I've read all kinds of opinions on what's better for SD/HD. Any thoughts?

I've read all kinds of opinions on what's better for SD/HD. Any thoughts?

Comparing, say 9mm to .45 ACP, I perceive that either seem to work identically from handguns given modern bullets. After all, no defensive handgun round is really "fast."

Today I'm carrying 9mm +P 124-grain Gold Dots that do 1179 fps from this gun's 3" barrel. Yesterday I was carrying .45 ACP +P 200-grainers that do 984 fps from the barrel of the gun in question. Based on what I've seen, there's no practical difference in the abilities of these rounds for stopping human assailants.

Neither one of them is a 150-grain .308 at 2800 fps, that's for sure. The relevant question with a handgun probably should be which one can a given shooter place more quickly and accurately, and - corresponding to this - which one will s/he practice most with?

Study Gray's Anatomy, folks, if you're going to rely on a handgun.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

That's a good answer Erich. I should have added the caveat everything else being equal ie assuming good shot placement. Your tag line is right on the money.

Why, thank you, sir!

__________________
Now go make God proud...

You could always try big, heavy, and moderately fast. This exists in some 10mm offering, the .41 and .44 mags, or the .454 for the true masochist.

Meanwhile, if you google "Dr. Sydney Vail", you'll find the dissenting opinion of an experienced trauma surgeon who claims to regularly cut modern design bullets out of people that have failed to expand/perform as advertised. He's most associated with questions regarding certain "magic" fragmenting bullets, but one could also conclude that big and relatively heavy bullets of older design have nothing to go wrong or fail. Dr. Vail makes the point that most bullets are tested in gelatin, which may not be an adequate representation of what really happens in the very structures and squishy parts of humans.

Vail's probably right on that about the hollowpoints. I don't recall that I've ever seen a hollowpoint come out of a human looking like those that show up in magazine ads. "Moderate deformation" is the descriptor that I see a lot in OMI reports. I'm sure you get some good ones from time to time (Mas has some cases, I believe), but certainly one shouldn't get too wrapped up in hollowpoint performance.

I don't believe that expansion is any sort of important in handgun effectiveness on people, though (I like hollowpoints mainly for their tendency not to overpenetrate). And I have worked on two cases in which pathologists could not tell the wound tracks left by fat bullets from those left by middling bullets.

RE: the 10s and .41s. I really like those. But I can tell you that I can't shoot them fast if they're the heavy and moderately fast ones. And I don't really know anyone who can or does. Plus, the overpenetration worries are a concern.

The Feebies have pretty good science on this, and, based on that, they backed away from the full-power 10s to what became the Short & Weak. I loaded up a whole mess of .41s just yesterday: a bunch of hot 215-grainers over a max charge of Lil' Gun for hiking up Bear Canyon, and a whole bunch of the same LSWCs over a moderate charge of SR 7625 to get me just over 1k fps from my 4" 57. Those are what I'd carry: I can shoot them rapidly and accurately, and I can practice with them until the cows come home. Plus, I don't think they'd be so likely to come blasting through an ED and continue on through the school bus, the nursing home, the grocery store, etc.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I like midweight for caliber bullets pushed as fast as is contollable. I believe that high energy rounds such as the 10mm and magnum revolver cartridges are more effective stoppers. I also feel that a bullet that is too heavy will penetrate just fine. A bullet that is too light may not, so I really dislike ultralight bullets (a 90 gr. 9mm would be a great example).

To reinforce what Erich has said, the argument was over long ago: with a handgun, you are stuck with "medium heavy and medium fast."

At the threshold speed of 200fps needed to penetrate at all, the bullet would have to be the size of an orange for weight alone to insure incapacitation.

With the minimum size bullet practical from a handgun for defensive purposes, it would have to achieve rifle velocities for the same effect.

All practical handguns perform with medium bullets shot at what are, any way you look at it, medium speeds.

Gelatin is a valid uniform medium for lab comparisons of bullets, but humans are not uniform. So unless you get lucky and hit a bone or the central nervous system, forget about the "best bullet" or "one shot stop" and be prepared to keep shooting.

__________________
Science plus Art

When it comes to selecting carry ammo, I take my information from stopping power tables posted on handloads.com site.

I now that not everyone would agree; in fact many respected members of this forum disagree entirely. I respect their opinion. Yet, AFAIK it is the only publicly available source of this data. I am more comfortable using some data for ammo selection -- even if it's validity is disputed -- than none at all.

Mike

__________________
9x19, 9x29R, 9x33R, 10x22

How about "as fast as heavy will go"? I've come to prefer heavier bullets in all of the calibers that I use. I want the best sectional density I can get in order to maximize penetration depth. That said, there are lots of good choices and sometimes we spend too much time trying to optimize all the possible variables.

Jeff Cooper talked about PII - Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments, or attributing too much importance to measurable but small deviations in performance. After all, a miss negates all the best research and preparation!

Out West

I always liked handgun ammo that would go at least 1000fps for some reason, and thats probably why I like the .357 Magnum and the .40 S&W for defensive use. I guess I felt that would be a good minimum velocity for expansion and hard barrier penetration. I remember when I first got into IPSC shooting 25 yrs ago, I was in a match and the sunlight was just right and I could see the .45 bullets going down range hitting the targets. The .45 is a great stopper but that bugged me that I could see the bullets and since then and I have always liked a bit more velocity.

If you sit behind the shooters at a Palma match and watch through a spotting scope, you can see the .308 165gr bullets traveling at 2800fps as they arc their way to the target.

__________________
Science plus Art

Then you would enjoy watching a projectile from a 16" naval rifle heading for the horizon. (Having seen this phenomena on the bridge of USS New Jersey)

Big, heavy and medium speed is good. When the BG gets hit, it makes him sit down, ponder things, and stay out of the fight.

Another vote for big bullets and mid-level velocity. I'm in favor of the .41 - .45 bore with 200 to 250 grain bullets in the 900 to 1000 fps range. I'd rather not be saddled with this month's flavor-of-the-month expanding bullet, preferring traditional designs instead.

Even more important, I think, is reading situations and people. If I have to shoot I prefer the first round out to be mine and a solid hit in the sternum followed by a second. A lot is going to be happening about this time so focusing on the front sight and reasonable trigger control is a plus.

I do not trust any expanding handgun bullet to actually expand on a human target. They can figure that out in the morgue but you have to put him there first. I'm running with the bigger bores in a double action revolver. If you do this right you'll never have to do a combat reload.

460 S&W

__________________
SC Army National Guard

I've always been a Julian Hatcher devotee. Big and heavy are good. Now I must agree that modren bullet design really has improved the small bores performance. But when you start out with big, you do not have to rely on bullet expansion to get big! I must admit I do fudge now and again with the big bores and choose a heavy hollow point, if it expand's great, if not still got the large diameter anyway.

__________________
Stay safe people!

What about the fact that an experienced pathologist can't tell the difference between the wound track left by a 9mm and that left by a .45?

__________________
Now go make God proud...

When I worked as a paramedic in my younger days, I saw a lot of people sporting gun shot wounds. Some were dead, and some weren't. Often, it didn't make a lot of difference what caliber they were shot with. I had a guy drilled through the sternum with a .25 that had "DMJ" (Done Met Jesus), and another shot multiple times with a 9mm that was still fighting with us. Many folks succumbed to wounds caused by small caliber rounds, and some shot in the head at point blank range with larger calibers suffered not much more than a bad headache.

It's a nice debate for a cold night around the fireplace with a glass of scotch, but the bottom line is shot placement.

Find out what your carry gun shoots accurately, and use it. Practice with that load until you are confident in the gun, ammo, and most importantly, yourself. Put the bullets where they count. That is the most important factor in terminating a lethal threat.

Just my humble opinion .

__________________
Rough waters ahead.

Since, at least one person has been killed by Blanks I think it gets down to the simple idea of "Shot Placement" and nothing more!

Well, first of all, I have yet to see the report that an "experienced pathologist" can't see the difference in a wound channel between a 9mm and a .45, so I'll take it for what it's worth... Forum Babble (no offense intended).

Either way, it's not what the "experienced pathologist" sees that I concern myself with. It's what happens to the bad guy the moment of impact. When the a physician is examining the wound (Whether the person is a corpse or alive), it's too late. What matters is how the bullet affects the person when it hits.

We all understand that shot placement is primary, so I figure everyone can stop repeating that. What most people want to know is what stops the bad guy faster when it hits him. Assuming that you can then practice the most with what you believe is best, and become most proficient with that type of caliber/bullet.

Now, that said, I believe in either extreme. I believe in a .357 mag, or SIG moving at half the speed of light... OR a .45 (Possibly +P) going a whole lot slower.
That's what I believe. What do I have/would use if I needed to? A .40 180 grain HST. Because it's what I have, what I'm good with, and what I enjoy. I also think it's the perfect balance of speed, weight, and expansion (in theory... cause in the end, that's all it is).

I test all of my calibers and bullets in wet-packs, and straight into water. On my desk I have a cup full of different calibers, different bullet designs and manufacturers, and different grain bullets of each of those. I know what bullet performs the best in my tests, I know they all give adequate penetration and expansion.
All that being true, I believe that any bullet will kill a person. What I concern myself with is what will stop them the fastest.

If there is nothing more, why don't we all switch to low power steel core FMJ's in small calibers? How do we explain universal acclaim for full house 357 magnums and .45ACP as best man stoppers?

Seriously, guys. And, please, don't tell me again that large calibers are harder to shoot, or that misses don't count, or that somebody survived a direct hit from 155 mm howitzer. I know that already.

__________________
9x19, 9x29R, 9x33R, 10x22

Interesting, according to that chart my KelTec P32 loaded with Win Silver Tips is in the same class as my 1911A1 loaded with FMJ ball ammo.

That's right. But it's NOT in the same league as your 1911A1 loaded with 230 gr. hollow points That's exactly why "I take my information from stopping power tables posted on handloads.com site."

Mike

__________________
9x19, 9x29R, 9x33R, 10x22

I understand that most of folks probably haven't had the opportunity to have the question of "Does a 9mm make a hole that's observably different to an expert than a .45 would make?" come up in their lives. I've had it happen on two cases on which I've done work. It was important to be able to tell which gun did the deed, and neither pathologist could.

This sort of underscores how a lot of what's commonly held to be factual ("Forty-five BIG! Nine millimeter SMALL! Og want BIG hole, use BIG bullet!") doesn't necessarily hold up in science - or in court. For what it's worth, my personal understanding/opinion of handgun wounding mechanisms has certainly evolved as I've done work on more and more of these cases over the years (just over 200 handgun killings so far). A lot of the gunshop bluster and gunzine theory doesn't appear to jibe with what happens in the real world.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Erich is correct, as usual. Several years ago, we had an incident here wherein SWAT got called out to a situation that really should not have been a SWAT callout at all. It ended badly, with almost 180 rounds fired, and one SWAT sergeant being killed by friendly fire. He had two holes in his forehead, and one hole in the back of his head and back of his Kevlar helmet. A team of "experts" spent some weeks trying to figure out how one of the 9mm JHPs that supposedly hit him in the forehead managed to go through his helmet. They finaly "figured out" that a 168gr. .308 bullet, fired by the team sniper, hit the back of the sergeant's helmet, broke in two inside his head, and left the two exit wounds in his forehead. If these "experts" couldn't tell entrance from exit, the likelihood of telling 9mm from .45 wound paths is almost nonexistent.

Now, having said that, I fall mostly on the "light, fast" side, based on what I've seen stop game fastest, because that's what counts, the stop, not the wound channel probed by the ME. I usually carry a 9x23. I will not willingly stand in front of a heavy, slow, bullet, however...

From your lips to Gina's ears!

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I agree. A bullet's weight/design must work in harmony with it's velocity/energy to create a top notch stopping cartridge. Using better ammo is one way, just like using the best tactics possible, to stack the odds in one's favor, but we're talking about combat my friends. You can do everything perfect and still wind up on the slab. That's just the way it works. Everything we do to try to stack the odds in our favor is good, but never a sure thing, so yes there is more to it than shot placement. A good cartridge may turn a marginal hit into a good one.

I do what I can to help, Amigo!

I'm just going to keep buying flowers and jewelry.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

That's all very cute, guys, but are you going to answer my questions? Or are we to conclude that there is no answers?

Beats me why anyone would go on for years professing the theory that it's all about accuracy and penetration but fail to see that it leads to false conclusions. Such as "22LR is as good a manstopper as 357 magnum". Or "JHP's are less efficient than FMJ's". Beats me.

Mike

__________________
9x19, 9x29R, 9x33R, 10x22

I guess no one's answering your questions because we're not in the habit of tilting at straw men. A .22 LR does not penetrate as well as a .357 Magnum, Mike. We all know that. Your example certainly mischaracterizes what people have been saying - when someone makes such an argument, I tend to ignore him because I visit these boards for fun, not seeking out confrontation, hostility or unpleasantness.

But - to return to the actual call of the question, from a handgun against a human target, is a .45 JHP better than a 9mm JHP? No, it's not - at least not in the cases that I've worked on. Maybe I just haven't seen the right cases - but I'm quite sure that I've seen more than you have. And when I'm on the same page as someone like, say, Dr. Martin Fackler who's done thousands of autopsies in handgun killings, well, I feel like that indicates that I'm not missing anything important in my understanding.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

The longer you hang around the gun community, the more you'll figure out that it's all personal prefrence, and theory.

Go educate yourself by reading. Study ballistics, learn what happens when a bullet impacts tissue. What's better, a heavy, slow bullet that stops in the tissue, or a fast, light bullet that goes all the way through? Part of what you're looking for is energy transfered, and the next question is, how quickly does it transfer that energy? The faster a bullet stops in a person, the faster it's transfering energy to them.
Study ballistic gelatin tests, take a look at a study testing a .357sig, a .45, .40, and 9mm. (there's one on AR15.com, under handguns, ammunition, it's a stickied thread at the top, something about self defence ammo).

In the end, unless you've studied what happens when a bullet hits a human, by actually shooting hundreds of humans, it's all opinion, theory, and semi-educated guessing.

By the way, Eric, you're continually answering the wrong question. You keep saying that a 9mm is no better than a .45. That's fine, from your point of view (examining a corpse). What the question is, is not necessarily if you can see a difference in the wound channel, but what happens to the bad guy when hit.
I think we can agree that there's more to consider than the wound channel. And I have trouble believing that a 9mm hole is the same as a .45 hole... because it's not. Just because you (and others) can't see the difference, doesn't mean one didn't sit the bad guy down faster. Because, the way I see it, that's what really matters.

I apologize if I'm coming across as argumentative, or rude. It is not my intention to insult you, just saying my 2 cents.
Rab

Just for technical info, during the 1950s the US Army built a .22 caliber "rifle" that fired a homogonous bronze bullet at about 10,000 FPS. It left a crater in the side of a piece of surplus navy armor plate that you could drop a cantalope into. Trouble is, it took a vehicle to move it. REALLY REALLY fast has advantages. I am not sure you can get REALLY REALLY fast in a concealable handgun. Both point of view have their proponents. Neither is totally unrealistic. Go with what you like.

Robert, you raise a good point. If ever technology takes us beyond the limitations of 1890s style smokeless powder, "slow and heavy" will be a thing of the past. As I've said before, "slow and heavy" may work, and well, with current technology, but it is a ballistic dead end street.

Ah, but I DO get to hear what happens. I guess you haven't been around when we've talked about it here before. Actually, from your join-date, you almost certainly weren't.

Sometimes (rarely) it's on video, generally there's some report on what happened after the shooting. It turns out that there's just no predicting - some folks immediately go down when shot in a vital, some stay up for a while. FWIW, I've not seen a case in which anyone shot in the heart or aorta who did not immediately (within a second) cease aggressive action - but that's not to say that they're not out there (and I understand that there are some).

But it doesn't appear to matter what the (defensive caliber handgun) round is that was used. Vital (heart/aorta, brain) shots generally have pretty fast responses and rapid incapacitation (I've only seen now a couple of shots that actually hit the spine, and they worked right now). Shots not to the vitals may or may not.

But, .38 130-grain ball or 9mm Black Talon or 9x18 ball or .380 ball or .45 JHP or .357 JHP - if you hit the vitals, they cease aggressive action pretty fast. They might stay on their feet for a few moments, but it's pretty clear that the body usually knows that something bad has happened.

7.62x39 seems to shut them down right now, though.

FWIW, I'm carrying a 200-gr +P .45 JHP today. I might be carrying a 127-gr +P+ 9mm JHP tomorrow, or a handloaded .38 Spl +P-equivalent LSWC. From what I've seen in my work, these will all pretty much be equally effective against human aggressors - and there's no one who can prove otherwise. If you think or feel or have a hunch that one is better than another, by all means use that one. No skin off my nose.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Of course, Eric has it down pretty pat but at least some of it depends upon just "How Heavy & Slow or How Fast & Light" you are talking about.

My questions – obviously – were directed to you personally, Erich. So let's leave that royal WE alone. Unfortunate fact is that it is you, not I, who infuses poisonous personal attacks into technical discussions and resorts to calling his opponent names. I am not a "straw man", my friend, and if one of us chooses to seek confrontation and hostility that would be you – not I.

Back on track though and let's try not to get personal. You asked if 22LR can penetrate farther than 357mag. Sure can. Here is a link to brassfetcher site showing a non-expanding 22LR penetrating in excess of 16". It was fired from a 3.4" Walter – not from a rifle. Expanding JHP from a full house 357mag penetrates 14-18" depending on the bullet. So following your theory, I would have to conclude that 22LR is a more efficient manstopper than any 357magnum penetrating less than 16". Not to mention .40S&W or .357SIG – almost all JHP's in these calibers are well under 14". It's an obvious nonsense but that's where your theory leads us.

My second question wasn't about .45ACP vs. 9mm. It was about FMJ vs. JHP in 45ACP. FMJ will generally penetrate farther assuming same weight and MV. So are we to conclude that FMJ is more efficient than JHP? Another obvious contradiction with commonly known facts that directly follows from your theory.

Respectfully,

Mike

__________________
9x19, 9x29R, 9x33R, 10x22

Mike, amigo - thanks for the chuckle. Google what a "straw man" is. I'm not calling YOU a straw man.

And I didn't ask if it could penetrate as far, I stated that it doesn't penetrate as well. Gelatin is not people, as I'm sure you know. Light-mass slow things get deflected pretty easily - .22 LR is notorious for this. It's lethal - no doubt - but it's not what I'd choose to use for a primary defensive weapon against a human aggressor.

Actually, I've worked on several cases in which hollowpoints failed to adequately penetrate. It's why I'd never recommend a hollowpoint on a slow, light round like a .380. Ball is more efficient in those cases, no doubt.

The cases I've worked on show that hollowpoints often fail to expand at handgun velocities, but they do seem to make a bullet less inclined to overpenetrate. This is the main reason that I use them. I feel that expansion is, as I've said many times, gravy - if it happens.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Erich, Bro., I know what straw man is.



My argument is based on paradox, not sophism. Either way, thanks for a good response.

And BTW, if you worked on even one coroner case -- it was one more than I've ever seen (or want to see).

__________________
9x19, 9x29R, 9x33R, 10x22

It is refreshing to see such civil, paradoxical, and deeply philosophical sophistry to get ready to go to work by. Thanks guys!

Maybe I did over-rate the shot placement thing. A deer slug would be optimimal to ensure rapid and virtually complete termination of hostile performance on the part of an agressor, so I guess slow and heavy wins.

__________________
Rough waters ahead.

Elmer Keith said the best load would be the camp stove (a big one) traveling at 1000 FPS.
That would make it heavy and fast

__________________
Fe Feo Fuerte

So T/H,
Are you saying the late Mr. Keith invented "fast food"?

Sir, are we talking Coleman-type white gas stove, or old-school sheet iron? The famous (in some circles) Pepsi can stove hadn't been invented yet when Mr. Keith was writing, but that would probably be the ultimate in "fast and light."

Regarding the original poster's question, see my sig line.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

I don't care what anyone says...light and fast...heavy and slow...they are all anemic!

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Originally posted by S/W - Lifer:

"I do not trust any expanding handgun bullet to actually expand on a human target."

Many shooters don't. They didn't used to expand reliably until you got into magnum loadings from 6 inch barrels, and then only sometimes. We used to figure that 1,000 fps was the bare minimum to see expansion of handgun bullets in people.

I don't believe that anymore.

In December, 2001, I was involved in a shooting with a couple of bank robbers leaving the branch with a teller for a hostage. I fired four rounds of Federal's 230 grain .45 ACP-Plus-P "Tactical Bonded" loading (their catalog number LE45TI) from a Colt Commander with a 4-1/4 inch barrel.

Two rounds penetrated fully, one a front-to-back torso shot that hit no bones, the other a shot very high in one thigh that missed the femoral artery. I spotted both those bullets laying on the ground before they hauled me away. I also got to examine them closely in person later. They could have come from an ammo maker's magazine advertisement, classically mushroomed to well over .75", and held onto pretty well all of their original weight.

A third shot hit the side of a skull, just above and behind the ear, caused a depressed skull fracture and then DEFLECTED (!!!!!) down into his shoulder, where it penetrated several inches and was removed by a trauma surgeon. The hollowpoint's opening was stuffed with several layers of clothing material. The bullet expanded just like the other two above.

Shot number four angled down through the torso, from under the arm, through a lung, and ended up down in the fellow's lower abdomen. It is still there. The X-rays make it appear that it expanded fully, as well. It travelled about 18-22 inches after entering the skin.

Those bullets expanded and performed very well, from a cartridge that isn't considered to be a high-pressure/high velocity round, fired from a shorter-than-standard length barrel.

My department issues the bonded Federal in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. We used to issue it in 10mm Auto before discontinuing the carry of guns so chambered.

I worked my department's robbery-homicide unit from 1998-2003. We are my state's oldest and largest law enforcement agency, although only medium-sized by "big city" standards. I was the unit's "gun guy" and got to weigh and measure a lot of bullets during that time. I then supervised our crime lab for a few years and got to weigh, measure and photograph a lot of other bullets.

The Federals we issue seem to work well, performing as designed. One officer-involved shooting involved two deputies putting four 9mm and three 10mm rounds into a large, cocaine- and alcohol-fueled fellow with a couple of large knives. All were recovered either from the deceased or the wall behind him. All expanded classically and retained about all of their original weight. All were torso shots; about half, I recall, exitted. The 9mm was, I believe, the 129 grainer Plus-P while the 10 was the 180 grain "FBI Lite" load.

Handgun bullet expansion is generally a good thing, as most FMJ loadings from .38 Spl. on up will usually exit the torso. Some expansion limits this but doesn't eliminate it. It also punches a bigger hole and, because it makes the frontal area of the bullet larger, more likely to rupture a major aorta or sumsuch vital part, leading to more rapid ceasation of hostilities.

Hangun bullet development has come a very long ways in the past 25 years. It is more effective. But, keep in mind, compared to most rifles and shotguns, handguns are still pretty weak sisters when it comes to stopping the action.

I would also like to extend a friendly invitation to any of our forums members, who plan on being gunshot or otherwise seriously injuured traumatically any time soon, to plase come to any part of the unincorporated Salt Lake (UT) County or any of the fine cities we contract with, to be shot. The emergency medical services provided by the former Salt Lake County Fire Department (now named the Unified Fire Authority) is superb. Our highly trained, state-of-the-art paramedics and firemen will do the utmost possible to keep the blood inside and you breathing, convey you to one of several fine state-of-the-art trauma centers in a timely fashion, to give you the greatest possible odds of surviving.

The shooting of mine related above occurred on about 9:00 a.m. of a Friday morning, about 150 yards from a fire stationed manned by these great folks. Both of the shootees survived their wounds (!!!!), albeit at taxpayer expense, due to the efforts of both the fire folks and the hospital surgical staffs.

We in the unit, having witnessed the medical care provided by other, lessor fire departments in the valley, then made a pact that, if any of us were shot or otherwise damaged in another, non U.F.A.-grid municipality, that our buddies would throw us in a car and transport us to an area U.F.A. serves, and call them from there!

I've cast and used many tens of thousands of semi wadcutter bullets in various handgun rounds over the years and so one would have to bend the truth by a country mile to say that I dislike cast bullets of the SWC persuasion.

Having said that,I believe that the semi wadcutter solid is only marginally better than other bullet nose profiles.It acts as a solid because it is a solid.I have not seen any evidence that it damages more tissue than another nose profile.The theory (starting with Elmer Keith)was that it CUTS a hole in paper and so it must do the same in flesh.It was a good theory until high speed photo observation dispelled it.

Ross Seyfreid even admitted it and Keith was his mentor.High speed photo observation showed that the shock wave that spreads around the penetrating bullet spreads the flesh beyond the bullet itself.The sharp shoulder of the SWC doesn't even make contact with the flesh.So much for assumptive reasoning.


For 7 years,I had an occupation that had me deliver dead bodies to the medical examiners office on many occasions.I have witnessed many post mortem exams and the only thing I feel sure enough to relate is that the "solid"bullet wound paths look very much the same when fired from a handgun.(regardless of caliber or bullet shape).

I've used jacketed soft and hollow points more than solids in the hunting field because I and many others observed much greater tissue destruction.I'm sure that someone will point out some exceptions but it's my belief that the majority of expanding bullet failures occur when driven at mediocre velocities.When a well designed hollow point is driven with enough steam to do it's job,the outcome is normally more desirable.

About 100 years ago Thompson and LaGarde did extensive testing on handgun cartridges, from .30 Luger to .476. They concluded that bigger is better. I may not carry a .476, but I do carry a .44 Special. If I carried a autoloader as my primary handgun, it would be my .45 Auto Government Model. I'm willing to bet my life that either one will get the job done.

I hate to break this News to you but Many, Many things have changed in the last 100 Years and while their "Testing" was excellent for the time it isn't particularly relevant to today because many of the things that can be done with Heavy AND Fast bullets simply could NOT be done when they did there Study.