Street reputation of various handgun loads?

[sgt127]

Pretend he is charging at you with a machete. Pretend that your absolutely perfect, 124 gr. 9mm hollow point, that meets all the requirements of the FBI protocol and, penetrates 14-17” in calibrated ballistic gel, is what you really want.

He’s not ballistic gel. He didn’t read the performance figures for that $2.00 a round bonded, striated, absolutely perfectly designed, to meet FBI standards, 9mm bullet.

His neck is bigger than my thighs.

I’ll take a .357 Magnum Hard Cast 158 gr Flat point. Thanks.

 

[481]

View attachment 1170125

Pretend he is charging at you with a machete. Pretend that your absolutely perfect, 124 gr. 9mm hollow point, that meets all the requirements of the FBI protocol and, penetrates 14-17” in calibrated ballistic gel, is what you really want.

He’s not ballistic gel. He didn’t read the performance figures for that $2.00 a round bonded, striated, absolutely perfectly designed, to meet FBI standards, 9mm bullet.

His neck is bigger than my thighs.

I’ll take a .357 Magnum Hard Cast 158 gr Flat point. Thanks.

There's no guarantee that either choice (a 9mm 124-grain JHP or a .357 Magnum 158-grain hard cast flat point) will produce a more desirable result than the other. To state so ignores the importance of shot placement, not to mention the numerous other factors (mental, physiological, etc.) that will undoubtedly play a part, in any shooting involving a human being.

 

[trackskippy]

View attachment 1170125

Pretend he is charging at you with a machete. Pretend that your absolutely perfect, 124 gr. 9mm hollow point, that meets all the requirements of the FBI protocol and, penetrates 14-17” in calibrated ballistic gel, is what you really want.

He’s not ballistic gel. He didn’t read the performance figures for that $2.00 a round bonded, striated, absolutely perfectly designed, to meet FBI standards, 9mm bullet.

His neck is bigger than my thighs.

I’ll take a .357 Magnum Hard Cast 158 gr Flat point. Thanks.

Id take either, but with either, hes getting shot until hes no longer a threat, and that's just going to take what it takes. Some of thats on me, and some of thats up to him.

And a good or bad hit with either will likely still bring the same result.

 

[CDW4ME]

Mostly anecdotal, but probably not wrong.
357 Mag 125 JHP had a good street record, people (LE) were generally happy with its performance. (capacity was the deficiency)
357 Sig was developed to try to replicate 357 Mag ballistics in a semi auto pistol, which it comes pretty close to doing.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/
4'' barrel Remington 125 SJHP 357 Mag - 1,473 fps - 602# KE (This is one of the traditional loads that contributed to the 357 Mag reputation for "stopping power")
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/357-sig-gel-test/
357 Sig 125 Winchester PDX Defender - 1,423 fps - 562# KE

Some dismiss KE as not being a factor, to which I say does 357 Mag have better ASAP potential than 38 Special? Most people will agree that 357 Mag likely has better ASAP potential than 38 Special (assuming equal shot placement) and the reason for that is 357 Mag has double the KE of 38 Special. This bullet penetrates & expands in gel near identical to the 357 Mag above.
4'' barrel Remington 158 LSWCHP +P - 921 fps - 298# KE

357 Sig has fallen from favor in LE, as did 40 S&W. Why?
I search and see anecdotal comments that LE agencies that used 357 Sig were happy with the performance, particularly the 125 Gold Dot.
I do not see where LE discontinued using 357 Sig because it did not do well on the street, that I do not see.
As with 40 S&W, 357 Sig cost more and is harder for "small stature" and non-enthusiast (people who ain't into shooting) to qualify with versus 9mm.

Three handguns and bullet options I have at my disposal, actual chrono average (all are good choices):
Glock 19 - Federal HST 147 gr +P @ 1,044 fps / 356# KE
Glock 23 - Federal HST 180 gr. @ 1,003 fps / 402# KE
Glock 32 - Federal HST 125 gr. @ 1,358 fps / 512# KE

If I take the example proposed by @sgt127 which of those bullets do I think might incapacitate the quickest?
Given equal shot placement, I think the 40 (greater diameter) or 357 Sig (increased KE) has better ASAP potential; I can't put a number on it, but it can't be discounted either.
(If one wants to dismiss KE look back to the 357 Mag versus 38 special example, they perform near the same in gel)

Point being: 357 Sig HP had a good street reputation from what I see on the internet.

 

[wayneinFL]

Pretend he is charging at you with a machete. Pretend that your absolutely perfect, 124 gr. 9mm hollow point, that meets all the requirements of the FBI protocol and, penetrates 14-17” in calibrated ballistic gel, is what you really want.

He’s not ballistic gel. He didn’t read the performance figures for that $2.00 a round bonded, striated, absolutely perfectly designed, to meet FBI standards, 9mm bullet.

His neck is bigger than my thighs.

I’ll take a .357 Magnum Hard Cast 158 gr Flat point. Thanks.

Anybody charging me with a machete is going to get a lot of 9mms, 45s, 32s, 357s, 380s or whatever I'm carrying. One 357 isn't going to make much of a difference.

Six well placed rounds of 357, with a .5 second split time, will probably stop machete guy- I'll give you that. 15 rounds of 9mm with a .2 second split time should stop him, too.

If I had to count on a round of 158 gr. 357 to stop a guy with a machete, I'd rather have a spear.

 

[SDGlock23]

I guess you hear things over time, I always heard the 155gr .40 was good down on the border. I've heard 115gr +P+ 9mm does well and I'm pretty sure I've heard good things about the 200gr .45 ACP "flying ashtray". I'm sure we've all heard about the 357 Mag being effective.

 

[481]

A comparison of the 9mm and 357 Magnum loads offered as defensive options earlier in this thread can be evaluated using the US Army BRL Bio-Physics Division Provisional Personnel Incapacitation model. Using the US Army BRL model, which was based upon analyses of 7,898 WDMET (Wound Data Munitions Effectiveness Team) combat wound data was used, successfully, by the US ARMY to match the P[I/H] of the 5.56x45mm M193 to the P[I/H] of the 7.62x39mm M43, it is possible to make a determination as to which option (the 9mm 124-grain JHP or the .357 Magnum 158-grain hard cast flat point) would achieve the quickest incapacitation time.

The T[I/H] (Expected Time to Incapacitation, measured in seconds) can be computed using the minimum ΔE15 necessary to achieve a 100.00% P[I/H] scaled against a nominal 1-second time constant.

For a standard pressure 9mm 124-grain JHP moving at a velocity of 1,120 fps that expands to a (conservative) diameter of 0.535'', the T[I/H] would be 15.1 seconds.
For a standard pressure .357 Magnum 158-grain hard cast flat point at 1,175 fps, T[I/H] would be 16.5 seconds.

 

[FL-NC]

Well placed HP rounds, full stop. Modern handguns hold more than 1 round, so why only use 1?

 

[Overkill870]

Ill give my opinion. Ive been a cop for coming up on 17 years. The entire time Ive been a patrol officer. I also work for a major metropolitan department. Between murders, justifiable homicides, assaults, justifiable shootings, accidental shootings, suicides, accidental self inflicted shootings, and police shootings.. Ive seen a lot of people shot. I also did two tours in Iraq. But that was mostly rifle rounds. Though I did see a little bit of 9mm ball used there.

Being the gun nut I take particular interest in how the guns and bullets perform. Also being a firearms instructor helps me get info from shootings where Im not involved in the investigation. Ive also talked with multiple trauma center doctors and nursing staff members. Several who are avid shooters themselves.

from my experience shot placement and penetration are the most important aspects. Stopping a determined attacker requires good hits to very vital structures. The heart, the major blood vessels, spinal cord, and the brain. Nicking these things can definitely be fatal, but many times are not fight stoppers. I have seen plenty of people give up or pass out after being shot in other areas too, but the determined drugged up guys can require hits that destroy the most vital structures.

FMJ works, but hollow points work better. The difference between a FMJ wound and an expanded hollow point wound is noticeable. But it isn't the big deal that some make it out to be. Id rather have a hollow point not expand and drive deep than to over expand and not penetrate enough. All the duty rounds when using quality hollow points usually expand decent and penetrate enough.

Penetrating heavy bone will greatly reduce the performance on the other side.

When talking about duty handgun rounds (38, 9mm, 40, 45) they all perform about the same. The magnums have an abundance of power. Ive never seen one underperform. Im sure there are loads out there that would be sub optimal, but I havent seen it. Then again, I dont see a whole lot of magnums being used outside of suicides.

The smaller rounds tend to lack penetration when hitting bone. Every 380 hollow point Ive seen used has had lower than optimal penetration. Id personally use FMJ in 380. That doesnt mean that 380 wont expand and penetrate enough in a more ideal circumstance, like a full frontal shot. But adding in an arm or an oblique angle and the penetration might end up lacking.

22lr can have wildly differing results. Ive seen some punch right through bone and have good penetration while others splatter on the bone and sometimes barely crack it. Im assuming that has to do with the hardness of the lead used in the bullet.

I completely agree with your assessment. Shot placement and penetration are what matters most. What you hit is more important than a millimeter or two different in bullet diameter, as long as you have the penetration to get to the vitals.

 

[Gun-Reck]

The Federal Government alternated between .40/180 gr. Federal HST and Winchester PDX1.

Both were also available as white box over-run ammo for around $18/50 box.

 

[Gun-Reck]

View attachment 1170125

Pretend he is charging at you with a machete. Pretend that your absolutely perfect, 124 gr. 9mm hollow point, that meets all the requirements of the FBI protocol and, penetrates 14-17” in calibrated ballistic gel, is what you really want.

He’s not ballistic gel. He didn’t read the performance figures for that $2.00 a round bonded, striated, absolutely perfectly designed, to meet FBI standards, 9mm bullet.

His neck is bigger than my thighs.

I’ll take a .357 Magnum Hard Cast 158 gr Flat point. Thanks.

Pretty sure that this was a .380 ACP:

https://twitter.com/Alphafox78/status/1677308184132820993
​

What do you think?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

View attachment 1170125

Pretend he is charging at you with a machete. Pretend that your absolutely perfect, 124 gr. 9mm hollow point, that meets all the requirements of the FBI protocol and, penetrates 14-17” in calibrated ballistic gel, is what you really want.

He’s not ballistic gel. He didn’t read the performance figures for that $2.00 a round bonded, striated, absolutely perfectly designed, to meet FBI standards, 9mm bullet.

His neck is bigger than my thighs.

I’ll take a .357 Magnum Hard Cast 158 gr Flat point. Thanks.

And there's absolutely no physiological reason for him to stop, regardless of what you shoot him with, if the bullets you shoot don't disrupt his brain, upper spinal cord, great vessels, or heart.

On 27 March of this year, Audrey Hale, the active shooter at The Covenant School in Nashville, TN, was shot twice by an officer armed with an AR 15. She fell down but had to be shot a couple more times by another officer armed with a handgun because she remained an active threat.

What you hit is more important than what you hit with.

Blood loss takes time to take effect.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I've posted this before, but I think it's germane here.

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. What all that shows with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  
  • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
    
    
  • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
    
    
  • breaking major skeletal support structures
    
    
  • damaging the central nervous system.
  
  Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
  
  So as a rule of thumb --
  
  
  • More holes are better than fewer holes.
    
    
  • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
    
    
  • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
    
    
  • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
    
    
  • There are no magic bullets.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  
  • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates set out in the table headed "Here are the results."
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    
    
    • There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
      
      
      • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
        
        
      • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
        
        
      • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
        
        
      • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
        
        
      • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
      
      
    • The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
      
      
      • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
        
        
      • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate
      
      
    • And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
      
      
    • From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  
  
  • Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

    ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
    
    The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

  • And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
    
    
    • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

      In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

      
      
    • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

      The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

      
      
    • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

      Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

 

[JohnKSa]

On 27 March of this year, Audrey Hale, the active shooter at The Covenant School in Nashville, TN, was shot twice by an officer armed with an AR 15. She fell down but had to be shot a couple more times by another officer armed with a handgun because she remained an active threat.

For reference, Audrey Hale was 5' 3" and 117lbs at the time of her autopsy.

 

[CDW4ME]

A comparison of the 9mm and 357 Magnum loads offered as defensive options earlier in this thread can be evaluated using the US Army BRL Bio-Physics Division Provisional Personnel Incapacitation model. Using the US Army BRL model, which was based upon analyses of 7,898 WDMET (Wound Data Munitions Effectiveness Team) combat wound data was used, successfully, by the US ARMY to match the P[I/H] of the 5.56x45mm M193 to the P[I/H] of the 7.62x39mm M43, it is possible to make a determination as to which option (the 9mm 124-grain JHP or the .357 Magnum 158-grain hard cast flat point) would achieve the quickest incapacitation time.

The T[I/H] (Expected Time to Incapacitation, measured in seconds) can be computed using the minimum ΔE15 necessary to achieve a 100.00% P[I/H] scaled against a nominal 1-second time constant.

For a standard pressure 9mm 124-grain JHP moving at a velocity of 1,120 fps that expands to a (conservative) diameter of 0.535'', the T[I/H] would be 15.1 seconds.
For a standard pressure .357 Magnum 158-grain hard cast flat point at 1,175 fps, T[I/H] would be 16.5 seconds.

I know somebody that is deficient in math, can you do that calculation for these?
10mm 155 XTP @ 1,344 fps that expands to .68
357 Sig 125 Winchester PDX Defender @ 1,423 fps that expands to .69

 

[481]

I know somebody that is deficient in math, can you do that calculation for these?
10mm 155 XTP @ 1,344 fps that expands to .68
357 Sig 125 Winchester PDX Defender @ 1,423 fps that expands to .69

Of course.

Here you go...

A 10mm 155 XTP @ 1,344 fps that expands to .68 would have a T[I/H] of 10.8 seconds.
A 357 Sig 125 Winchester PDX Defender @ 1,423 fps that expands to .69 would have a T[I/H] of 11.0 seconds.

 

[481]

Mostly anecdotal, but probably not wrong.
357 Mag 125 JHP had a good street record, people (LE) were generally happy with its performance. (capacity was the deficiency)
357 Sig was developed to try to replicate 357 Mag ballistics in a semi auto pistol, which it comes pretty close to doing.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/
4'' barrel Remington 125 SJHP 357 Mag - 1,473 fps - 602# KE (This is one of the traditional loads that contributed to the 357 Mag reputation for "stopping power")
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/357-sig-gel-test/
357 Sig 125 Winchester PDX Defender - 1,423 fps - 562# KE

Some dismiss KE as not being a factor, to which I say does 357 Mag have better ASAP potential than 38 Special? Most people will agree that 357 Mag likely has better ASAP potential than 38 Special (assuming equal shot placement) and the reason for that is 357 Mag has double the KE of 38 Special. This bullet penetrates & expands in gel near identical to the 357 Mag above.
4'' barrel Remington 158 LSWCHP +P - 921 fps - 298# KE

357 Sig has fallen from favor in LE, as did 40 S&W. Why?
I search and see anecdotal comments that LE agencies that used 357 Sig were happy with the performance, particularly the 125 Gold Dot.
I do not see where LE discontinued using 357 Sig because it did not do well on the street, that I do not see.
As with 40 S&W, 357 Sig cost more and is harder for "small stature" and non-enthusiast (people who ain't into shooting) to qualify with versus 9mm.

Three handguns and bullet options I have at my disposal, actual chrono average (all are good choices):
Glock 19 - Federal HST 147 gr +P @ 1,044 fps / 356# KE
Glock 23 - Federal HST 180 gr. @ 1,003 fps / 402# KE
Glock 32 - Federal HST 125 gr. @ 1,358 fps / 512# KE

If I take the example proposed by @sgt127 which of those bullets do I think might incapacitate the quickest?
Given equal shot placement, I think the 40 (greater diameter) or 357 Sig (increased KE) has better ASAP potential; I can't put a number on it, but it can't be discounted either.
(If one wants to dismiss KE look back to the 357 Mag versus 38 special example, they perform near the same in gel)

Point being: 357 Sig HP had a good street reputation from what I see on the internet.

Good points.

Kinetic energy—the ability to do work (in this case, damaging hard and soft tissues)—is an important factor in determining the ability of a munition to produce involuntary incapacitation in a combatant/hostile aggressor. The relationship between KE and involuntary incapacitation is complex, but can be understood using a solid analytical methodology. The approach taken by the US Army BRL Bio-Physics Division which involves correlating ΔE15 (the amount of kinetic energy dissipated from a depth of 1 to 15 centimeters penetration depth in the human body) to the probability of incapacitation, P[I/H], based upon the 7,898 WDMET wound data population has been the recipient of tremendous criticism based upon confusing correlation with causation even though the US military has used it to successfully design (or select) service cartridges that meet—and even exceed—the capabilities of our adversaries' service cartridges while reducing load out for nearly 60 years. The BRL (which was first incorporated into ERADCOM in 1986 and then became ARL in October of 1992) analytical methodology has effectively been ''proven in practice''.

After the US military successfully matched the incapacitation potential of the Soviet 7.62x39mm with a lighter, smaller cartridge (the 5.56x45mm which allowed our troops to carry more ammunition afield that matched our adversaries' capabilities), our adversaries (namely, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China) followed suit with the respective adoption of the 5.45x39mm and 5.8x42mm cartridges (in the AK-74 and QBZ-95) which suggests that they, too, rely upon a similar, if not identical, analytical KE-based methodology. If the BRL P[I/H] methodology is being mimicked by our adversaries in an attempt to keep up with us, that suggests that BRL methodology achieves valid results since they've seen the ''other side'' (the effects of our munitions on their personnel) of that process.

Who can blame them for copying such a successful KE-based approach?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Good points.

Kinetic energy—the ability to do work (in this case, damaging hard and soft tissues)—is an important factor in determining the ability of a munition to produce involuntary incapacitation in a combatant/hostile aggressor. The relationship between KE and involuntary incapacitation is complex, but can be understood using a solid analytical methodology. The approach taken by the US Army BRL Bio-Physics Division which involves correlating ΔE15 (the amount of kinetic energy dissipated from a depth of 1 to 15 centimeters penetration depth in the human body) to the probability of incapacitation, P[I/H], based upon the 7,898 WDMET wound data population has been the recipient of tremendous criticism based upon confusing correlation with causation even though the US military has used it to successfully design (or select) service cartridges that meet—and even exceed—the capabilities of our adversaries' service cartridges while reducing load out for nearly 60 years. The BRL (which was first incorporated into ERADCOM in 1986 and then became ARL in October of 1992) analytical methodology has effectively been ''proven in practice''.

After the US military successfully matched the incapacitation potential of the Soviet 7.62x39mm with a lighter, smaller cartridge (the 5.56x45mm which allowed our troops to carry more ammunition afield that matched our adversaries' capabilities), our adversaries (namely, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China) followed suit with the respective adoption of the 5.45x39mm and 5.8x42mm cartridges (in the AK-74 and QBZ-95) which suggests that they, too, rely upon a similar, if not identical, analytical KE-based methodology. If the BRL P[I/H] methodology is being mimicked by our adversaries in an attempt to keep up with us, that suggests that BRL methodology achieves valid results since they've seen the ''other side'' (the effects of our munitions on their personnel) of that process.

Who can blame them for copying such a successful KE-based approach?

Soviet 7.62x39mm FMJ is well-known for producing mild wounding effects.

The wounding mechanics of the US 5.56x45mm M193 FMJ weren't understood until the mid-1980s when ordnance gelatin testing revealed that the bullet's cannelure is responsible for its wounding effects at velocities above 2700 fps. Without the cannelure, the bullet doesn't fragment as it yaws through 90-degrees in soft tissues. It's the synergy between fragmentation and temporary cavitation that produces its wounding effects.

The Army recently chose its new 6.8x51mm cartridge based on wounding effects depicted in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin.

 

[sgt127]

Pretty sure that this was a .380 ACP:

https://twitter.com/Alphafox78/status/1677308184132820993
​

What do you think?

I think all things being equal, I want penetration. I want that bullet to be able to get to the important stuff. Through other stuff. At any angle. I want it to shatter the pelvic girdle.

I’d be more impressed by all the gel tests if it had to go through a rib first. Or the Humerus.

Then, I want velocity. If not velocity then weight. Whatever it takes.

But, bullet placement is the primary factor.

Rob Leatham Carries a .380. Rob Leatham can put that .380 bullet anywhere he wants to.

I also carry 9mm Federal 9mm BP LE when I carry a 9mm. A light fast hollow point. That likely won’t penetrate as deep as I’d like. But, I have a case of it. So, that’s what I use.

I’m also reasonably certain, I, and others, make too big a deal about every tiny nuance of bullet performance.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I think all things being equal, I want penetration. I want that bullet to be able to get to the important stuff. Through other stuff. At any angle. I want it to shatter the pelvic girdle.

I’d be more impressed by all the gel tests if it had to go through a rib first. Or the Humerus.

When we shoot at an attacker's body, the bullet has to reach and pass through vitals. What are "vitals"? Vitals we're targeting to damage with our bullet(s) are the upper spinal cord, the heart, and the great vessels (aorta and vena cava).

Handgun bullets don't shatter the pelvis, they just punch holes and maybe produce a crack.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police performed extensive tests of handgun ammunition against ordnance gelatin with pork rib bones embedded in it. They discovered that rib bones affect a handgun bullet's terminal performance a very small amount - too insignificant to worry about.

One can indeed test against humerus bone. What angle to you want the bullet to strike the bone? Do you want to test it in a compound angle configuration too? Where exactly on the bone should the bullet strike? Do you want the bullet to centerpunch the bone or strike it at a tangent?

You can do all that testing or you can simply look at the FBI's windshield test results, which provides a reasonable indication of how well a bullet performs against bone.

 

[481]

When we shoot at an attacker's body, the bullet has to reach and pass through vitals. What are "vitals"? Vitals we're targeting to damage with our bullet(s) are the upper spinal cord, the heart, and the great vessels (aorta and vena cava).

Handgun bullets don't shatter the pelvis, they just punch holes and maybe produce a crack.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police performed extensive tests of handgun ammunition against ordnance gelatin with pork rib bones embedded in it. They discovered that rib bones affect a handgun bullet's terminal performance a very small amount - too insignificant to worry about.

One can indeed test against humerus bone. What angle to you want the bullet to strike the bone? Do you want to test it in a compound angle configuration too? Where exactly on the bone should the bullet strike? Do you want the bullet to centerpunch the bone or strike it at a tangent?

You can do all that testing or you can simply look at the FBI's windshield test results, which provides a reasonable indication of how well a bullet performs against bone.

Great resource cited there!

Besides the report that you cited, TR-01-95; CPRC Comparative Performance of 9mm, .38 Special and .40 S&W in Ballistic Gelatin, another technical report by the RCMP is the lesser-known but also very informative, TR-03-98; CPRC Lead Shot Penetration in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.

Here's a link to both reports for those interested in reading them:

TR-01-95; CPRC Comparative Performance of 9mm, .38 Special and .40 S&W in Ballistic Gelatin:

Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web

publications.gc.ca

TR-03-98; CPRC Lead Shot Penetration in 10% Ordnance Gelatin:

Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web

publications.gc.ca

 

[Gun-Reck]

I think all things being equal, I want penetration. I want that bullet to be able to get to the important stuff. Through other stuff. At any angle. I want it to shatter the pelvic girdle.

I’d be more impressed by all the gel tests if it had to go through a rib first. Or the Humerus.

Then, I want velocity. If not velocity then weight. Whatever it takes.

But, bullet placement is the primary factor.

Rob Leatham Carries a .380. Rob Leatham can put that .380 bullet anywhere he wants to.

I also carry 9mm Federal 9mm BP LE when I carry a 9mm. A light fast hollow point. That likely won’t penetrate as deep as I’d like. But, I have a case of it. So, that’s what I use.

I’m also reasonably certain, I, and others, make too big a deal about every tiny nuance of bullet performance.

I carry a .45 ACP.

But own a 3.5" .380 ACP, and recommend it with the Winchester PDX1 ammo for self and home defense to those that shoot it well.

And maybe only shot it well.

 

[crstrode]

None of us would be posting to the Wide Green World without a bit of ego.

Modest egos make the best teachers.

 

[JohnKSa]

I want it to shatter the pelvic girdle.

With a typical self-defense caliber handgun? Not gonna happen.

 

[fastbolt]

Studies upon studies upon studies, even based upon carefully collated and reviewed actual OIS incidents, don't seem to clear up every little detail or address every variable that may be anticipated to occur in the real world. Imagine that.

I remember the service revolver days, as I came to LE during the tail end of those days and carried a .357MAG service revolver for the 80's. Yes, the 125gr JHP/SJHP was catching the attention of LE, but there were still satisfied users of 110gr, 145gr and 158gr Magnum loads. I never talked with anyone who used the Remington 140gr SJHP, myself, but I heard anecdotal discussion of it by a former DoD investigator who specialized in wound ballistics. His opinion was that if the days of the .357MAG service revolver had continued a little longer, the 140gr SJHP would've very likely have eclipsed the 125gr SJHP for duty use. I liked the 145gr STHP, myself, as I could find it very easily and for bargain pricing back then. Usually less expensive than the various 125gr MAG offerings. The 140gr CCI JHP I liked for a long time (hot & fast) became harder to find, and then it was discontinued.

While the 110gr .357MAG acquired a reputation for penetration on the 'shallow end', the .38SPL 110gr +P+ load still had its users, like CA's CHP. A friend of mine was a longtime CHP officer, and became one of their field weapons training officers at some field offices where he was assigned. He carried either the 125gr Magnum or the 110gr .38SPL +P+, depending on what the field office may maintain in inventory wherever he was assigned. (You could only carry what they issued at your field office, and you had to qualify with it, so it you wanted to carry Magnum loads you had to be able to qualify with them.) Interestingly enough, his service years also covered many years after they'd transitioned to .40 S&W, and he became a big proponent of the 180gr JHP .40 load. He once told me that an internal review of both the service revolver and service pistol days resulted in the agency having been better satisfied with the results of the use of 180gr/.40 than any of the previous revolver .357/.38 loads when it came to actual OIS incidents.

Bottom line? I still have the remaining supplies of W-W 145gr STHP, and Rem 125gr & 140gr SJHP, and I'll continue to carry them whenever I carry one or another of my .357's loaded with Magnum ammunition. (A couple of the shortest snubs often see one or another of the more modern +P offerings, but they're among the light Scandium aluminum frame models, so recoil can be a factor.) My 3" & 4" medium-framed .357's see whatever of the remaining rounds is within easy reach, without having to go open up one of the safes or cabinets.