after penetrating 2MM skin, 12" of fat, and hitting the rib at a 90 degree angle."

Because of some other comments here, I'd like to point out that I'm not really thinking of this in terms of a "calibre war" exactly. Calibre determines diameter and, when the term is used here, typicaly also implies a specific cartridge size and pressure maximum. Together these create a performance envelope for the cartridges/bullets, these days there is significant overlap in weight, velocity, and recoil between the rounds due to things like high weight 9mm and lightweight +P 45ACP and so on.

But the bullets are very important, and I'm hoping that by making this explicit I can get at least 357 sig talking about them.

Again, this is clearly an area where one cannot say "everything will wash out" because I think we can all agree that the RII study really screwed up, but since they didn't realize their error a lot of LEOs went out with rounds with horrible penetration and a belief their rounds would be incredibly effective. This got LEOs killed.

Before that, they didn't call those old cone nosed .38 specials fired out of snubbies "widowmakers" because of what they did to assailents, but rather their tendency to put the officer in jeapordy even if they were getting solid hits. From what I read, even though they were pretty good at getting a through hole, as their velocity dropped the permanent cavity they created became significantly smaller than the diameter of the bullet, with the tissue mostly stretching around the bullet and only tearing enough at the point to accomodate that.

These days I'm concerned about bullets in all SD calibres seemingly being designed to decelerate enough so that they are generally unable to damage the spine or pelvis from the front, the general dearth of data to evaluate what you gain for wider diameters in terms of catching something or time to incapacitating blood pressure reduction, the fact that deflection and fragmentation are hardly investigated at all despite the very high probability of impacting bone on the way to vitals in the torso, and the fuzziness surrounding pressure wave stunning vs it always being a psychological thing.

Actually, from the perspective of deciding on what gun to get, it seems to make sense that you'd want to evalute these features in relation to bullet characteristics, and after that select the calibre that gives you the bullet characteristics that you want. If what you want falls in an area of overlap, I guess go with whatever gives higher capacity or is cheaper.

 

[OldCavSoldier]

I don't like someone being called or calling himself an "expert." The word reminds me of the old definition. Take the word apart; X is the mathematical expression of an unknown. Spurt is a drip under pressure. Therefore, an expert is an unknown drip, under pressure.

(Just trying to inject some humor......)

(Probably failed, miserably!)

 

[Skribs]

Actually, from the perspective of deciding on what gun to get, it seems to make sense that you'd want to evalute these features in relation to bullet characteristics, and after that select the calibre that gives you the bullet characteristics that you want. If what you want falls in an area of overlap, I guess go with whatever gives higher capacity or is cheaper.

This is my sentiment exactly.

 

[Prosser]

OK:
Here is my take of the ideal round. I think the .45 Colt ballistics, 260 grain
bullet at 950-1200 fps is ideal for self-defense. This is the round JMB was trying to equal in an auto when he designed .45 ACP. That said, my gunsmith, who designed the .500JRH, .475 Linebaugh with the smaller, rim, and knows his stuff, has said that part of the problem with the .45 Colt round is it was soft lead, and, that when it opened up, it would deviate from it's path in the animal(keep in mind the .45 Colt was effective against horses).
So, he suggests a Keith style, hard Cast .45 Colt bullet.

What happens when you start looking at bullets that heavy is the ONLY caliber capable of holding a 255 grain bullet is the .45 ACP/Super, and that's barely.

Does that mean I don't have any other calibers?
No. I have a 9MM with 147 grain HST and 147 grain Truncated Cones. Why?
I got a great deal on the 147 grain HST, and San Diego PD likes them, and, the Truncated cones where cheap.

The .38 Special Plus P and .357 loads I have in the snubby are 147 and 158 grains. The 158 grain LSWCHP from Buffalobore opens quickly, maybe too quickly, since it's soft lead. I think I may go to the Keith style he just put out.
The 147's go 1131 fps out of my snub, and they should open quickly as well.
These are my limit for recoil, so far, with the snub. It's the gun that is most likely to be used, since it goes to the door when I get strange knocks at night, and need something I can carry in a pocket.

I also have a .22 short, 22 mag, and some other stuff.
If someone went for breaking in, I'd try to get to the Mosin Nagant 44.
Failing that, the .475 Linebaugh and .500JRH are easy to get to.

275 grains, 1560 fps HP, and 430 grains LFN at 1350 fps.
My apartment is on a hillside, and the berm would be a perfect backstop for a shooting range.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Just trying to inject some humor.....

Johnny Carson used to talk about "respect jokes," when the audience doesn't laugh but applauds as if to say, "Quite humorous; exquisitely jocular, actually."

I have this theory that powder speed, combined with capacity, and quality, are key factors in recoil.

If, as it is usually supposed, recoil has to do with momentum, then it will be the mass of the bullet times its speed, plus the mass of the gases (and other ejecta, like unburned powder) times its speed. Higher pressure load will lead to higher gas speed, and a faster powder may generate a higher pressure. So there's a lot of suppport for your view.

The factors regarding perceived recoil are many; I think they even include muzzle blast (noise), as well as the steepness of the initial part of the pressure curve (related to the speed of the powder).

This got LEOs killed.

It probably has, as in the FBI Miami Shootout. But similar light, fast 9mm loads have enjoyed success with the ISP; so they have probably saved lives, too.

The main problem with the RII, IMHO, is the presumption of frotal shots without intervening barriers. If you were to compare its predictions with the results of actual unobstructed frontal shootings, I think it would do fine.

These days I'm concerned about bullets in all SD calibres seemingly being designed to decelerate enough so that they are generally unable to damage the spine or pelvis from the front, the general dearth of data to evaluate what you gain for wider diameters in terms of catching something or time to incapacitating blood pressure reduction, the fact that deflection and fragmentation are hardly investigated at all despite the very high probability of impacting bone on the way to vitals in the torso, and the fuzziness surrounding pressure wave stunning vs it always being a psychological thing.

These are all good points. Of course, enough penetration to damage the spine from a frontal shot (through the sternum) would likely lead to overpenetration by a differently placed shot with the same load. As you imply, some data would help in determining the right balance.

when it opened up, it would deviate from it's path in the animal

This strikes me as only a problem with a very well placed shot, as one would expet a hunter to take: if you've aimed at the heart, you want a straight path to get to the heart.

I wonder, in a gun fight, if a curved path might not be better: accuracy is not going to be as precise, and a curved bullet path will result in a longer wound track (presuming the bullet in each case either exits or comes to rest under the far skin).

My apartment is on a hillside, and the berm would be a perfect backstop for a shooting range.

These facts, plus your ability to handle stout loads, explains your choice of some loads that others would find either too stout or too penetrative. Doesn't have to be one answer for everyone; in fact, there shouldn't be.

 

[Wapato]

Just a quick lin kI ran across while looking for something else entirely.

Guess which part caught my attention most:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Speer 124gr +P Gold Dot versus automobile windshield and gelatin.html

EDIT; Something else I just noticed but haven't seen discussed before. Sometimes when rounds have very high expansion, so they look less like a mushroom and more like a throwing star or disk in the gel, it looks like they're tilting sideways, so for at least some of their path they're actually making a thin permanent cavity.

 

[Prosser]

The really noticeable thing is the lack of velocity, and the very small perm wound cavity in the last 6-8 inches.

Well, I shot the guy with a 9MM for the first 6 inches, and after the HP opened up, it was like a black powder dime going 300 fps, for relatively NO wound channel.

Why I like LFN, or truncated cone bullets. I want the velocity all the way through the target, so it creates a perm wound channel the entire way.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Guess which part caught my attention most

I give up--what?

a black powder dime going 300 fps, for relatively NO wound channel.

a black powder dime--through the heart, aorta, or brainstem--is going to take care of business. Any of us who carry a SD gun in public have reason to worry about a TC bullet if it's still going 800fps when it exits our attacker.

 

[Prosser]

YMMV, and your situation.

If you are concerned with over-penetration, lighten the bullet until you get the penetration level you want. The advantage is as you use a lighter bullet, you can use more powder, more velocity, which may decrease penetration, increase wound channel, and create a bit of bullet expansion, if you get up into the 1300 fps range.

 

[Wapato]

I give up--what?

Oh, I thought it was obvious.

The bit that bothered me was

"5 shots were fired, two missed the block due to deflection by the glass."

That's not exactly a low percentage.

 

[Prosser]

Merkel fits. Ruger is my .500 Linebaugh Maximum. Cocobolos. Walnut cracks at that recoil level.
Colt Trooper .22lr I wish I still had:




Jasons incredible presentation blue .500JRH. It's so deep, you could drown in the color.

Another Jason gun, .550JRH


My old Linebaugh Seville, now resides in Texas. JRH custom Walnut grips,
and an incredible reblue by JRH:

 

[357SIG]

Again, wound track size and energy transfer are proven to be insignificant wounding factors. Curved, straight, or whatever else is not going to aid in incapacitation in any type of timely manner. Blood loss from the bullet hole, barring a major organ being hit, can take days to kill. An increase of ~.1" in diameter is not going to change it much, if really at all. The body doesn't leak like a bottle with a hole in it...

LH, I'd still like to see what information you have. If you don't have it, specify a search term, so we can look. What are you basing these opinions of yours from? Of course, aside from the debate argument (since I said I would be the bigger man and stop). Surely, you are not just making them up...

Spinal shots are difficult at best, and pelvic shots are not reliable stoppers. People can survive aortic shots, but it is very unlikely. It also depends on where the aorta is damaged. Wound cavity as a mechanism of injury alone does not aid in rapid incapacitation, but the damage to major organs in the path does. This is why bullet diameter is insignificant.

Overpenetration as a mechanism of injury is not an issue, but might hit something behind and damage it. I would be willing to bet it would only matter with lung shots or extremities, where the bullet will lose very little of its velocity, as opposed to abdominal hits. Also, don't disregard the power of a round that misses completely....

 

[Skribs]

LH, in response to several pages back regarding tazers:

I was just watching World's Dumbest Criminals, and the cops tazed the suspect, who twitched a little bit but didn't stop. Well, he actually started saying "I love it I love it" and was begging them to taze him again. So, not even a tazer is a reliable stop.