Slow & Heavy Or Fast & Light?

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
 
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.
icon_wink.gif
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.
 
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.
 
doesn't mean one didn't sit the bad guy down faster. Because, the way I see it, that's what really matters.

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.
icon_smile.gif


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.
icon_smile.gif
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Erich:
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.
icon_wink.gif
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.

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


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

strawman.jpg


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).

icon_smile.gif
 
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.
 
Originally posted by thomashoward:
Elmer Keith said the best load would be the camp stove traveling at 1000 FPS.
That would make it heavy and fast

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."
icon_biggrin.gif


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

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by jag312: About 100 years ago...
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.
 
I have read the Thompson LaGarde tests(not just excerpts).Livestock were shot in a Chicago stockyard and dead cadavers were shot(apparently to see how much the body would move when hit).The conclusions were "non conclusions".They had a very VAGUE impression and if you read the reports,(you will see just how vague the impression was)that the larger bullets SEEMED to hit a bit harder.Livestock was shot repeatedly with various calibers and they noted how long it took before the animal would finally fall.On several tests,the smaller calibers won in the comparison.

For anyone to even suggest that there was something conclusive about the Thompson LaGarde tests is pretty comical.After reading the reports,my impression was that they were trying to avoid the embarrasment of not reaching a conclusion at all.

I do not have an axe to grind and I don't have a horse in this race.I am pointing out that a lot of what are considered TRUISMS in the gun world are actually little more than myths.

I can remember when Jeff Cooper was writing that 45 hardball dropped a man 95% of the time when hit ANYWHERE in the torso.That's 19 times out of twenty.REALLY???...He got away with saying it for a long time until he discovered that some people were keeping records.

I actually agree with these men on many things.I consider the 38 special to be abysmal.So,yes,I agree with Keith,Cooper,etc on a number of things but NOT when their ideas prove to be fallacies when under scrutiny.
 
It's occured to me since my post that someone may get the idea that I'm trying to preach about what to carry and use for protection.Such is not the case at all.

Carry and use what you want.If someone makes it necessary for you to shoot them,most of the ballistic minutiae will drop down the pole of priorities pretty quick.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top