In this thread we carry pistols 40 (10mm) or larger caliber.

[ATLDave]

See post below:

 

[ATLDave]

If these points are correct, what are some advantages the larger caliber or more powerful loads in self-defense offer the shooter that are not addressed in this type of discussion?

Walt, I think the bullet point analysis offered is the standard Facklerite analysis... and I have questions about whether it is truly complete. It is based on the notion that only permanently-damaged tissue and blood loss contributes to reliable stops. This is not a surprising lens of understanding coming from someone with a surgical background - and that's exactly what Dr. Fackler had.

I have my doubts about whether this is reflective of the full reality of fights. You know what has ended a lot of fistfights? A punch to the solar plexus that knocks the wind out of that fighter. That is incapacitating. Temporarily, to be sure, but incapacitating. A surgeon examining that fighter a few minutes or hours later would find no permanent wound. He might be tempted to characterize the stop as "psychological." He would be wrong.

You know what else ends fights? Getting "choked out" by compression of the carotid artery. Again, most times a surgeon (like Dr. Fackler) would struggle to identify a permanent wound channel behind that incapacitation and might call it "psychological." It is not.

I have had the interesting and intensely unpleasant experience of having a surgically-implanted drain removed while I was conscious. The drain was in my lower abdomen. Its removal was not exactly painful, but it was extremely unpleasant. As it was pulled out (under clean procedure-room conditions by a highly-skilled surgeon), I could feel the drag of it through/along my innards. I was not wounded. No new tissue was crushed - the "wound channel" had been there for weeks. Bleeding was very minimal (in fact, no stitches or further repair/closure was necessary). I promise you, during the few seconds of that event and for half a minute thereafter, I was incapacitated.

I think Fackler's insights have been very valuable, and he greatly advanced the frontiers of terminal ballistics. I don't think he captured the totality of incapacitation by a long shot. He captured what could easily be measured and recorded by surgical examination hours or days afterward - because that was his primary method of investigation.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I think Fackler's insights have been very valuable, and he greatly advanced the frontiers of terminal ballistics. I don't think he captured the totality of incapacitation by a long shot. He captured what could easily be measured and recorded by surgical examination hours or days afterward - because that was his primary method of investigation.

Your points above are valid, but what they don't address is WHY more powerful or a larger caliber rounds remain the direction in which many shooters want to go.

If I were in the wilds of Alaska and likely to encounter a Grizzly I'd certainly prefer a 10mm handgun to a 9mm one, but I'd probably rely on something with a longer barrel and a more potent rifle round. You can't carry a long-gun concealed easily (or legally) in most venues so that's not an option for most of us in daily life.

Some attackers just stop the minute they see a gun or hear a round fired. Some stop as soon as they are hit even though the hit is not incapacitating. That said, I've read too many reports of guys hit center mass with multiple .45 or .357 Magnum rounds, and others, doped up, that just kept coming. The infamous FBI shootout in Miami is a case in point.

My son, a NCHP trooper, has been involved in a number of non-handgun altercations where using a stun guns, TASERS, and baton blows that would normally put a person down didn't get the job done.. Drugs can have unexpected effects on an attacker's behavior and resilience, and an experienced attacker, who been there and done that, reacts differently than one who hasn't.

I also participate on the S&W Forum, and there's a large contingent there who are true believers in the .357 SIG round. I've watched and briefly participated in those discussions. What is it about powerful loads and larger calibers in handguns that make them the sought-after weapons or rounds of choice for many shooters?

 

[ATLDave]

Some attackers just stop the minute they see a gun or hear a round fired. Some stop as soon as they are hit even though the hit is not incapacitating. That said, I've read too many reports of guys hit center mass with multiple .45 or .357 Magnum rounds, and others, doped up, that just kept coming. The infamous FBI shootout in Miami is a case in point.

No. That shootout is a case of 9mm and .38 special rounds not stopping the fight very quickly. Note that the first lesson the FBI drew from that incident was that they needed a more powerful round. They have subsequently reversed that thinking, but, no the Matix/Platt incident is not a case of larger-caliber/more-powerful handgun rounds failing.

Your points above are valid, but what they don't address is WHY more powerful or a larger caliber rounds remain the direction in which many shooters want to go.

My points above are about the distinction between permanent wounds and incapacitation. You can have one without the other, and vice versa. The 2,000 fps threshold you mention above is tossed around because that's around the speed most projectiles need in order to generate an amount of hydrostatic tissue stretch that will stretch most human tissue beyond its strength and result in permanent tearing. But projectiles below that speed can still generate temporary stretch cavities. It seems very reasonable to me that these cavities - temporary in the same way that a punch to the solar plexus is temporary or a concussion is temporary - will sometimes generate incapacitation. While there are certainly many stories of people fighting through torso (or even head) hits with pistol calibers, there are also plenty of times when people get hit and promptly fall down. Again, Flacklerites dismiss these as "psychological" stops, but I think that's not any more accurate than calling a gut-punch psychological.

See also the "ballistic pressure wave" theory: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf

All of this would suggest that additional energy generating additional tissue stretch (even if not beyond the "magic" threshold) would provide some additional likelihood of incapacitation, even in the absence of a CNS-intercepting hit or blood loss-driven loss of consciousness.

Is any of this right? I don't know. But, as I said, I have serious doubts about whether the Fackler analysis is complete. It seems to disregard everything a medical examiner can't find 3 hours after the gunfight ended. That doesn't square very well with a lot of real world experience.

 

[JR24]

...
Is any of this right? I don't know. But, as I said, I have serious doubts about whether the Fackler analysis is complete. It seems to disregard everything a medical examiner can't find 3 hours after the gunfight ended. That doesn't square very well with a lot of real world experience.

That's the problem. We have no idea what, if any, advantage larger or higher KE rounds actually have in regards to psychological stops. Physics tells us the larger rounds will have a greater effect, but is it significant in regards to quicker stops?

I have yet to see any actual evidence, largely due to the extremely variable nature (and relative rarity) of gunfights.

Me, I've come around to the "as many, as accurate, as fast as I can" philosophy, within the calibers that still penetrate and expand reliably.

So, mostly that's 9mm. But I, personally, feel fine carrying any major service caliber, though i tend to shoot 9mm and 45 best, for whatever reason.

 

[ATLDave]

JR24, that's basically the situation in a nutshell: We have stuff we can easily measure and quantify. We have stuff that is a little harder to measure. We have to decide whether to completely disregard the stuff that is harder to measure.

I have no objection to people deciding to leave out the harder-to-measure stuff from their calculus. Where I take issue is when they begin to argue that it does not exist simply because they haven't yet put a number on it.

As was discussed in a thread some time ago, better data-gathering on real-world gun uses would go a long way towards quantifying the degree of additional incapacitation probability offered by different calibers.

ETA: I also do not accept that all stops other than from permanent wounds are "pyschological." See my post above about solar plexus hits, cartoid artery choke-outs, and my experience on a procedure-room table. None of that is "psychology."

And if we further consider things like punches to the solar plexus, I think we can all agree that the harder the punch, the greater the likelihood of that wind-knocking phenomenon is. I think there's probably a lesson in that.

 

[JR24]

JR24, that's basically the situation in a nutshell: We have stuff we can easily measure and quantify. We have stuff that is a little harder to measure. We have to decide whether to completely disregard the stuff that is harder to measure.

I have no objection to people deciding to leave out the harder-to-measure stuff from their calculus. Where I take issue is when they begin to argue that it does not exist simply because they haven't yet put a number on it.

As was discussed in a thread some time ago, better data-gathering on real-world gun uses would go a long way towards quantifying the degree of additional incapacitation probability offered by different calibers.

ETA: I also do not accept that all stops other than from permanent wounds are "pyschological." See my post above about solar plexus hits, cartoid artery choke-outs, and my experience on a procedure-room table. None of that is "psychology."

And if we further consider things like punches to the solar plexus, I think we can all agree that the harder the punch, the greater the likelihood of that wind-knocking phenomenon is. I think there's probably a lesson in that.

I dont disagree with any of this.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Some attackers just stop the minute they see a gun or hear a round fired. Some stop as soon as they are hit even though the hit is not incapacitating. That said, I've read too many reports of guys hit center mass with multiple .45 or .357 Magnum rounds, and others, doped up, that just kept coming. The infamous FBI shootout in Miami is a case in point.

No. That shootout is a case of 9mm and .38 special rounds not stopping the fight very quickly. Note that the first lesson the FBI drew from that incident was that they needed a more powerful round. They have subsequently reversed that thinking, but, no the Matix/Platt incident is not a case of larger-caliber/more-powerful handgun rounds failing.

Actually, the FBI Miami shootout was NOT necessarily the case of 9mm and .38 special rounds not doing the job they were supposed to do. It was, arguably, the case of the shooters not being able to get any Central Nervous System hits. Placement not caliber was the real issue.

As the fight came to a close, Matix had already been hit with at least 4 times, and he then was hit by the two CNS shots fired by Agent Mireles from his .357 S&W 686 revolver at close range. Platt had been hit 11 times, when Mireles finally got him with a CNS hit with the last round in his S&W 686, again at very close range. According to another review of the shootout (available somewhere on line) Both Matix and Platt would likely have died from shock and internal bleeding pretty quickly if they not been stopped by Mireles' CNS shots.

The FBI attributed the outcome to the insufficient stopping power of the guns used, but in retrospect that might NOT have been the case. About the only time any handgun has REAL stopping power is when shots hit an attacker's central nervous system -- and THAT is what finally stopped both Matix and Platt.

The FBI's after-action analysis and the FBI's subsequent move to 10mm handguns may have been an attempt to explain away their inability to stop the bad guys by blaming the guns used. I don't think an explanation was really needed. Personally, I think FBI's less-than-optimal outcome in the shootout was due to the fog of battle, to the fact that sometimes even the best shooters just can't get a good shot, and to the fact that sometimes "SH#T HAPPENS." They really needed .223 rifles (like Platt was using) and appropriate body armor.)

I don't think we can automatically assume that had the FBI been using 10mm semi-autos, for example, the outcome would have been greatly different.

 

[ATLDave]

I have never seen any evidence that the majority of gunfights are ended by CNS hits. The idea that a CNS hit is the only good strategy is.... not realistic.

Of course, if one opts for a small enough caliber, it may well be that a CNS hit is effectively required.

But you’re now doing what I think is nonsensical: pretending that incapacitation mechanisms other than permanent wound tract is NONEXISTENT just because it is harder to quantify using current data.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Nonsensical? Show me where I claimed that the majority of gunfights are ended by CNS hits.

I also idn't pretend or even claim that many are ended that way. Nor did I argue that there are or aren't incapacitation mechanism other than permanent wound tracts. Many gun fights (or attacks) end after a single shot is fired. Some stop after the first round is landed. In those cases the caliber or load used are probably irrelevant. Other fights continue with many rounds exchanged. And the good guys aren't always the winners.

My point was that CNS hits are how (civilian) SELF DEFENSE gunfights are quickly ended, and in a self-defense shootout, that's the objective. Stop the attacker quickly before he or she stops you.

In the Miami shootout, the FBI agents didn't have the firepower they needed to deal with Platt who was armed with a .223. His vehicle functioned a bit like body armor. When shootouts are not stopped quickly, you can end up with something like the Miami shootout. Platt had been hit 11 times before he was finally put out of action by a CNS shot from a .357 Magnum. Shot placement killed him, not a hotter .38 round. He would likely have died within the next 5-10 minutes without that final shot, but two FBI agents had already been killed by .223 rounds from his rifle. Earlier in the fight, he used that .223 to badly wound the FBI Agent who finally got him.

Do you really believe that 10mm (or .45 cal) shots rather 9mm or .38 special shots would have led to a different outcome in the Miami shootout? None of the shots landed were well placed and I can't think of any reason to think their aim would have been better with a 10mm gun.. If you believe the outcome would have been better, you are making an assumption that may be correct, but doing so without any real-world results or evidence. (And, as I noted earlier, 10mm and .40 rounds are the same size, and if they penetrate 12"-13", the results are likely to be the same. Ditto 9mm and .357 SIG rounds.

We can agree that a gun fight's end can depend as much psychology as physiology, but other unpredictable variables can affect outcomes, too. (That's what I meant by the Fog of Battle.) We can agree that there are too many variables affecting the outcome of a gun fight to make simple predictions. But it's pretty clear that far too many folks who are hit multiple times (even with center mass hits using powerful rounds) continue the fight and continue to do damage until they're finally brought down.

 

[ATLDave]

Nonsensical? Show me where I claimed that the majority of gunfights are ended by CNS hits.... My point was that CNS hits are how (civilian) SELF DEFENSE gunfights are quickly ended, and in a self-defense shootout, that's the objective. Stop the attacker quickly before he or she stops you.

Walt, I feel like we're going in circles. A CNS hit is surely a reliable fight stopper... and extremely difficult to deliver in the context of most gunfights. If there are other incapacitation mechanisms, then increasing the chances of those seems like a good thing to me. That non-gun fights are routinely ended/altered by such mechanisms seems very strong evidence to me that they exist, even if we are presently not able to quantify them with great precision.

But it's pretty clear that far too many folks who are hit multiple times (even with center mass hits using powerful rounds) continue the fight and continue to do damage until they're finally brought down.

And it's also clear that there are many instances of people falling down/sitting down very promptly upon being hit, even in the absence of something that a strong view Facklerite (as you seem to be) would predict to be instantly disabling.

Saying that those don't matter because there are times when that result doesn't obtain is like saying that all baseball hitters are equally bereft of power because there are times when Mike Stanton fails to hit a home run. Instead, the situation is that we are currently not tracking those stats in a reliable manner, and so the difference in power between Mike Stanton and his teammate Evan Longoria (who also hits some home runs, just not nearly as many this year) is not readily apparent.

Do you really believe that 10mm (or .45 cal) shots rather 9mm or .38 special shots would have led to a different outcome in the Miami shootout?

I don't know for sure, but the FBI drew the conclusion that the likelihood of a better outcome would have been higher. We're talking probabilistic assessments here, not certainties.

If someone gets punched in the gut by 1980's Mike Tyson, will that cause them to be rendered ineffective/incapacitated for several seconds? Maybe. Are the probabilities the same if I (a middle-aged man of ordinary strength) am the one doing the punching? No. Neither puncher is a 0%, neither puncher is a 100%. The fact that it is difficult to precisely quantify these differences does not make the differences inconsequential. Is that a bigger difference than between the likelihood of non-CNS incapacitation via 9mm and 10mm? Sure. I'm obviously picking a somewhat exaggerated example to illustrate the point.

As I wrote in response to JR24, I have no objection to someone deciding that the lack of quantification leaves them feeling unwilling to attach any weight to the factor in their personal decision making, particularly if giving weight to it would come at the expense of some other well-quantified factor (such as ability to shoot well, or capacity). That's fine and reasonable. What is nonsensical is insisting that, because of the lack of quantification, there is no difference at all.

 

[pblanc]

During the FBI Miami-Dade shootout, Special Agent Jerry Dove was armed with a Smith and Wesson model 459 9 mm pistol. The stolen car driven by William Matix was pinned in place between a tree and a parked car by two of the cars driven by FBI agents. After Matix was taken out of the fight by two hits to the head and neck, and one to the forearm, Micheal Platt abandoned the pinned vehicle. Since he could not open the door because the vehicle had been rammed close to a parked car on the passenger side, he scrambled out the passenger side window and over the hood of the adjacent parked car. As he did so, his right flank was exposed and Jerry Dove got off a shot that completely penetrated Platt's right upper arm, entered his chest collapsing his right lung, and stopped one inch shy of his heart.

This hit from a 9 mm Luger pistol has sometimes been referred to as the "million dollar shot". The Director of the FBI proposed that a somewhat more powerful cartridge would have penetrated Platt's heart ending the fight sooner before he had a chance to kill agents Grogan and Dove.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Saying that those don't matter because there are times when that result doesn't obtain is like saying that all baseball hitters are equally bereft of power because there are times when Mike Stanton fails to hit a home run. Instead, the situation is that we are currently not tracking those stats in a reliable manner, and so the difference in power between Mike Stanton and his teammate Evan Longoria (who also hits some home runs, just not nearly as many this year) is not readily apparent.

But I didn't say "those don't matter." I didn't make any claims about what works better. What I'm saying is that some folks, maybe including you, seem to be making inferences or judgments based on facts not in evidence.

In the tests I've seen comparing different rounds, loads, and calibers, rounds that penetrate 12" - 18" are available in 9mm, .40., 357 SIG, and a few in 10mm. Most experts say that overpenetration has consequences that aren't wanted (and rounds that overpenetrate should be avoided). If you've been wise and selective in your choices, most good self-defense rounds don't really perform all that differently regardless of caliber -- at least in ballistic gelatin. The results are quite similar.

Does a .40 round that penetrates 12"-18" offer different results than a 10mm round that penetrates the same distance? How about a 9mm or a .357 SIG round that penetrate the same distance. You seem to be saying that because CNS shots are NOT guaranteed, something else must matter. What makes up that something else?

Do 9mm roundsand .45 round s that penetrates the same distances but don't hit the CNS or bone structures (that debilitates the target) really have a different effect on the target? If so, show us some data to support that claim. You continue to attack claims I didn't make, but you're not offering any counter claims that really address round performance or results.

Are larger caliber rounds always more effective than smaller calibers, and are more-potent loads always more effective than less potent loads? I know the folks shooting the hotter rounds feel better equipped because of their choice of weapons and caliber, but are their results different or better? I'd argue that the evidence isn't there, yet. That doesn't mean they AREN'T more effective, but those making claims to that effect are asking everyone to accept their claims based on faith, not facts.

The performance of all handgun self-defense rounds have improved dramatically in the past 30 years -- and citing the FBI's argument from 1986 is probably no longer relevant. (I'm not sure it was relevant in 1986, as it might have been more an effort to explain away the loss of two agent, and blaming the weapons or rounds used was easier that trying to explain a tough situation to a audience looking for a simpler answer.)

The ballistic performance of many current self defense rounds -- no 10mm rounds included, sadly -- is shown in this recent web post from lucky gunner and quite a few commercial rounds offer impressive results. Just skip to near the bottom of this long where a bunch of tables are shown for a wide variety of ammos in 9, .40, and 45. https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

And anyone who hasn't looked at Ellifritz's An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power should do so, as it's worth the time. Almost all handgun rounds except 10mm are included in his results. Apparently there aren't enough 10mm handguns used in self-defense situations to make the list. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

Here's an interesting chart from the Ellifritz study. It shows that .380 and .38 Special actually might be more effective than .45 ACP. These are facts in evidence, not opinions or decisions based on assumptions. Even the lowly .22 does surprisingly well. (Of course, its very likely that be the situations aren't the same, and that those using a .40 or .45 are facing a tougher attacker, etc. We don't know the details, but there are results to be seen.)



I'm one of those folks who feels that ballistic gel isn't a real measure of actual round effectiveness, but until folks develop something better that isn't outrageously expensive, its about all we can point to. (There were some TV shows about Warriors some years back that used ballistic gel, bones, lungs, and simulated torsos along with embedded sensors that measured the force of the blows (from swords, axes, handgun or rifle rounds) to measure the comparative effectiveness of different weapons on a human torso. I wish that approach was more economical.

 

[ATLDave]

Walt, you keep baking your result into the way you are asking the question. You keep assuming that the strong-Facklerite model captures all the kinds of efficacy. Penetration is critical... I doubt it's all that there is.

That temporary cavity that gets dismissed as being too-small to permanently tear tissue is still a big old void being expanded and then contracted inside someone. Does that always incapacitate? No. Does that never incapacitate... I am highly doubtful. Higher energy rounds tend to generate larger temporary cavities.

If you're looking for the precise measurement of how much extra efficacy you get from that, I don't have that data. If you want to conclude from that absence of quantification that there is no additional efficacy... well, I evidently cannot persuade you to a different view.

 

[Armored farmer]

My personal experience with killing deer is bigger holes are better.
No real data to back it up. Just my experiences.
here's my 45acp 1911.

 

[CDW4ME]

In the tests I've seen comparing different rounds, loads, and calibers, rounds that penetrate 12" - 18" are available in 9mm, .40., 357 SIG, and a few in 10mm. Most experts say that overpenetration has consequences that aren't wanted (and rounds that overpenetrate should be avoided). If you've been wise and selective in your choices, most good self-defense rounds don't really perform all that differently regardless of caliber -- at least in ballistic gelatin. The results are quite similar.

Does a .40 round that penetrates 12"-18" offer different results than a 10mm round that penetrates the same distance? How about a 9mm or a .357 SIG round that penetrate the same distance. You seem to be saying that because CNS shots are NOT guaranteed, something else must matter. What makes up that something else?.

Walt, (full disclosure)
My wife carries 9mm and I like 357 Sig, so 9mm is okay by me; however, problem is... 380 is same diameter as 9mm.
In a "In this thread we strive to carry 9mm or larger" - a savvy 380 carrier may want to be let in the "party" based on diameter.
380 from a pocket pistol like LCP makes less than half power of 9mm from a pocket pistol like CM/PM9 -9mm
Very few 380 loads penetrate 12-18'' and consistently expand, exclusive club.
Its not that 9mm is insufficient, having 40 diameter stipulation excludes 380 - which for me is not a primary or even secondary carry caliber.

 

[pblanc]

I have some experience with gunshot wounds having seen and treated a good many, and been involved in emergency surgery on more than a few, either as assistant or primary surgeon. Understand that a surgeon's perspective on gunshot wounds might be somewhat biased because we don't operate on dead people.

This is what I personally believe based on my experiences. I cannot prove most of these beliefs.

There are certainly mechanisms of immediate incapacitation that do not involve a hit to the central nervous system and I have seen a number of them. A gunshot wound to the head that does not penetrate may render an individual unconscious. I suppose some would consider this a CNS hit. A head wound that causes a large amount of bleeding from the scalp can temporarily blind an attacker. A penetrating neck wound that does not hit the CNS but perforates the larynx or trachea as well as a major neck vessel can quickly flood the airway with blood. This will very rapidly incapacitate even a determined attacker. A gunshot wound that causes serious damage to the dominant upper extremity of an attacker can be functionally incapacitating. An attacker with a weapon other than a firearm might be taken out of the fight by a shot that shatters bone in the pelvis or knee.

I do believe that given identical shot placement and trajectory at impact and identical penetration, that projectiles with a larger expanded diameter are at least slightly more likely to result in early or immediate incapacitation. I have personally seen gunshot wounds in which a projectile damaged the adventia and media of a major vessel like a pulmonary artery or the thoracic aorta but did not quite penetrate to the lumen. It is logical to assume that a slightly larger projectile might have had a very significantly different result. Much has been made of the fact (largely true) that trauma surgeons are often unable to distinguish a difference in the damage caused by different handgun calibers. This is largely irrelevant, however. Projectiles penetrating soft tissues do not drill out neat holes like a carbide bit going through a metal plate. You can't pick up a caliper and measure the diameter of the hole. Most human tissues are elastic, so that tissues are displaced temporarily and then recoil to a variable degree. Sometimes entrance wounds from a smaller projectile are round and those from a larger projectile are slit-like. Bullet tracks are typically also distorted by hematomas. The differences in projectile caliber between the common handgun self-defense cartridges are not great enough to make an obvious difference in the operating room. But you can tell when something has been hit and when it has been barely missed by a projectile.

There is never going to be a study that will demonstrate an effect of a small difference in projectile diameter on lethality or immediate incapacitation. All of the data available is retrospective and completely uncontrolled. Trying to pick out the effect of a small difference in projectile diameter from amidst a huge number of variables that have far greater effect is trying to pick out a small but significant difference from an enormous amount of noise. In order to demonstrate such an effect, a study would have to be prospective and control for all other variables including shot placement, trajectory at impact, anatomical differences and physiological differences as well as the clothing worn by the victim, and the range at which the victim was shot. This would require assembling a number of "volunteers" each of which would need to be shot in exactly the same location at the same range and large numbers would need to be shot with each caliber to filter out the effect of the extraneous variables.

Ballistic gelatin is a convenient means of comparing penetration and expansion of different projectiles but it is a poor representation of human or animal tissues. Ballistic gelatin has no collagen or elastin fibers to hold it together or provide elasticity. Soft tissues do not fragment like they often do in the secondary wound channels of ballistic gel. And ballistic gel is homogenous. Human tissues have very different densities and respond to penetrating injuries in very different ways. Brain tissue has a loose structure with little holding it together. Hepatic and splenic tissue is somewhat similar. Muscle tissue probably most closely resembles ballistic gel, but even muscle tissues are invested in sheets of tough tissue called fascia which is much denser and stronger. Skin is much tougher than muscle tissue when it comes to penetration and subcutaneous tissue is much less dense. Most lung tissue is much less dense than other tissues. And of course, bone is much denser than all the rest. Even if a projectile traverses nothing but "soft" tissues it will encounter structures of very different densities: skin - subcutaneous fat - muscle fascia - muscle tissue - more muscle fascia - more muscle tissue - muscle fascia again - subcutanous tissue - skin. As the projectile encounters each boundary between structures of different density there is a tendency for it to change its course and when encountering tissues of greater density the rate at which it is slowing down increases. Projectiles with greater momentum tend to maintain their trajectory better and slow down less at these interfaces. These differences are not demonstrated in homogenous ballistic gelatin at all. A projectile with less momentum may appear to do much better in gelatin than it actual would do in human tissue.

Regarding the issue of whether or not there is an incapacitating effect of handgun projectiles that results from greater kinetic energy at impact and is completely independent of penetration and expansion, I can't say. I have heard accounts from quite a few small game hunters that animals shot with higher kinetic energy projectiles show more tissue damage and/or "go down faster". I will concede that there could be temporary physiologic effects contributing to some sense of "shock" that is not apparent at autopsy or in the operating room. But I have yet to see anything I would consider to be proof. And if high kinetic energy does have such effects, I have a hard time reconciling that with some of the high velocity rifle wounds I have seen. It is now pretty well known that if FMJ 5.56x45 rounds do not yaw, tumble, or fragment that they can produce ice-pick like wounds in soft tissue, and I have seen this in the operating room. Army Rangers at the Battle of Mogadishu frequently observed that their rounds appeared to be going right through the skinny Somalis without having any observable effect because the tissue path was so short the rounds did not tumble or break apart at the cannulature. Yet these rounds have much greater kinetic energy than any handgun round. If kinetic energy had some type of occult incapacitating effect, shouldn't it have made itself apparent in those cases?

A couple of other personal observations. When it comes to handgun wounds the most impressive damage I have personally seen was with 357 Magnum wounds that struck bone. The most damaging long gun wounds that I have seen by far were close range shots with 12 gauge buckshot, much worse than AK or AR single shot wounds at similar range.

 

[ATLDave]

Army Rangers at the Battle of Mogadishu frequently observed that their rounds appeared to be going right through the skinny Somalis without having any observable effect because the tissue path was so short the rounds did not tumble or break apart at the cannulature. Yet these rounds have much greater kinetic energy than any handgun round. If kinetic energy had some type of occult incapacitating effect, shouldn't it have made itself apparent in those cases?

Great post. In response to this particular question, bullet construction has a great deal to do with how energy and/or momentum are transferred to tissue. This is why hunting bullets typically have soft tips or hollow points or wide meplats... unlike the FMJ used there.

 

[JR24]

I have seen. It is now pretty well known that if FMJ 5.56x45 rounds do not yaw, tumble, or fragment that they can produce ice-pick like wounds in soft tissue, and I have seen this in the operating room. Army Rangers at the Battle of Mogadishu frequently observed that their rounds appeared to be going right through the skinny Somalis without having any observable effect because the tissue path was so short the rounds did not tumble or break apart at the cannulature. Yet these rounds have much greater kinetic energy than any handgun round. If kinetic energy had some type of occult incapacitating effect, shouldn't it have made itse

This is a good point that I hadn't considered, specifically. But I am in the camp of KE is mostly useful in the resultant penetration/expansion instead of some third nebulous advantage based solely on the KE.

 

[ATLDave]

But I am in the camp of KE is mostly useful in the resultant penetration/expansion instead of some third nebulous advantage based solely on the KE.

Except that, in fluid and at handgun velocities, it often seems that momentum, rather than KE, is more predictive of penetration (along with sectional density).

 

[JR24]

Except that, in fluid and at handgun velocities, it often seems that momentum, rather than KE, is more predictive of penetration (along with sectional density).

Evidence?

 

[ATLDave]

Oh, there's lots of that. Check with the revolver hunting guys. Max P and Craig C have posted and written about it extensively.

KE seems to largely generate cavities at X depth, where X is determined by a variety of things, with bullet construction as well as velocity playing a big role.

 

[pblanc]

I agree that when it comes to penetration sectional density, projectile momentum, and meplat are the primary determinants, at least for non-expanding projectiles.

 

[JR24]

Oh, there's lots of that. Check with the revolver hunting guys. Max P and Craig C have posted and written about it extensively.

KE seems to largely generate cavities at X depth, where X is determined by a variety of things, with bullet construction as well as velocity playing a big role.

Thanks for the tip, I suspected such, especially with my experience with hunting. Was just wondering if there was a consolidated knowledgebase available.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Walt, you keep baking your result into the way you are asking the question. You keep assuming that the strong-Facklerite model captures all the kinds of efficacy. Penetration is critical... I doubt it's all that there

Again, you're arguing against a point I've not made, and reading between lines I didn't key into this forum input screen.

Like you, I also doubt that it's all that there is. And have never said otherwise. I'm not as big fan of Fackler's work as you think, if for no other reason that much of it was based on wounds from military battles -- and mostly on the examination of the bodies of those killed in battle. Not much attention was paid to those who survived -- if for no other reason that you can't act like a pathologist or someone doing an autopsy with live patients. I'm pretty sure, however, that something almost as invasive is done to the patient when repairing wound damage.

That temporary cavity that gets dismissed as being too-small to permanently tear tissue is still a big old void being expanded and then contracted inside someone. Does that always incapacitate? No. Does that never incapacitate... I am highly doubtful.

Where did I ever say that temporary wound cavities are too small to permanently tear tissue? A would channel, by definition, tears tissue. I just said that in many cases, that with handgun-induced temporary wound cavities, many of them seem to have almost no immediate effect on the person who suffers from them,and that they don't necessarily bringthe battle to an end, or even speed it up a bit. If your objective is to stop the fight quickly, they aren't always your ally.

As I noted, Platt was hit eleven times before he was finally stopped. A couple of those shots were deep wounds. He wasn't knocked out of the fight. Others less resolute (or less nuts) than Platt might've given up.

Higher energy rounds tend to generate larger temporary cavities.

How do higher energy wounds generate larger temporary wound cavities? And how do you know this? From ballistic gelatin results?

As others have noted ballistic gelatin is not a perfect simulation of human tissue. I don't doubt that larger caliber rounds can cause larger temporary wound cavities -- but again, it's WHERE these wound channels occur that matters most if you want to bring the conflict to an end quickly. As pblanc notes toward the end of his response (#42 above), that claim seems to make sense, but there's not a lot of evidence to support it. To claim that higher energy's role is substantial must remain an article of faith until someone or some process offers evidence to support the claim. In pblanc's words:

I will concede that there could be temporary physiologic effects contributing to some sense of "shock" that is not apparent at autopsy or in the operating room. But I have yet to see anything I would consider to be proof. And if high kinetic energy does have such effects, I have a hard time reconciling that with some of the high velocity rifle wounds I have seen. It is now pretty well known that if FMJ 5.56x45 rounds do not yaw, tumble, or fragment that they can produce ice-pick like wounds in soft tissue, and I have seen this in the operating room. Army Rangers at the Battle of Mogadishu frequently observed that their rounds appeared to be going right through the skinny Somalis without having any observable effect because the tissue path was so short the rounds did not tumble or break apart at the cannulature. Yet these rounds have much greater kinetic energy than any handgun round. If kinetic energy had some type of occult incapacitating effect, shouldn't it have made itself apparent in those cases?​

As for temporary wound cavities being dismissed -- they're a bit like CNS hits, in that PLACEMENT is everything. They matter most when they're near something that causes or leads to incapacitation. A large wound cavity can lead to more bleeding, but bleeding alone is always quick enough that you can count on it to stop the fight before YOU are also stopped.. As pblanc notes above, other things can certainly cause the fight to end quickly -- concussion, a shot to the pelvis breaking the structure -- but its hard to plan such shots. It may be as much luck as anything. And, while larger wound hannel might speed the process, they don't automatically stop the process. None of the other (non-CNS damage) is necessarily related to load, caliber, energy transfer, or bullet velocity. A lung shot may eventually stop the fight, but NOT BEFORE the other party stops you. In a self defense situation you need to get as many shots off as many well-aimed shot as quickly if you want to be the one able to stand when it's all over.

If you're looking for the precise measurement of how much extra efficacy you get from that, I don't have that data. If you want to conclude from that absence of quantification that there is no additional efficacy. well, I evidently cannot persuade you to a different view.

I'm not looking for precise measurement of how much extra efficacy you get for larger wound channels or more forceful loads. I'm just looking for SOMETHING that doesn't require us to accept on faith alone the points you hold to be true and want others to accept as true, as well. As I've said before you may be right -- but until I see more than claims presented without supporting evidence I'll remain an agnostic on this topic. I don't say you're wrong, but I do say we also don't know you're right.