Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

[Loosedhorse]

LH, I'd still like to see what information you have.

On what?

By the way:

Again, wound track size and energy transfer are proven to be insignificant wounding factors.

Since you are claiming proof, perhaps you would supply the proof. Seems odd to me that a longer wound track would be "insignificant" as you claim, especially since the FBI specifies a "minimum" penetration but not a maximum; one would think that a longer wound track has a better chance of striking a major vessel or other vital structure that a shorter one. (Of course, the greater penetration potential would also represent a greater overpenetration risk; yin and yang.)

And since I am more interested in "stopping" mechanisms than wounding mechanisms, perhaps you might also have proof (even though you did not claim so) that energy transfer is insignificant in stopping?

So, not even a tazer is a reliable stop.

Well, it's nice that we agree!

But we know there are cases where the Taser fails.

 

[Skribs]

Eh it was several pages ago and I was watching funny TV shows, what'd'ya want?

 

[Loosedhorse]

I find the Taser issue interesting for the reason I mentioned. We all say that the Taser "disrupts" the nervous system (presumably, causes prolonged or repetitive depolarization of motor neurons so that control of muscles is prevented during the time the Taser is active, and perhaps for some time afterward). But when someone is stopped by a Taser, there is no recording of whether that stop was actually from that physiological mechanism, or whether the physiological stop failed, and the person "gave up" (because of pain or fear).

It is only in the instances like those mentioned on your TV show, when the Taser fails both to incapacitate the person and to convince him to stop, that the failure of the device is manifest. So, we really have little idea for Tasers how often physiological mechanism fails but the "psychological stop" succeeds.

 

[Wapato]

That's the question I have with the pressure wave thing.

Though on a hunting note, for those of you who do it, how frequently do animals just drop from wounds to the circulatory system? It should take them at least a half dozen seconds to drop even if you devestated their heart.

I'd think everything in their psycology would be screaming "RUN". None of the "we saw people fall after getting shot on TV, so I think that's what I ought to do". Business.

Again, wound track size and energy transfer are proven to be insignificant wounding factors.

There is a significant community that doesn't think much of energy transfer, especially in handgun rounds, and even moreso when looking at only energy transfer and not pressure wave factors.

But wound track size is highly valued by all the law enforcement. You're acting like you're in the majority on that, but you're very much the exception. If you think you're right, please come at it from the perspective of having to share information.

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.

This actually seems to be correct, and is something that I hadn't appreciated before.

The body doesn't leak like a bottle with a hole in it...

Do you have a medical background? I'm curiosu what it does leak like. I'm now imagining something more like pipes and a pump (what I'm a little more used to).

Bigger holes in the pipes are going to cause more fluid loss.

But more importantly there may be different regimes. For a smaller hole, the system might still basically work, and just be losing volume. I could see that especially on the vein side of things.

But for a big enough hole, the pump won't have enough "head" to keep things working and the system will experience rapid failure.

I'd wonder if it's the same way with the body too, though the body is an exceedingly complex system.

 

[Loosedhorse]

how frequently do animals just drop from wounds to the circulatory system? It should take them at least a half dozen seconds to drop even if you devestated their heart.

Any given hunter will only have anecdotes; but when you hear the same "pattern" of anecdotes from many hunters, you may suspect there is sufficient cause to start making recommendations.

I have shot small game (red squirrel and smaller) amidships with .22 LRs in situations where just a little scamper on their part would have been sufficient to make them irrecoverable; but instead I found them immobile on the other side of the rock or log they were perched on.

With very large game, I shot one animal (completely unaware) through the heart with a large expanding bullet, and he took off running. I found him down 70m away with maybe half his blood volume in his chest. Similarly sized animal (same species) shot a little higher (through both lungs, missing the heart high and the spine low) "dropped to the shot" face first and never took another step. Same bullet.

The point is: I expect (based on the experience of others) that sudden collapse to happen occasionally with the bullet I used; and for it to happen more often than if I used a non-expanding "solid." African PH Kevin Robertson mentions that he expects animals to drop to the shot with a spine or brain shot; but it also can happen with side-on "high heart shots" (such shots often miss the heart but get both lungs, and are normally expected to down the animal in about 3 minutes). He recommends expanding bullets for such shots.

 

[Wapato]

The point is: I expect (based on the experience of others) that sudden collapse to happen occasionally with the bullet I used; and for it to happen more often than if I used a non-expanding "solid." African PH Kevin Robertson mentions that he expects animals to drop to the shot with a spine or brain shot; but it also can happen with side-on "high heart shots" (such shots often miss the heart but get both lungs, and are normally expected to down the animal in about 3 minutes). He recommends expanding bullets for such shots.

Is there a non-pressure wave theory for why that happens? Are animals even known to feint?

Do they ever do it from shots that hit nowhere near major vessels or the nervious system, like a low gut shot? Or don't hunters get enough of those (or admit to enough of those) to make for a meaningful observation?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Not sure I've ever heard any hunter say something nice about a gut shot, with the exception of a liver shot. I don't know of anyone who recommends aiming for the liver, but a shot there (especially a high-energy shot) apparently takes most animals quickly.

Theories? The hunters I've met aren't much on theories. But (except where mandated by law) you don't see a lot of hunters prefering "heavy and slow" shotgun slugs for deer (even though they work); more likely .270 130 grain (and smaller). You don't even hear a lot of "knock-downs" (drops at the shot) talked about for good deer cartridges like the .30-30 compared to the classic deer "knock-down" cartridge, .30-06 with expanding bullets.

For a reasonable discussion (which, as is common, discounts some hunter "myths" while promoting others! ), see Chuck Hawks:

It seems that velocity is a positive factor in killing power primarily because increases energy at bullet impact...So a balance must be struck between bullet weight, velocity and, ultimately, recoil.

 

[Prosser]

Wapato:

Weird stuff starts happening with heavy handgun rounds. Start at 1100-1350 fps, LFN cast bullets, .45 Caliber, or bigger, and 260 grains. They kill like Thor's Hammer.
One incident: 150 pound deer, Texas Heart shot: Hit NOTHING vital, with 420 grains, 1350 fps, .475 Linebaugh. Bullet went end to end, through ham, deer fell over dead.

LOTS of handgun hunting stories about very heavy, slow moving, BIG bullets, killing like Thor's Hammer. Energy doesn't explain it. Vitals hit doesn't explain it.

To put it bluntly: the bulls... that is associated with service handguns, and the explanations of how they kill become irrelevant and inaccurate when you start moving to big caliber handguns.

Their is NO logical explanation that has so far been quantified as to why a .510 Maximum Linebaugh flattens a deer, with a cast LFN slug, at a sedate velocity, compared to other firearms, like rifles. However, the observations support it.

I can conjecture that the effect of over a half ounce of semi-expanding lead, leaves a long, non-conical, cylinder through the target, and, that at a certain point, damage becomes geometrical, not additional.

In other words, you have a combination that is a large caliber handgun that kills like a 375 H&H rifle, yet does it with a heavy, big relatively slow moving bullet, compared to a 300 grain, slightly faster, smaller diameter, .375 bullet. More then one way to skin, explode, or kill a cat.

To give you some idea:
A bunch of handgun hunters think the .45 Colt/454 is adequate for brown bear, with proper shot placement, and, the above, in the right hands, has killed cape buffalo.

 

[Loosedhorse]

^^This is kinda my point. When I hear this stuff from a hunter like Prosser, I don't tell him he's a dope for noting his experience, and ask him for "proof." I listen and file it away for future use (especially as I have a .475 Linebaugh stoked with 440 grain bullets ).

But when we talk about using street experience from the actual use of SD rounds, we're told: NO! DON'T DO THAT!

Just...look at the gel...see how pretty?...look at the gel...you're getting sleepy...sleepy...

 

[Prosser]

Likewise when Lee Jurras, Detonics owners, Jack Huntington, etc. tell me .451 Detonics loads are VERY effective on humans,game, in the 70's, selling lots of guns to LEO, and, they have pictures, I go with that. Likewise John Linebaugh had a S&@ 25-5, with 260 grain Keiths, at 1200 fps, that he carried, and lived on in WY. Woods gun, and, the best part, little meat damage.
Favorite phone call:
"Hi. John's out back. I'll shoot for him."
"BANG!"
2 minutes later, Johns' on the phone.
How he let that wife get away, I don't know...

Funny part is hang out at the Gary Reeder forum. LOTS of really good hunters.
You bring up how well the .475 or .500's work? They ream you a new one, telling you "It's a .475 or .500.! Doesn't need to expand!"
From their experiences on Hogzilla, once you get to that bullet size, you don't need expanding bullets. Is that logical? NO. WHY does a bullet, starting with 4, and going 950-1350 fps, LFN, minor expanding, kill like a .375 H&H rifle? We don't know, logically. They just DO.

I once got into this with Lee Jurras: maybe the best ever with a .44 mag. He used a variety of bullet constructions, at the same weight, 185 grains, at 1900 fps, to shoot pretty much every game animal on the planet.
His one only gun?
Ruger/Linebaugh .475 Linebaugh, with 420 grain, LFN's, at a sedate 950 fps. He's sold on that load as the best for a one gun only, and, he's shot somewhere between 500k and a million .44 mags. He also is Mr. High Velocity owned HiVel, ammo makers.
LH:
NOT politically correct to describe how rounds work on humans. I'm lucky. I've got SWAT friends.
His comment:
Sig P220: two shootings in our area, with the old 230 grain Hydrashocks.
"They worked. No issues. No need for second rounds."
That's a sampling of 2 shootings.

He also gives me tons of **** for my rifles, .375, 30-06 and bigger. His feeling? .308, Remington Custom 700, head shot. 100% one shot stops, end story.
He's the range master/ armour/ licensed S&@ gunsmith, for our local PD.
LH: REAL guns start at 525 grains, .510 caliber, and 1350 fps:


I had my .375 H&H in his safe for awhile. His comment:
"Are you worried about the elephants from Marineworld?"

Truth is, if they broke out, I'd want a .510 VanHorn, or bigger.

My hunting friends don't like round nosed bullets, bullet deflection, and, that even applies to the .450 Nitro Express. Seems to stop being a concern when the bullet weights 600 grains, is a Barnes solid, with a slightly flat nose, or, a G&S custom bullet, .458, at 2300 fps, flat nosed.

Let me put it this way. I went on a ride with a 10k African elephant, TAVA, at Marineworld. I got on her back, looked soft. Elephants. Think 10k pressure, on 2 inch thick skin, pushing out, on a ball type construction. My point. That 'soft' elephant skin felt like cement, due to the interior pressure out. Her spine felt like hardened steel. It's hard to imagine that an animal that big can be both gentile with her trunk, and still can totally destroy a car in less then 2 seconds.
Shooting that animal requires accuracy and a very heavy deep penetrating bullet.
While my .375 is adequate, I'd go for a .510 caliber, 2150 fps, or faster if I had to shoot such a wonderful, beautiful, animal.

We walked around a corner at Marineworld, going to the elephant area, and, a female, 55 or older, asian elephant was around a hedge, in touching distance, no restraint. SHE touched us, and gave serious inspection with her trunk. That same, sweet elephant, that was so gentle, was moving telephone poles in the show like they weighed NOTHING. We had 60 people try to tug and war with her. Took her one, half step back, then game over.
That quick.
Half way through the show, she didn't like the way she had stacked her telephone poles, so, she restacked them. The trainers just stood back, let her do it, and pointed out this wasn't part of the show.

In other words: It's her show. She does what she wants, and, they wait until she's done. Thank God that none of her actions require hurting her.
Think about that. You are dealing with an animal that thinks telephone poles are toys, for her stacking, like toothpicks...
I love cats. Elephants are KING>

 

[Loosedhorse]

Look like .458 Lott Federal Hammerheads to the right there. I actually think those'll do for any stray Marineworld pachyderms.



As for .50s, I'm going to wimp out and stick with 500s or 440s, doing about 1500. Trouble is finding game that needs that...but one day...

 

[Prosser]

Me shooting the .458 Lott:

Me shooting the .510 Van Horn:


Notice the difference in muzzle elevation.

For what it's worth, given the choice, I'll take a .510 over the .458 Lott.
Run the recoil figures, and one comes out around 80, the other over 100 ft-lbs.

That said, the class 3's FLATTEN stuff, and, I like .458 Lott.

No reason for it, same thing with the pistols. When you start getting in the .510 or bigger rifle calibers they just flatten stuff better then the .45's, for no quantifiable reason.

LOOK at how the hit on the jug is different. The slower, .510 grain bullet blew the jug into tiny pieces. The .458 blew it up, but in a different pattern..

 

[Wapato]

One incident: 150 pound deer, Texas Heart shot: Hit NOTHING vital, with 420 grains, 1350 fps, .475 Linebaugh. Bullet went end to end, through ham, deer fell over dead.

By "through ham" do you mean it didn't hit any bone? Busting a hip is going to down the critter

Although some of the pressure wave experiments were done in the thigh (presumably the major vessels located there provided a propagation path to the brain. I imagine the effect as something like what they call a water hammer in industry.

LOTS of handgun hunting stories about very heavy, slow moving, BIG bullets, killing like Thor's Hammer. Energy doesn't explain it. Vitals hit doesn't explain it.

Do you mean having the deer go down instantly, or a tendency to go down within 6 seconds as opposed to 30?

Though note that while energy is a factor in pressure wave generation and propagation, it is far from the only one.

To give you some idea:
A bunch of handgun hunters think the .45 Colt/454 is adequate for brown bear, with proper shot placement, and, the above, in the right hands, has killed cape buffalo.

I'd imagine that's something like how a .22LR is quite capable of killing a person in the right circumstance with the right shot placement and range. I beleive it to have been relatively popular among some killers due to how silent it is when suppressed.

However when you're groggy, wounded, under the effects of an adrenaline dump, partially flash blinded, and at a bad angle to the vitals on your threat, then you may want something else.


Actually, while like everybody else I agree shot placement is very important, I'm leery of arguments along those lines. I know we all like to think that we're so much more badass than LEOs. But, statistically, in real firefights they have trouble putting rounds anywhere on the target's body, say nothing of through the left ventricle vs hitting a lung. And I have a hunch I'm not going to be better than them should I be in the middle of my first life or death encounter at 3am.

 

[Loosedhorse]

To reel this back in...

Let's try a real example. There's another thread going on that gives us the opportunity to ask a specific (and maybe perfect) question:

For .380, would Buffalo Bore's 100 gr hardcast (reported 31" penetration!) or 80 gr Tac-XP (280 ft-lb energy dump and perhaps 11.5" of penetration) be a better choice?

And why. Show your work.

(Not that talking about .458 Lott isn't fun, but...)

LOOK at how the hit on the jug is different.

Also look at how the reaction of the dirt is different! I guess if you're hunting water jugs, the .510 is your answer; if you're hunting dirt, go .458!

BTW, the lower muzzle elevation with the .458 is a good thing, IMHO.

 

[Prosser]

Wapato:

The amount of energy transfered is perhaps the key. I suggest that as diameter increases, the ability to transfer energy increases geometrically. Also, the physical overall SIZE of the projectile, in 3 dimensions, also aids transfer. As a bullet goes through a target, it tends to wobble a bit. That wobble can create additional wound channel size, and, I suspect transfers energy as well
Also, when you start looking at energy figures, these big, heavy bullets are no joke:
.475 Linebaugh load:
Energy of 1,700 foot-pounds for a 420 grain bullet at 1350 fps.
.500JRH load:
Energy of 1,781 foot-pounds for a 440 grain bullet at 1350 fps.
.500 Linebaugh Maximum load:
Energy of 2,125 foot-pounds for a 525 grain bullet at 1350 fps.
Insane, pretty much unshootable load for my maximum:
Energy of 2,801 foot-pounds for a 525 grain bullet at 1550 fps.

To compare, the .357 Mag load that S@M think is the best for a stopper:
Energy of 506 foot-pounds for a 125 grain bullet at 1350 fps.
Or how about
380 Auto Standard Pressure Ammo 100 gr. Hardcast FN (975 fps/M.E. 211 ft. lbs.)
LH wanted to talk about?

How about 9MM?
9mm +P+ 124gr. FMJ-FN (1,300 fps/M.E. 465 ft. lbs.)
40 Plus P: 155 gr. (1,300 fps/M.E. 582 ft. lbs.)
45 ACP Plus P: .45 ACP +P Ammo - 185 gr. J.H.P. (1,150 fps/M.E. 543 ft. lbs.)

I'm having fun with this, so I'll throw in the
.458 Lott: Energy of 5,875 foot-pounds for a 500 grain bullet at 2300 fps.
and the .510 Van Horn:
Energy of 6,160 foot-pounds for a 600 grain bullet at 2150 fps.
Odd as this may seem, the .510 is considered in a whole different class from the .458 Lott. The difference between the .458's and the .510's is huge, as far as stopping power.

Another way to skin a cat:
Guy that has killed over 140 cape buffalo uses a 300 grain Barnes X bullet, at
2700 fps:
Energy of 4,857 foot-pounds for a 300 grain bullet at 2700 fps.
The petals blow off the Barnes X, creating extra projectiles, and the core of the bullet becomes a mushroomed wadcutter that penetrates clear and deep.
The guy is one of the best skeet shooters in the world, and, with this combination, he has a very flat, laser like, relatively little recoiling rifle, that hits like a .458 Lott.
I just had a serious epiphany about why these Barnes solids work so well. Since they are made from less dense materials the bullets overall size is larger then a same weight lead bullet.
Sure, it takes up powder space, but, the larger Brass, and copper alloy bullets have to be bigger overall then lead based bullets. The result is a larger surface area to transfer energy.

That explains why the 300 Grain .375 H&H hits so hard, with a Barnes X bullet, along with the fragmentation of the nose.

Now, I have to think about how that would work for the handgun calibers...Problem becomes loss of space for powder, and, I don't know how much with pistol bullets...

Time to email some experts.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Or how about
380 Auto Standard Pressure Ammo 100 gr. Hardcast FN (975 fps/M.E. 211 ft. lbs.)
LH wanted to talk about?

Well, the reality is that no matter how well they perform, the majority of folks aren't going to start carrying 420 gr .475 bullets in large revolvers for SD use.

As much as we may lament that.

I just had a serious epiphany about why these Barnes solids work so well.

Odd to call X's solids. To avoid confusing, I call them all-copper HPs; Hornady markets something similar out of gilding metal.

Usual "solids" are actually lead bullets with thick copper jackets. Barnes used to market non-HP monometal bullets that were called "monolithic solids."

And then there was the Speer African Grand Slam bullet, a solid with a tungsten core: heavier than lead, so you ended up with a shorter-than-standard bullet for a given weight. If you talk to anyone who used them, there is almost religious reverence for the effect on game those bullets had, and sad incomprehension regarding their discontinuation.

Given how well those "short" bullets worked, I'm not sure your "long bullet" theory has a lot of legs under it.

 

[357SIG]

LH, I offered you an article. It is by far a greater contribution than your posts have been so far. It is a good basis for further research by anyone here. I am not going to teach you the entire concept from scratch. How about offering something to back you claims? Quit playing stupid...like you don't know exactly what information I am asking you to provide...

Also, what does "pressure wave" theory have to do with electrical disruption of the nervous system? In the single article I posted, "pressure wave" is discussed, and the conclusion is that it is not strong enough to aid in wounding when using a low/med velocity round. There are certainly other resources that concur.

Since you are claiming proof, perhaps you would supply the proof. Seems odd to me that a longer wound track would be "insignificant" as you claim, especially since the FBI specifies a "minimum" penetration but not a maximum; one would think that a longer wound track has a better chance of striking a major vessel or other vital structure that a shorter one.

Oh come on. You certainly can figure out the context of my statement. Size = diameter. By my prior statements, you should certainly know how I feel about length of wound track. I feel you are intentionally taking things into a broader spectrum because it can be used to attack my credibility. For example, if I say "the body's response to a bullet wound is unpredictable," and we are discussing the differences in wounding between pistol rounds, it should be taken as such. Instead, you want to generalize the statement, making it untrue in many aspects. In the original context, it is true. Your responses are not the educated, moral way to have a discussion.

 

[Loosedhorse]

It is by far a greater contribution than your posts have been so far.

Well, we all have opinions. That you feel you have made some far greater contribution simply by "offering" me an article is no longer surprising, is it?

I am not going to teach you the entire concept from scratch

You know, I usually think everyone has something to teach me...

Also, what does "pressure wave" theory have to do with electrical disruption of the nervous system?

I give up: what?

You certainly can figure out the context of my statement

Yes, I can figure out the context: you claimed proof, and have none.

For example, if I say "the body's response to a bullet wound is unpredictable,"...

Ah. Don't hold you to what you actually say, but suppose that you must have meant something that while unstated is irrefutably true in its proper context. To be clear: I still do not know the context in which your statement "You...just...can't....predict...what...a...bullet...will...do...to...a...person....period" is true. I know in what context it was meant to be pedantic and condescending, however.

It is not the educated, moral way to have a discussion.

This, from someone who has seen fit to assume and proclaim my ignorance from the start, and asks me to ignore what he actually says. That is your "educated, moral" discussion? Thanks, but no thanks.

Now: if you have a specific question on some opinion I hold, instead of just unending general criticism and attitude, let me know.

 

[357SIG]

But wound track size is highly valued by all the law enforcement. You're acting like you're in the majority on that, but you're very much the exception. If you think you're right, please come at it from the perspective of having to share information.

I was an LEO before I went into the medical field. What LE agencies value the wound track size? In my experience, LEAs do not research the topic very well. Of the two large agencies I worked for, neither made a truly informed decision. They looked at gel testing, numbers, and made conclusions based on that, like most other agencies do. I am unaware of any agency that has taken evidence-based medicine into account, which includes street results. Also, there are many LEAs that have moved to a larger caliber, only to "downgrade" due to budget, training, hit percentages, etc. Even the FBI went back to the "inadequate" 9mm after dumping the 1076. Some agencies have issued 9mm forever, and have no intention of switching. I don't see them complaining about stopping power. European agencies have used the 9mm forever, and they seem to have no issues.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Sorry to re-iterate, but it is with the intention of moving forward. I previously posted (and got no bites):

For .380, would Buffalo Bore's 100 gr hardcast (reported 31" penetration!) or 80 gr Tac-XP (280 ft-lb energy dump and perhaps 11.5" of penetration) be a better choice?

And why. Show your work.

I simply use this a real-life example of questions that get asked about handgun load selection. What is the way (are the ways) to approach such a question?

Does that discussion inform caliber selection?

 

[357SIG]

Ah. Don't hold you to what you actually say, but suppose that you must have meant something that while unstated is irrefutably true in its proper context. To be clear: I still do not know the context in which your statement "You...just...can't....predict...what...a...bullet...will...do...to...a...person....period" is true. I know in what context it was meant to be pedantic and condescending, however.

I really don't know how you get by day-to-day if you can't figure this out. We were talking about the idea that a larger, more energetic pistol bullet will incapacitate someone faster than a smaller one. It is not always true, and depends on the specific circumstances and the specific person being shot. The context of the statement is that everyone will have a different reaction to being shot, ranging from almost no effect at all, to fight-stopping. All bodies are built differently; all react differently. This holds true if every single factor about the situation remains constant except the attacker.

 

[357SIG]

This whole hunting thing is not quite on the same level anyway. How can we compare an animal that is minding its own business to one savagely attacking someone? There is a whole different world of reactions occurring in a body when it is fighting, as opposed to one that is not expecting danger.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I really don't know how you get by day-to-day if you can't figure this out

No post from you, except that it begins with insult.

We were talking about the idea that a larger, more energetic pistol bullet will incapacitate someone faster than a smaller one. It is not always true, and depends on the specific circumstances and the specific person being shot.

And I have agreed with that (despite your refusal to teach me everything from scratch!). And I've also said that it is nevertheless still possible to predict, to forecast, bullet performance. Not with perfect accuracy, but within a range of probability. Just like all other predicitons.

I do not think that you mean to say that a .45 ACP is actually no more effective an SD round than a .22 CB, because for both rounds we can't predict exactly what they will do in every case. But that seems to be what you are saying

How can we compare an animal that is minding its own business to one savagely attacking someone?

Because some hunting rounds are specifically selected for their ability to stop charging, angry, dangerous game...

Or didn't you know that?

There are many ways in which hunting rounds do not resemble SD rounds; but I'm not sure that the "state of mind" of the attacker is the biggest diffence in the two scenarios.

 

[357SIG]

And I have agreed with that (despite your refusal to teach me everything from scratch!). And I've also said that it is nevertheless still possible to predict, to forecast, bullet performance. Not with perfect accuracy, but within a range of probability. Just like all other predicitons.

So you have a completely variable testing medium (body). No two test beds will ever be the same, nor will they react the same. Your test medium does not reliably react to any secondary effects produced by your rounds. Your test media bleed at different rates, have different tissue densities, and may be affected by external influences (drugs, alcohol). Your test media have different psychological responses to danger. You want to test for effectiveness these very similarly-performing bullets against these highly-variable media. Your bullets will have slight variance as well, because we all know that no two rounds will have the same velocity, etc. This is the type of variance you will see in a fully-controlled lab environment, and it's enough to ruin any experiment of the type. So, you get results that are all over the place due to variability, and you can't make a conclusion from them. Now take it to the street...

How does this make sense?

 

[Loosedhorse]

So...then you ARE saying that .45 ACP is just as effective as .22 Short? Or just that, given the variablility, there is just no way we can ever know which one is more effective?