Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Moonduck · 09-08-2004, 04:11 PM

"Yes, I would argue that the bullet that keeps on going would do more damage, because It would make a bigger hole. The bigger hole would mean more damage. Basic Physics can tell you that the energy being "dumped" from a handgun round is very little, around that of being punched really hard. It is my personal belief that big wound channels are the most important factor in stopping a human target."

The important distinction is not how much energy is being dumped, it is that the bullet that dumps all of its' available energy is performing better than one that does not. Now if said round dumps too early and under-penetrates as a result, it underperforms. This is why you do not use light grain loads when hunting boar, for example.

I can see why you would choose to use the article to support your point, though there are some overall concerns that are not touched on. We are not discussing wildly different rounds here, nor are we discussing rounds with overmuch ability to penetrate. Neither the 9mm nor the .40 are punchers. nor is there a significant difference in bore size. Once is 0.36 and the 0.40, producing a difference of 0.04, biologically insignificant. The loads perform similarly as well, having only moderate differences in FPS and grain weights that are not incompatible.

9mm in 115gr has a Muzzle FPS of about 1225 and Energy at that point is 330 or so. 50yd loses about 9%. 9mm in 147gr has a Muzzle FPS of about 990 and energy of 320ft/lbs, with about a 6% fall-off at 50yds. 140gr .40S&W has a muzzle FPS of 1155 and 415ft/lbs, with a whopping 20% fall-off in energy at 50yds. 180gr .40S&W is doing 990fps at the muzzle with 390ft/lbs, and has a bit more than 10% fall-off at 50yds.

(Stats from Winchester and looking at Ball in each grain load when possible)

The point to that is that the rounds are very, very close in terminal performance. I defy anyone to show that a 0.04" increase in diameter is going to affect performance in a significant manner in the current application.

As to the study, the only mention I find of Glasers is an anecdotal bit from Fackler. Fackler is, in fact, footnoted quite a bit in this study. He has always been on the side of large bullets.

Some interesting lines from the article...

"Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location, and is beyond the control of the shooter. It can only be proven in the act, not predicted. It requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and don't. Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber and bullet is essentially irrelevant."

"Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. "

Reading that study, I took away a few items that seemed to be the lessons of the piece.

1) Handguns suck. Use a rifle.
2) Caliber choice is less important than shot placement.
3) Load choice is less important than shot placement.
4) It's all about shot placement, still.
5) When in doubt, choose the bigger gun.

I don't disagree with any of these, but it does not invalidate any of the basic premises I've put forth. The fact that the average handgun round drops as much energy as a baseball argues more in favor of my point. When you have such little energy to impart, every little bit helps. The baseball, 1lb weight dropped from 1ft, and cup of coffe analogies are terribly flawed though. No personally carried non-explosive weapon puts out that much energy when it is measured in such a non-relevant fashion. Guns, knives, swords, etc are all tools designed to concentrate a limited amount of energy in both time and space, inflicting far greater effect than the energy would indiciates simply by making it all hit at once and in a small area.

As an aside, when I carry, it is not light grain loads.

09-08-2004, 04:11 PM	#41 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"Yes, I would argue that the bullet that keeps on going would do more damage, because It would make a bigger hole. The bigger hole would mean more damage. Basic Physics can tell you that the energy being "dumped" from a handgun round is very little, around that of being punched really hard. It is my personal belief that big wound channels are the most important factor in stopping a human target." The important distinction is not how much energy is being dumped, it is that the bullet that dumps all of its' available energy is performing better than one that does not. Now if said round dumps too early and under-penetrates as a result, it underperforms. This is why you do not use light grain loads when hunting boar, for example. I can see why you would choose to use the article to support your point, though there are some overall concerns that are not touched on. We are not discussing wildly different rounds here, nor are we discussing rounds with overmuch ability to penetrate. Neither the 9mm nor the .40 are punchers. nor is there a significant difference in bore size. Once is 0.36 and the 0.40, producing a difference of 0.04, biologically insignificant. The loads perform similarly as well, having only moderate differences in FPS and grain weights that are not incompatible. 9mm in 115gr has a Muzzle FPS of about 1225 and Energy at that point is 330 or so. 50yd loses about 9%. 9mm in 147gr has a Muzzle FPS of about 990 and energy of 320ft/lbs, with about a 6% fall-off at 50yds. 140gr .40S&W has a muzzle FPS of 1155 and 415ft/lbs, with a whopping 20% fall-off in energy at 50yds. 180gr .40S&W is doing 990fps at the muzzle with 390ft/lbs, and has a bit more than 10% fall-off at 50yds. (Stats from Winchester and looking at Ball in each grain load when possible) The point to that is that the rounds are very, very close in terminal performance. I defy anyone to show that a 0.04" increase in diameter is going to affect performance in a significant manner in the current application. As to the study, the only mention I find of Glasers is an anecdotal bit from Fackler. Fackler is, in fact, footnoted quite a bit in this study. He has always been on the side of large bullets. Some interesting lines from the article... "Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location, and is beyond the control of the shooter. It can only be proven in the act, not predicted. It requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and don't. Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber and bullet is essentially irrelevant." "Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. " Reading that study, I took away a few items that seemed to be the lessons of the piece. 1) Handguns suck. Use a rifle. 2) Caliber choice is less important than shot placement. 3) Load choice is less important than shot placement. 4) It's all about shot placement, still. 5) When in doubt, choose the bigger gun. I don't disagree with any of these, but it does not invalidate any of the basic premises I've put forth. The fact that the average handgun round drops as much energy as a baseball argues more in favor of my point. When you have such little energy to impart, every little bit helps. The baseball, 1lb weight dropped from 1ft, and cup of coffe analogies are terribly flawed though. No personally carried non-explosive weapon puts out that much energy when it is measured in such a non-relevant fashion. Guns, knives, swords, etc are all tools designed to concentrate a limited amount of energy in both time and space, inflicting far greater effect than the energy would indiciates simply by making it all hit at once and in a small area. As an aside, when I carry, it is not light grain loads.