Handgun Caliber Selection Insight

[Skribs]

Just because something isn't perfect doesn't make it useless. All three of those factors do play a part in what the bullet does. Just because my speedometer is off by 3 MPH doesn't mean I should ignore it completely...as I learned the hard way this weekend.

EDIT: 481, there are two definitions at play. One is to get the concept across. Not the entire story and formula, just the concept. The other is to give the formula. I'm not defining the "stopping power" of a 9mm with that definition. I'm just defining what it is, so that when units are assigned later, you understand what meaning those units convey. If you look at Webster, they are perfectly happy with one of the definitions for length being "a measured distance or dimension". That is specific enough to explain what it is, without specifying units.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I am beginning to have some grave doubts about some modern bullets.

Any opinion regarding the Barnes all-copper HPs (DPX, Tac-HP, Penetrator for handguns)?

 

[481]

Just because something isn't perfect doesn't make it useless. All three of those factors do play a part in what the bullet does. Just because my speedometer is off by 3 MPH doesn't mean I should ignore it completely...as I learned the hard way this weekend.

EDIT: 481, there are two definitions at play. One is to get the concept across. Not the entire story and formula, just the concept. The other is to give the formula. I'm not defining the "stopping power" of a 9mm with that definition. I'm just defining what it is, so that when units are assigned later, you understand what meaning those units convey. If you look at Webster, they are perfectly happy with one of the definitions for length being "a measured distance or dimension". That is specific enough to explain what it is, without specifying units.

That's probably a closer margin of error than is present in TKO and RSP.

Having handed out more citations for speed than I can keep track of over the years, I suspect that you were cited for being more than three mph over the limit, yes?

If you were cited for three mph or less over the limit, I'd call that a petty issuance and question just what the real purpose for such an issuance was.

Sure, but in the end you'll still be using dimensions until you reduce them to what amounts to a ratio (if you take the modulus route) as suggested by Wapato. They are still there though.

 

[Skribs]

I don't know how fast I was going (like I said, wasn't paying attention). I was more worried because it was my first time being pulled over since I started CCW and I've read some horror stories on here (i.e. cop pulling the gun out of the holster and sweeping the groin with the muzzle, returning the gun without the mag but with a round in the chamber).

Any rating system used right now is going to have a large margin for error, because of all the variables that simply changing the cartridge affects, and the fact that some variables have differing weights (i.e. penetration, below 12" it's generally considered not enough, above 18" I consider superfluous). That's not including differences in barrel length, weapon weight, platform (regarding magazine capacity), etc.

However, I think everyone has their own rating system for what caliber they choose. It might be based on OSS, TKO, $$ (i.e. 9mm is cheaper than .45), how much recoil they can handle, the fact that they inherited the gun so that's what they use, or a personal rating system they set up. I'm sure you have one, even if you don't realize it. Even if you flipped a coin...that was your rating system.

 

[481]

I don't know how fast I was going (like I said, wasn't paying attention). I was more worried because it was my first time being pulled over since I started CCW and I've read some horror stories on here (i.e. cop pulling the gun out of the holster and sweeping the groin with the muzzle, returning the gun without the mag but with a round in the chamber).

Well, if you are gonna fight the ticket don't use that ("like I said, wasn't paying attention") as your defense.

Any rating system used right now is going to have a large margin for error, because of all the variables that simply changing the cartridge affects, and the fact that some variables have differing weights (i.e. penetration, below 12" it's generally considered not enough, above 18" I consider superfluous). That's not including differences in barrel length, weapon weight, platform (regarding magazine capacity), etc.

Of course. It is an enormously complex problem.

However, I think everyone has their own rating system for what caliber they choose. It might be based on OSS, TKO, $$ (i.e. 9mm is cheaper than .45), how much recoil they can handle, the fact that they inherited the gun so that's what they use, or a personal rating system they set up. I'm sure you have one, even if you don't realize it. Even if you flipped a coin...that was your rating system.

I have one of sorts.

I use MacPherson's WTI Model to calculate the mass of the permanent wound cavity (Mw, converted to ounces) and the terminal penetration depth (Xcm, converted to inches).

I then divide Mw by Xcm to determine the amount of permanently crushed mass per unit of distance (ounces per inch) traversed by the round (the resulting ratio is kind of a "disruption factor" if you will) and prefer a penetration depth of 16 +/- 2 inches.

Here's an example:

Per MacPherson's WTI model-

A .45 230 gr. FMJRN at 850 fps penetrates to a depth of ~29.8 inches and has a disruption factor of 0.0666 ounces per inch.

A .45 230 gr. JHP at 850 fps that expands to 1.5x caliber (~0.677") penetrates to a depth of ~14.3 inches and has a disruption factor of 0.1532 ounces per inch. (~2.3x greater than the FMJRN)

See? Simple.

 

[Skribs]

Mine was a lot simpler. I just talked to myself and asked:
"Do I want a 9 or a .45?"
"I don't know."
".40 it is."

 

[481]

Mine was a lot simpler. I just talked to myself and asked:
"Do I want a 9 or a .45?"
"I don't know."
".40 it is."

Hey, if it works for you...

 

[Prosser]

I like nature for a model.

Stopping power is when the brown bear takes one paw swipe and takes the black bears head CLEAN off. THAT'S STOPPING POWER.

So, how about that for a definition? Or, we can PC it:
The Harry Callahan Stopping Power theory:
What percentage of the time will each caliber bullet combination take the bad guys' head off? Since we can all agree that if that is the standard, we can pick rounds based on that?
Grade each round on the % of time the head is removed. For instance, I could find only one round that actually did that, a .44 Magnum. Some guy was trying to fire a rifle he'd stolen from an Arizona DA, at the Arizona DA.
He was working on getting the safety off and chambering a round, as he pointed the gun at the DA. The DA was Dirty Fish, and had a .44 Magnum he carried in the woods(wonder why this shooting was never brought up in Fish's case?) He had it loaded with Glasser Safety slugs. They apparently have the ability to red mist. He fired. It WAS a one shot, Harry Callahan stop.

No, I think it should be clean off. It's simple. You guys want a bright line, for a complicated, impercise subject? There, I've got it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

"Do I want a 9 or a .45?"
"I don't know."
".40 it is."

To be fair, that isn't all you did.

You then got a .40 and some ammo, and made sure you could shoot it accurately and fairly fast ("I'll get better with practice--this year, I'm REALLY gonna practice!")--unless you had already done that before purchase.

If you didn't lke the recoil, maybe you adjusted the bullet weight down. You may have consulted data about penetration, expansion diameter (through various barriers as well as in bare gel), retained weight, etc. to the extent that such data were available. Maybe you even looked at M&S data, just for kicks.

Maybe you noted that your local PD is carrying the .40, or that the FBI is. Maybe you looked at the price for a box of 50 practice rounds (or the cost of a .40 die set), and the cost of a box of 20 premium SD loads, and decided you could handle that.

And then, having selected a carry load, you function tested it in YOUR gun. If so, then the calculus was a little more extended, if still straight-forward.

(My regrets if any of the thoughts or actions that I projected onto you in the above are objectionable! )

 

[Prosser]

I really think discussing this stuff online is perhaps the worst thing you can do, if the absurd situation occurs, and you have to use a gun. Best thing:
Be a girl, with a newborn, and hit the guy with a shotgun, after calling 911, and waiting over 20 minutes for LEO to respond.
Then get on national TV, and tell your story, with a lawyer telling you what to say, so that everyone on the planet KNOWS what happened, before the trial occurs, or not.

Did I do this? No, I have an old Mosin Nagant 44 with a bayonet, and ammo equal to the 30-06.
You don't even want to know what's under my pillow. Other then that, this lady played it perfectly.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Missed these.

On page 8, he discusses the various methods in which firearms "stop" the target.

Indeed he does:

In fact, physiological factors may actually play a relatively minor role in achieving rapid incapacitation...

Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso.

And yet we are suppose to ignore psychological stops, and concentrate only on physiological stops.

A taser does its job by disrupting the nervous system

Often. But we know there are cases where the Taser fails. Are there times when the Taser produces pain instead of "nervous systme disruption" and that pain produced a psychological stop? How would we know?

If a "solar plexus" effect or a remote CNS effect can at times happen from handgun round impacts--is that a psychological stop? Most "case reviewers" would mark it as such, unless the shot attacker was killed or severely crippled.

"I saw someone empty a clip with a .45 and he didn't hit the BG

Some people can't shoot the bigger calibers well. It matters. As I said, though, I'm not sure how we should take it into account--but people DO take it into account (in their own private calculus) when they select their SD caliber. Well, except for the guy in your fictional example, who maybe selected the .45 because it was "cool" and "penetrates well."

you still need to be able to compare 1 9mm to 1 .50 AE to then be able to compare 4 9mm to 1 .50 AE

I'd phrase it differently. You'd need to know the relative effectiveness of a 9mm (specific load) compared to a .50 (specific load), maybe to get a sense of how many good hits with that load it will take to stop the fight. Then, you'd want the probability that you can get one, or two, or etc. good hits rapidly. If .50 is a better stopper (it might be) but there's a very low probability it can be used to hit the target rapidly, not so good.

 

[357SIG]

Most people don't have a mental database of everything they've read.

But someone who has "given presentations" should remember something.

At least you did better with case studies.

The difference is I've seen these referenced well over 2 dozen times in different places over the years...they get committed to memory. With the rest, I have seen it once, twice, maybe 3 times total. I'm not a professional presenter, but have done a few presentations. Few and far between.

And some people win the lottery or beat the one armed bandit. That doesn't make either a good investment strategy.

It looks like you are making my point here. There is no "good investment" when it comes to common defensive pistol rounds.

Anyway, it's sort of like your bit with the .22 not being able to get through a cell phone. I think modern cartridge manufacturers desire to have rounds open up as much as possible and stop after 12 inches in bare gel and to entirely ignore the concept of deflection may mean a number of rounds are prone to deflect off of bone, may not penetrate sufficiently in an actually body, and may be not up to the task at all of shattering the spine after traveling some distance and having opened up.

Agreed. I think there is too much "over thinking" (on the part of engineers and end users) that is going into bullet design, caliber selection, etc. People are too focused on the math and physics behind the bullet's theoretical performance, and not focusing on the more important questions, such as:

• What causes a human body to stop functioning during an attack?
• What reallyhappens when a body is struck by low, medium, and high-velocity projectiles?
• How much engineering do we really need to accomplish this goal?

and so on...

The focus should be, first and foremost, what is required of a handgun to stop a body's function during a fight. Once that is determined, one can begin looking at the bullet itself. Unfortunately, it doesn't get much further, because once you understand what it takes to meet your goal (incapacitation), you realize there is no SD round that performs better than another in any given shooting.

Being an engineer, let me ask you a question or two. Would you design a machine part without having an understanding of the machine itself first (at least the parts that interact with yours)? Once you've determined what is necessary to meet your goal, would you over-engineer the part beyond the point of diminishing return (the point at which you gain nothing beneficial toward meeting your goal with the extra work)?

The debate is equivalent to the following fictional dialogue:
Guy 1: "We have a part that is more than strong enough to get the job done, and will last longer than the equipment itself. It will only fail under the most remote, extreme conditions, those beyond what the machine is designed to handle. These conditions occur only 1 out of every 1 million cases."
Guy 2: "We need to continue using our time and money to redesign the part so it is more streamlined and durable, because we need to cover every possibility of failure, regardless of probability of failure occurring. It will slow the machine down slightly, require more training by the user, and accelerate wear on the rest of the machine, but it's worth it in the long-run."

It doesn't make any sense, does it?

By the numbers, we can all agree that the .40, 357 SIG, .357 Mag, and .45 ACP are much more powerful than the 9mm. We can also see that there are different, inherent performance characteristics for each round. What we are failing to realize is that the 9mm is more than adequate to get the job done in almost every situation, equaling the others in street performance. In a remote, 1:1,000,000 situation, one might get a shot that would have failed to hit with a 9mm, but slightly knicked with a .45. One might even have to shoot through heavy external barriers, requiring the extra energy and mass of a larger round to remain effective and accurate beyond. So you choose the .45 ACP, a fine SD round. What do you lose, in order to gain that extra reliability? You have a larger weapon, one with reduced capacity (possibly requiring a reload at a bad time), you get more recoil (making muzzle flip higher, regardless of how any person tries to minimize it), and more expensive ammunition (reducing practice, for most people).

It is a personal decision, and I do NOT intend to insult someone's personal decision with my posts. I do not carry a 9mm 100% of the time, and like my variety as well as the next guy.

 

[45_auto]

It doesn't make any sense, does it?

It makes plenty of sense. As an engineer, you should realize that it all depends on the CONSEQUENCES of the failure.

A 1 in a million failure of a part in a nuclear power plant that could take out a city, or cause the loss of a multi-billion dollar spaceship that you've spent decades getting to Saturn or Jupiter is pretty much unacceptable to most people.

 

[357SIG]

That's true. It is a personal decision as to what a person feels is acceptable. No problem there. Some people will choose the round for what it is, and I choose to look at the overall picture.

I will take the fast follow-ups, lower recoil, greater accuracy under stress, and the higher capacity. I understand that accuracy diminishes under fight-or-flight, and the BG's body becomes enhanced by the same effect. It could very well take 5 or more rounds to get a good vital hit, and I want all the advantages I can to make that hit. Unfortunately, I lose the one rarely-used advantage of a larger caliber to gain the four practical, always useful advantages of the smaller one. Four is better than one, statistically.

 

[Skribs]

357SIG, there's a difference between the efficiency of a factory machine and something that might affect lives. For example, a while back a car company realized that a factory defect could potentially cause a fatal crash, but looked at it like this:
If we have to pay for lawsuits from the families of crash victims for the estimated number of crashes and a reasonable value to pay, it would cost less than doing a recall and fixing the part.

@ "4-is-better-than-1"...it depends on the degree to which those 4 affect you. I don't see the accuracy changing differently between a 9 and a .45, and David says the recoil/speed of follow-up shots isn't an issue with training. If you only fire 5-10 rounds, does it matter if you have 13 or 19? But then we have to decide what the actual difference is between the 9mm and .45 in terms of effectiveness on a single, well-placed shot.

HR was swamped with unhappy customers once word got out. If that 1:1M chance is the difference between life and death, it's not a difference of efficiency vs. "perfection", but deciding whether continuing is being thorough or paranoid.

LH, he does say that "except for the location of the wound and the amount of tissue destroyed, none of the factors are within the control of the Law Enforcement Officer." (Page 8). He also says that while most stops are psychological, psychological factors are also often a failure to stop. And then on page 9, "The human target can be reliably incapacitated by destroying the brain or the upper spinal cord". He's not saying psychological stops don't happen, but he is saying they are out of your control.

As to my selection...you're right. I did do enough research to make sure that the .40 would work for me. However, I had also decided 9 or .45 would work as well. Once I got to the point where I had to decide, that's how I made the decision between the three.

Be a girl, with a newborn, and hit the guy with a shotgun, after calling 911, and waiting over 20 minutes for LEO to respond.
Then get on national TV, and tell your story, with a lawyer telling you what to say, so that everyone on the planet KNOWS what happened, before the trial occurs, or not.

Which means I need a sex change, an adopted baby (which, I don't like babies), and I need to set up a situation in which I am attacked and bribe the local PD to show up late. On second thought, I think you replied to the wrong thread.

 

[Wapato]

The debate is equivalent to the following fictional dialogue:
Guy 1: "We have a part that is more than strong enough to get the job done, and will last longer than the equipment itself. It will only fail under the most remote, extreme conditions, those beyond what the machine is designed to handle. These conditions occur only 1 out of every 1 million cases."
Guy 2: "We need to continue using our time and money to redesign the part so it is more streamlined and durable, because we need to cover every possibility of failure, regardless of probability of failure occurring. It will slow the machine down slightly, require more training by the user, and accelerate wear on the rest of the machine, but it's worth it in the long-run."

The issue is that we are nowhere near this point. We are not firing Star Trek phasers or some other fictional weapon like that where you hit them once and they're a stain on the floor.

If you worked out some kind of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for self defense shootings I'm thinking the biggest risk comes from failure to achieve good shot placement.

And there seem to be endless threads on that as well.

But the second seems be failure of the bullet to cause incapacitation given good shot placement. I've yet to see anybody claiming that handguns are overkill. Rather the wisdom is that if you don't get a psycological stop, you will likely need multiple attempts even with good shot placement.

For example take the Deeb thing, since its the only morgue shots/X-ray example I've got on hand at the moment. Though since the officers survived further details are short, I wish I knew if the handgun rounds first had to pass through a couple of car doors or if some of the hits were at extreme angles or something.


Anyway it looks like he took a couple handgun rounds from the front, maybe early on before his lower body got shot up by .223. One of the handgun rounds apparently had great shot placement. If it was coming straight in it would have gone on to probably do serious damage to major arteries or veins if not shattering the upper spine. However it looks like it deflected off the top of his sternum and traveled up the front of his throat pretty harmlessly.

Another hit him in the waist region. It looks like it impacted, opened up nicely, and then came to rest when it reached the spine instead of breaking it. Granted a broken lower spine might not end a fight, though falling down with a broken spine would seem to give the attacker an opening at the least.

However, should one then expect similar behavior against the upper spine with potentially fight ending hits that instead do little or nothing?

you realize there is no SD round that performs better than another in any given shooting.

This is simply false and I think you agree on this matter. For example there are self defense loads made for .22s, .25 ACPs, .380s etc. Some of which have very low penetration depths in geletan due to trying to expand like their heavier and faster cousins.

However comparing them to the 9mm gives them the same "four to one" set of advantages that the 9mm has over the others.

There was also the frangible fad a while back which was based on some erronious thoughts on incapacitation.

This highlights the critical difference between "overthinking" and having an incorrect understanding.

I've got a bad feeling like maybe things are not better in all regards. Specifically I worrying that the modern 12" standard in defensive rounds means they are designed to fail. Specifically that many may be unable to damage the spine from frontal torso hits. I'm also concerned about the deflection issue.

That also highlights in a "calibre" discussion the particular bullet and load may be more important.

It is also much easier to change your defensive cartridge.

EDIT: You seriously can't remember any of the medical sources? Not even the name of an author or roughly what the title was? Really?

 

[Loosedhorse]

LH, he does say that...

I agree. I meant that to be summarized by my "And yet we are suppose to ignore psychological stops, and concentrate only on physiological stops." To me, ignoring them makes a lot of sense if "psychological stops" are a small minority of handgun stops, or if maximizing the factors that might increase the odds of a "psychological stop" (perhaps like large energy dump, as suggested on page 9) would necessarily eliminate the abiity to achieve a "physiological stop."

But I don't think either is true. Psychological stops (that is, the attacker quit for some other reason than blood-loss induced shock or CNS destruction) seem to account for most handgun stops; and some loads produce both good energy dump and good penetration.

A 1 in a million failure of a part in a nuclear power plant that could take out a city, or cause the loss of a multi-billion dollar spaceship that you've spent decades getting to Saturn or Jupiter is pretty much unacceptable to most people.

I mentioned before that "belief" is a consequence of factors besides data and logic; the "value judgment" attached to a failure is one such factor.

Because we are particularly horrified about the prospect of a nuclear power-plant accident, we will demand a much lower probability of accident from it (than from, for example, a Cheeze-Whiz factory) before we believe the plant is "safe enough." And of course, some will never believe it is safe enough.

 

[357SIG]

Well, obviously you can tell I'm no engineer. I'll stick to what I am good at, and that is trauma.

...you realize there is no SD round that performs better than another in any given shooting.

This is simply false and I think you agree on this matter. For example there are self defense loads made for .22s, .25 ACPs, .380s etc. Some of which have very low penetration depths in geletan due to trying to expand like their heavier and faster cousins.

It is most certainly NOT false. Shot-for-shot, these common SD rounds will create the same basic wound track, nearly the same degree of damage, and achieve roughly the same penetration. I'd like to see what evidence, not theory, you have to make such a statement. Do you have experience with gunshot wounds?

As I've already said, my posts involve common SD rounds, such as 9mm, .40, .45. I specifically mentioned the .22's shortcomings before (extreme loss of penetration, velocity, and energy). If the .22 could get the penetration at a decent velocity, it would create the same basic effect on a given vital organ as a .40 or .45, just slightly smaller.

Back to the point quoted with an example...a solid hit to the left ventricle with a 9mm will end the same way as a solid hit in the same spot with a larger round. Both will cause an instant arrhythmia and loss of heart function, among other things. The hole may be a different size, but both do the same thing. Similarly, hitting the spine at C2 with a 9mm will end the same as a hit there with a .45. See where I'm going? If shot placement is the only reliable method of stopping someone, then it really doesn't matter too much what round hits it. This is what is seen in real life around the world everyday, not on a computer screen or drawing board.

As a side note, spinal shots are extremely difficult, and I do not know why anyone trains to hit it. The vertebral bodies are about as wide as two fingers, with the vertebral foramen even smaller. Additionally, the rounded vertebral bodies are both durable and excellent at deflecting bullets. I've seen bullets, up to .45 caliber, deflected away from, or stopped short by the vertebral bodies. Most patients of this type experience loss of feeling and some paralysis or paresis, depending on what level of the spine is hit and the damage done to the spine itself. It is not necessarily a fight-stopper to hit the spine, and if hit at a level below certain anatomy, people will still have control of their arms or legs.

Might as well talk about orthopedic shots too...

You can break the femur at the head or neck, and a person can still walk on it. I saw a guy who spent a month hobbling around on his hurt leg, only to find out his hip was broken at the femoral neck. He never knew it. Same idea goes for arms, ribs, and the pelvic girdle...heck, really any bone. You can break them anywhere, and people can fight through it, especially when running on adrenaline.

 

[Skribs]

a solid hit to the left ventricle with a 9mm will end the same way as a solid hit in the same spot with a larger round

But how do you know that those not-quite-so-solid hits with the 9 couldn't be solid hits with the .45?

The .22 can achieve good penetration with a decent, hot-loaded FMJ round. I believe there are a couple different 40+ gr options for this purpose. However, you're not comparing .22 to .355 at that point, you're comparing .22 to a potential .60 (expanded).

I'd also like to point out that sometimes just a little bit more makes the difference. The proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back." Doesn't mean it would be easy to pinpoint in a caliber war...

 

[Prosser]

After reading your posts, you bring up a really good point, bullet deflection due to Hollow point bullets.

Someone who's forgot more then I'll ever know about this stuff said that even the .45 Colt, with 260 grain soft lead bullets, at 950-1100 fps, has problems with opening up too much, and deflecting off line. I hope that 275 grains, and way more velocity is sufficient, but, a 4" hole would give most a good reason to slow down, or stop.

I really wonder at this point if the entire hollow point thing is NOT a good idea.
If you are using a service round, all of them seem to have penetration limitations with the hollow points currently used. The bullet design makes sense, truncated flat point, but, when it opens up, it looses the straight penetration that is so vital to making shot placement count.

I'm really leaning towards what I already have: Either LFN's or flat points, in the lesser calibers, and heavy hollow points for the bigger calibers.

That said, there is something to be said for proven tools. 200 grains, 1200 fps, .452". etc.

 

[Wapato]

As I've already said, my posts involve common SD rounds, such as 9mm, .40, .45. I specifically mentioned the .22's shortcomings before (extreme loss of penetration, velocity, and energy). If the .22 could get the penetration at a decent velocity, it would create the same basic effect on a given vital organ as a .40 or .45, just slightly smaller.

First, they're still selling Glasers, and people are still buying them for self defense. Are you trying to say they produce the same wound track?

You've clearly made a number of choices regarding cartidge to get to what you feel is adiquate. What you're claiming, it seems, is that anything above whatever you feel is a proper 9mm load is overkill. You aren't getting any additional benifit.

And, again, a .22 (FMJ magnum) has plenty of penetration through flesh.

Similarly, hitting the spine at C2 with a 9mm will end the same as a hit there with a .45. See where I'm going?

I see where you're going, but it's the bullets path I'm more worried about. So take the C2 (if I understand spine terminology correctly, if C2 is located near your butt just try and work with me here). Anyway, so lets say a shooter has sent a bullet at an asailent facing him and it's on course to hit the spine at C2. However lets say to get there, it's going to have to plow through the lower jaw a little to the side of the chin. That's where I've got serious doubts about what the .22 is doing to do, and where I'm less comfortable with what other rounds may do.

Both will cause an instant arrhythmia and loss of heart function, among other things. The hole may be a different size, but both do the same thing.

If you go back a ways I showed a picture of the target I just happened to commonly use. That guy is facing straight on, but he's got a gun in front of him and his other hand up. I'd have to check against some anatomy book to make sure, but I think if you want left ventrical on him you're going to have to go through some hand bones and not deflect or lose too much velocity to punch through a rib if one of those is in the way.

Against a target in a weaver stance the heart has even more protection.

If shot placement is the only reliable method of stopping someone, then it really doesn't matter too much what round hits it. This is what is seen in real life around the world everyday, not on a computer screen or drawing board.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say not every gunshot victim was actually hit in the heart. I'd imagine arteries make up a fair portion of the short time frame icapacitation pie. That's where I'd imagine bullet width both increases the chance of getting something that will incapacitate in a short while, and that biggers holes would give the opponent fewer seconds to act.

As a side note, spinal shots are extremely difficult, and I do not know why anyone trains to hit it.

I don't think that anyone does train to hit it. However if you're firing center of mass you're firing roughly at it anyway, and even disabling the heart is still going to give a determined opponent time to empty their magazine in your direction, so it would seem very nice if the bullet could do serious damage to the spine if it should happen to contact it.

You can break the femur at the head or neck, and a person can still walk on it. I saw a guy who spent a month hobbling around on his hurt leg, only to find out his hip was broken at the femoral neck. He never knew it. Same idea goes for arms, ribs, and the pelvic girdle...heck, really any bone. You can break them anywhere, and people can fight through it, especially when running on adrenaline.

I didn't know about the walking thing. But yes to them being able to continue an attack. Now, if they're only armed with a melee weapon, if they can't walk than you have ended the fight.

And falling or having to switch hands would seem to give a little time before their next accurate shot.

This is where I really would like some studies. Regarding things like instances of bullets deflecting, fragmenting, or not, also under penetrating when on the way to something vital.

 

[Wapato]

Bah, we're typing while others are posting.

I really wonder at this point if the entire hollow point thing is NOT a good idea.
If you are using a service round, all of them seem to have penetration limitations with the hollow points currently used. The bullet design makes sense, truncated flat point, but, when it opens up, it looses the straight penetration that is so vital to making shot placement count.

It's a trade off. If your center of mass shot is going to wind up hunting for pulmonary arteries in the lung than the hollow point thing makes a lot of sense.

If you happen to pick up a pressure wave induced stunning effect hitting some vein that stops the fight instantly instead of them continuing to fight for another 30 seconds while their blood pressure drops, than it was very useful.

But if it opens up in someones pectoral muscle and deflects, fragments, or sticks in a rib and that makes it fail to reach the heart it's a bad bad deal.

That's where studies on the matter would be really nice for making a good choice.

 

[Prosser]

Actually it doesn't make sense. Giving up straight line penetration, and depth, for a much slower moving, wider parachute bullet makes sense only if you are making big bucks, selling the lead to gold bullets.

There are two ways to wound channel: the first is bullet expansion, the second is with a non-expanding bullet, meplat design, and velocity. Given an LFN .45 caliber bullet, at 1100 fps, I can create the same, or a bigger diameter wound channel all the way through the target, then using a HP, which expands, but also looses a tremendous amount of speed in the process. On top of that, the HP is much more likely to deflect, or stop, then a LFN.

There is also the issue of that deer and the 440 grain, .50 Caliber bullet at 1350 that hit it like was hit with a Buffalo round(it was). The velocity of such a heavy bullet is hard to stop, and, as it goes through the deer, it does damage just like what it is, a buffalo stopper.
Lesson: never pick a fight with someone that hunts buffalo, or carries a buffalo stopping 5 gun.

By the way, my friend hunts buffalo, and anything else huge that needs killing. He hit a beefalo, a particularly nasty one, with a 500 grain round nose bullet, at point blank range, at 2150 fps, out of a double rifle he built, .450 Nitro Express.
The good news is, yes, when you get hit with something like that, the shock is enough to remove the animal from it's feet. The bad news is it was a soft point, deflected, and missed anything vital. The very good news is the other barrel to the brain did penetrate, and the animal dropped.

His answer? .510 Van Horn, with 600 grain barnes solids that don't deform, at 2150 fps.

I can't help but wonder how many dead hunters there are that thought that soft point was going to work...

This seems to be a fairly consistent pattern with the few guys I know that hunt stuff like that. 30 years ago a young hunter had a similar experience with cape buffalo. He designed the .585 Nyati, pretty much a bolt action .600 Nitro express, so he would have an affordable rifle that was capable of really stopping cape buffalo, elephant, lion, whatever, using a solid bullet,that wasn't going to deflect.

 

[Skribs]

How are you getting a bigger wound out of a non-expanding bullet in a handgun round?

 

[Prosser]

More velocity. LOnger, larger diameter wound channel since the bullet doesn't slow down as much in the target. Think cone vs. cylinder.

You can use a lighter LFN bullet, get more velocity, straighter penetration, and higher velocity through the target, with a bigger wound channel

The failing with most service rounds is they fail to penetrate enough because the HP is too light, or they deflect, since the bullet is moving slowly, and is easier to take off line.