Ballistics Comparison - Pistol Rounds

Ballistics Comparison - Pistol Rounds

This is a discussion on Ballistics Comparison - Pistol Rounds within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I thought I would share a comparison I put together for myself based on internet research. I found it pretty interesting. These are all averages ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By glockman10mm
  • 2 Post By bmcgilvray
  • 1 Post By scs987

Thread: Ballistics Comparison - Pistol Rounds

  1. #1
    Member Array m287452's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    41

    Ballistics Comparison - Pistol Rounds

    I thought I would share a comparison I put together for myself based on internet research. I found it pretty interesting. These are all averages of different manufacturers' loads, including +P, JHP, FMJ, etc.

    Comments, thoughts, quesitons are welcome, but please read the message carefully before criticizing. I don't claim that this is a complete guide to picking a round, just a starting point.

    Energy (ft-lb)
    .357 Magnum -555
    .45 ACP -414
    .40 S&W -459
    9 mm -395
    380 Auto -200

    Penetration (in)
    .357 Magnum -14.8
    .45 ACP -14.9
    .40 S&W -14.4
    9 mm -13.2
    380 Auto -12.0

    OSS
    .357 Magnum -85%
    .45 ACP -84%
    .40 S&W -86%
    9 mm -82%
    380 Auto -60%

    AIT (sec)
    .357 Magnum -7.9
    .45 ACP -9.5
    .40 S&W -8.8
    9 mm -9.3
    380 Auto -12.2

    Key:
    Penetration – penetration depth (ballistic gelatin).
    OSS – Marshall and Sanow “one-shot stop” rating.
    AIT – Average incapacitation time, time from unobstructed hit in the center of the chest until involuntary incapacitation for 170 lb male as determined from ballistic pressure wave model

    For a more detailed comparison of different manufacturers' loads, and the source of this data, go to:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_magnum
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.40_S%26W
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9mm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/380_Auto

    I could not paste these tables in here.

    I find it interesting that there is not a huge difference in OSS between something like a 9mm and a .357 for example. And these are averages across manufacturers and load types. An interesting example of "small differences" for those who prefer to carry LCP's and PPK's: Car Bon's .380 JHP +P is virtually as effective as an average 9mm load. How about that?

    M
    Last edited by m287452; January 25th, 2011 at 10:26 AM.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    I would venture to say that the .357 energy ratings are at the bottom of the scale.

    Upper end ratings for .357 energy are 700 to 750 ft lbs. on full bore loads.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  3. #3
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array Texag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    508
    Only one of your measurements has any real bearing on how well a round performs.

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,901
    I have looked over these "stats" several times now and I dont see any real comparison. There is no meaning here at all. There are many other factors to take into consideration, and the Marshal-Sanow study of the 80's has been revealed to be flawed in various ways. Also, energy is only a part of the equation.
    aus71383 likes this.

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,098
    Besides, I like to think that I don't choose ammo that gives average performance for my concealed carry handguns.
    Bad Bob and aus71383 like this.
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  7. #7
    Member Array m287452's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    Besides, I like to think that I don't choose ammo that gives average performance for my concealed carry handguns.
    That is why I mentioned that if you want to see the manufacturers and loads comparisons, you have to go to the source of the data: Wikipedia.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array mastercapt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    502
    The study in Wiki said it used a 3.5" barrel for rating the ammo. Most of the new "pocket 380s" have about a 2" barrel. I would like to see a comparison or data for the pocket 380s, pocket 9s and the J-frames with 2".
    Yoi may be suprized as to the 380 vs 38 debate with shorter barrels.
    Yes, I also want to have the best ammo possible, but lets test apples and apples.

  9. #9
    New Member Array scs987's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    maine
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by m287452 View Post
    That is why I mentioned that if you want to see the manufacturers and loads comparisons, you have to go to the source of the data: Wikipedia.
    Unfortunately the Wikipedia pages seem to suffer from supporting some ... questionable science, shall we say. AIT in particular rests on shaky scientific ground. Someone certainly has done a great job placing "hydrostatic shock" advertising in every defensive handgun cartridge page and making the hydrostatic shock page itself look more credible by including many, many references (a lot of them appearing to pointing at sources of anecdotal evidence). I would take Dr's Fackler and Roberts research over Dr Courtney's at this point. As SGB posted, people should use the list instead of relying on pseudo-scientific statistical analysis presented by OP when it comes to potential life-or-death decisions.

    Comparing a specific 380 auto to the average of all 9mm loads? Really?
    aus71383 likes this.

  10. #10
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Shot placement and rounds on target. No use having a hicap 9mm or a 1911 shooting flying ashtrays if you can't hit anything.

  11. #11
    New Member Array tommygun1031's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    st. louis, mo
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Texag View Post
    Only one of your measurements has any real bearing on how well a round performs.
    and that would be.........?

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array IAm_Not_Lost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northern AZ
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by tommygun1031 View Post
    and that would be.........?
    Penetration.

    These stats get thrown around all the time, too many variables, it's a near impossible thing to quantify. Basic thing to remember is that guns shoot hunks of metal at high rates of speed. All hunks of metal are not created equal, some are bigger and thus give you a better opportunity of hitting something vital, while others are faster, giving a more violent expansion, and some are just plain anemic, but all will cause serious medical trauma when shot into the chest or head.
    "Brilliant. So now we got a huge guy theory, and a serial crusher theory. Top notch. What's your name?" - Paul Smecker

  13. #13
    New Member Array HYDRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Brookfield, CT
    Posts
    6

    Lightbulb Interesting , but very general

    To compare ballistics, you need to state the gun, barrel length, and round characteristics, weight, load, manuf stated velocity.

    Most defense loads for the .40 S&W and .45 ACP are very similar in ballistics, between 450 and 500 fp/E. Only very hot 9mm even get close. Hitting the target IS the most critical issue, if you can't hit what you shoot at, makes no difference what the ballistics are. Someone deciding on a carry should see what gun feels best and how well they can shoot it. Something to remember, a heavy gun seems a pain to carry, but will be most accurate over 10-15 feet away, under 15 feet, if you can't hit a point no more then 3" in diameter, you shouldn't be carrying a gun. High capacity .40 S&W guns are great defense, if you can hit something with it. 1911's are my favorite, in steel not poly body, heavy but you can hit a target the size of a man at 75ft, if you can shoot at all. All shooters should test themselves with different guns at different distances with different loads before carrying anything.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Stevew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,411
    I think folks get too caught up in "ammo performance". I think if you select ammo with the bullet weight that the round was devloped for and run it at the velocity the bullet is designed to perform (expand and penatrate) you will be fine. Sure ammo companies have to convince buyers that they need the latest and greatest if they want to get a buck per bullet.
    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws. Plato

  15. #15
    Member Array DallasCMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Shot placement and rounds on target. No use having a hicap 9mm or a 1911 shooting flying ashtrays if you can't hit anything.
    Exactly... 2 hits to the chest cavity at 15 yards with a .380 is usually more effective than three practical misses in the arms or legs at point blank range with a big caliber gun.

    To the OP's credit, the numbers show that the larger bores with more energy will typically have more stopping power when everything else (distance, bullet style, where hit on body, angle of hit, etc) is equal. I don't think this is surprising news to many, though.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for a Pistol Comparison Chart
    By airbornerangerboogie in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 16th, 2013, 03:24 AM
  2. Ballistics Gel
    By Dragman in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 16th, 2010, 11:31 AM
  3. Ballistics dogs
    By rich64 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2007, 12:05 PM
  4. AR10/M1A1 ballistics comparison?
    By Cupcake in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 10th, 2007, 06:20 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 7th, 2007, 05:30 PM

Search tags for this page

ballistic comparison
,
ballistic comparison chart
,

ballistics comparison

,
handgun ammo comparison
,
handgun ballistic comparison
,
handgun ballistics chart comparison
,

handgun ballistics comparison

,
handgun ballistics comparison chart
,
pistol ammo ballistics comparison
,
pistol ballistics
,

pistol ballistics comparison

,

pistol ballistics comparison chart

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors