Slow & Heavy Or Fast & Light?

[_Rab_]

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.

 

[Hoptob]

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.

 

[walnutred]

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

Mike

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.

 

[Hoptob]

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

 

[Erich]

"experienced pathologist"... Forum Babble

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.

 

[38-44HD45]

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...

 

[Erich]

Erich is correct, as usual.

From your lips to Gina's ears!

 

[flop-shank]

Originally posted by Hoptob:
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.

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.

 

[38-44HD45]

Originally posted by Erich:

Erich is correct, as usual.

From your lips to Gina's ears!

I do what I can to help, Amigo!

 

[Erich]

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

 

[Hoptob]

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[_Rab_]

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.

 

[_Rab_]

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

 

[robertrwalsh]

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.

 

[flop-shank]

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.

 

[Erich]

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.

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Hoptob]

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.

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

 

[Erich]

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.