Two different industry shaping ideas on bullet stopping power

[dV8r]

They all go towards proving that shot placement is the MOST important aspect of self defensive or offensive guns.
So keep shooting and keep practicing with what ever round you like best.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[LouisianaMan]

I'll try muddying the waters a bit . . .

Until and unless someone refutes Sykes's "Shooting to Live with the One-Hand Gun," I will continue to give great credence to what his book says. It seems to me that his little book was based on more actual experience of pistol fighting. . .than any other source I'm aware of. I believe he was in a position to make realistic generalizations that are more credible than modern attempts to force HIGHLY personalized & subjective events--namely fights for life at close quarters--into clear, legitimate data sets.

From all of that, I take some observations he offered that may be relevant to our topic:
1. He explicitly stated a preference for expanding bullets, but was constrained to use ball/solid. (No idea if he wanted or used flatpoints.)

2. He saw no evidence that slow, heavy lead bullets were the ne plus ultra of stopping power, as many contemporaries claimed.

3. He hesitated to address "stopping power," because he believed no reliable generalizations could be made about it. In fact, he pretty much limited his anecdotes to failures of .455 and .45, vs. the terrifying potential (but inconsistent results) of the hi-vel, small caliber .30 Mauser. In other words, caliber didn't predict "stopping power." The only one-shot knockdown he observed was from a .380, but that guy got up and ran away.

4. He did offer that one's selection of a defensive pistol should be limited to a "serious" caliber, IIRC, which lineup included not only the .455 and .45, but also the .38's and .32's. He dismissed only the .22 and .25 altogether, although he noted their potential lethality.

5. He wound up recommending one choose the most powerful handgun one could handle effectively, which he defined as being able to achieve a rapid burst of hits to the body.

6. He emphasized speed above all--get in the first shot, and shoot in bursts to obtain some (unstated--but obviously important to him) benefit that resulted from multiple quick hits. He didn't speculate HOW that mechanism worked, but strongly averred that it DID work. He emphasized that point by saying that the more his pistols resembled submachineguns, the more he liked them.

7. I can't say how or if his emphasis on rapid, multiple hits might have been modified by the use of the expanding bullets he wanted to use. I presume he just believed the key was to inflict as much trauma as possible, as quickly as possible, and powerful loads with expanding bullets provided the best chance to do so. . .but different shooters would handle different guns & loads with differing speed & accuracy levels. No telling where he would have drawn the lines, e.g. 4 fast hits with .32 lead or ball would equal 2 expanding .38's or one expanding .45, or 2 major-caliber hits in 4 seconds would not be as effective as 4 minor-caliber hits in 2 seconds, or whatever. Doubtless he believed too many other variables were involved.

My bet: just like many of us, he'd say expansion with penetration would be ideal, but penetration is the indispensable one of the two. He'd likely choose/recommend a middleweight-for-caliber hollowpoint in the heaviest caliber that the shooter could shoot rapidly and accurately. No way he'd pick a lightweight HP that threatened to underpenetrate, nor anything not proven to feed reliably. And although he doubtless understood "bullet placement," he'd place little faith in someone's ability to shoot with precision in a gunfight--rapidity + power was the realistic substitute.

[BugDude]

I have read (sorry, I can't recall where for reference) that hydrostatic shock is much more likely to occur from multiple hits in different places because the central nervous system is sending messages to the brain regarding pain, injury, etc. and it essentially overloads or short circuits the CNS. The article I was reading suggested that it took at least 3 hits to really see a noticable effect from hydrostatic shock. Of course, this all could have been a load of bull too. The bottom line of the article was comparing timeframes of shock in hospital trauma patients from one large traumatic injury versus multiple lesser traumatic injuries (that covered multiple systems) and how this related to gunshot wounds and the metaphysical response of the CNS.


What I took from the article was if you have to shoot, shoot a lot, shoot fast, and hit what you need to hit...regardless of what weapon you're shooting.

[40Bob]

Bug,

Hydrostatic shock is the term used to describe injuries to the soft tissue from high velocity rounds. With multiple hits the intense pain will bring about shock all by itself. Then you could also have hypovolemic shock brought on by massive blood loss. The bottom line is shock kills and that is why in emergency medicine treatment for shock is secondary only to breathing and circulation.

There is also a phenomenon that occurs with machine gun fire that you may be thinking of. The theory of that is, as each successive bullet impacts it does more damage exponentially as the temporary cavity is expanded again and again or adjacent to one another overcoming the tissues elasticity. I also read some thing about that years ago.

I hope I answered your question.

[Blades]

It seems a good example of two different calibers getting it done on opposite ends of the spectrum. Perhaps they both had the best balance of both extremes?

It gained that reputation because it was a vast improvement over the available ammunition at the time. Many LEO's were using the round, departments that had been using the 38 Special +p and went to the 125 Grain 357 magnum went from having to shoot BG's 5-6 times to having to shoot then 1-2 times.

When the US Border Patrol transitioned from 357 Magnum revolvers to 40 S&W semi auto's our hit ratio flip flopped. Before 80% of shots hit, after 20% of shots hit.




A bullet generally sheds energy quickly, many bullets that over penetrate are frequently found close at hand. Think of driving your car into a lake.

I still wonder if the shooting ability "back-in-the-day" was better, 6 or 7(45acp) shots probably made sure you aimed properly before firing(and they didn't have our modern bullet design). Just my opinion/theory.

[glockman10mm]

Blade, certainly " back in the day" marksmanship was more highly regarded among lawmen. Most local police agencies put weight on the ability of the officer to shoot well, also, there were many LE competitions to promote this among agencies.

[Cuda66]

Screw it.

I need to come up with a handload full wadcutter for my .500 S&W; I figure about 325 grains, moving at 14-1500 fps should do the trick.

Cutting a full-diameter half-inch hole should make expansion a moot point, no?

[glockman10mm]

Screw it.

I need to come up with a handload full wadcutter for my .500 S&W; I figure about 325 grains, moving at 14-1500 fps should do the trick.

Cutting a full-diameter half-inch hole should make expansion a moot point, no?

Not goin to get any argument from me!

[sgb]

Not goin to get any argument from me!

............. or me.

[eagle00]

Let me preface my comments by saying that I’m a novice at this subject and offer my thoughts only as a different perspective. I’m not saying that I am right, and I may be wrong – just a different perspective. Please correct me where I may be mistaken.

I have run the numbers (i.e. V, M, E, Momentum, Sectional Density, ‘TKO’, penetration #’s, expansion, etc…) as regards bullet ballistics, read many industry professional’s conclusions and have determined that bullet penetration & expansion figures are “relatively” the same [ for 9mm - .45ACP ]. For example, they all penetrate 12” – 14” and expand from 0.63” – 0.75”. Now, those are “ideal”, perfect condition data. Therein is the dilemma. There are too many variables to consider in actual shootings.

How is it that the .357 Magnum’s empirical data falls somewhere between a 9mm and a .40 S&W, yet in the field has proven to be more effective than either? How many accounts are there of actual shootings from a .357 Mag where the BG was disfigured (obviously, depending on hit location) and stopped in his tracks? Yet, the bullet’s data would not necessarily indicate the .357 would yield those results.
The .45ACP and the 1911 earned its reputation using ball ammo, if I’m not mistaken. Meaning, no expansion from the .45ACP, just a “big” hole! Just like glockman10mm says, he’d rather have a big caliber sized hole through and through than rely on some stated expansion figure. ( It has also been stated that JHP’s do not always expand). I tend to agree with glockman10mm when he (and others) say that they’ll stick with the LSWC, being confident that it’ll produce a wound that should incapacitate whatever is hit, less prone to those stated invariables such as bone deflection, expansion (or lack of), etc…, and not worry whether it’ll expand or not.

The major factor in using expanding bullets, as has been argued, [ not to mention political correctness and the proverbial collateral damage & legalities] is its efficiency - that all of its energy is deposited into the object hit. Whereas, a non-expanding round will not deposit all of its energy into the object because it continues to travel through that object.

I liken this to being hit by a car. What would be the difference if I were hit by a car that ran me over and kept going, as compared to the car stopping as it hit me? ( Now, there is no need to get into calculating the kinetic energy of the vehicle being transferred into heat energy as the brakes are applied to the car, etc., etc. No, no brakes applied in this example, reducing the force of the impact as compared to not stopping. This is allegory.) The point being that the car either runs me over and keeps going or stops as it hits me. I would submit that completely running over the object might cause more damage. [ If anyone has a better example, please share it with us. ]

Too bad wad cutters aren’t available for semi-autos – I’d consider using them. Real world experiences, such as hunting, etc., trump theoretical data…… just a thought.

[Blades]

Blade, certainly " back in the day" marksmanship was more highly regarded among lawmen. Most local police agencies put weight on the ability of the officer to shoot well, also, there were many LE competitions to promote this among agencies.

I think that law enforcement agencies should shoot monthly, maybe two magazines worth, that's all. How many rounds do they shoot each year at qualification? Fifty or a hundred? Not the standard target fifteen yards away, but a shoot house or remote targets that come at you.

Screw it.

I need to come up with a handload full wadcutter for my .500 S&W; I figure about 325 grains, moving at 14-1500 fps should do the trick.

Cutting a full-diameter half-inch hole should make expansion a moot point, no?

That would be quite effective, I believe.

Too bad wad cutters aren’t available for semi-autos – I’d consider using them. Real world experiences, such as hunting, etc., trump theoretical data…… just a thought.

Your first shot could be a wad cutter, followed up by JHP. Just have to load it in your gun by hand, and find one for your gun.

[40Bob]

How is it that the .357 Magnum’s empirical data falls somewhere between a 9mm and a .40 S&W, yet in the field has proven to be more effective than either?

And that my friend is what has all of the scientists baffled because they cannot replicate the results in a sterile laboratory environment. Us old cops don't always know why something works, we use it because it works. But even that difference in effectiveness is not not a great amount. What is more important having 6 or 15 if they are that close.

I think that law enforcement agencies should shoot monthly, maybe two magazines worth, that's all. How many rounds do they shoot each year at qualification? Fifty or a hundred? Not the standard target fifteen yards away, but a shoot house or remote targets that come at you.

That depends on the agency. Every federal agency I know of qualifies quarterly. The USBP course of fire is from 3 yards, firing from retention to 25 yards for a total of 72 rounds. Each agent is given 50 rounds a month for practice ammo. I was fortunate, in that, the USBP supports agents to shoot competitively so I was issued ammo to compete and practice with. You also need to understand, LE agencies generally train their people for their to achieve a minimum standard and to avoid liability from the public and the officer. If an officer want to be a great marksman or combat shooter it is up to them. 25-30 years ago most LEO's were former military, hunters etc. Now recruits are and not so much into guns, many have never fired a real gun before the academy. Many also feel they will get "plenty" of training in the academy.

Your first shot could be a wad cutter, followed up by JHP. Just have to load it in your gun by hand, and find one for your gun.

Loading a semi by hand is hard on the extractor. Two different loads may have different POI.

[NH_Esau]

How many rounds do they shoot each year at qualification? Fifty or a hundred?

Try 36 in a lot of depts. And there are some who only shoot that every year (maybe 72... if they don't qual in the first run and have to do a 2nd). No kidding.

[OldVet]

I figure a shot of just about anything stronger than tequila between the eyes will do.

[Tayopo]

Ladies & Gentlemen: Personally, while I was in the Border Patrol, I regarded my pistol as an important tool of the trade and decided to master it. So I started reloading full power loads for my .357.

Daily, for over a year, I fired between 5 -7 boxes under every condition that I could simulate, day and night, from close in fast draw, to deliberate looong range, 4 - 500 meters.

After I left the Patrol, I entered into 'Exploring' from the Gobi to Mexico. I finally ended up in north western Mexico explorng the then unknown, lawless, barrancas looking for Lost Spanish mines and just bumming around. During this period I beat the then Mexican National pistol Champion in an informal match.

I most certainly will not discuss the times it resolved interesting situations in there. But I will discuss the practical effect of heavy, full power, lead, semi wadcutters.

I fully realize the dfferences in the theoretical effect between expanding and non expanding projectiles, especially in a close in defensive situations through experience, but I will always prefer a projectile of proven consistant performance capable of delivering 'excess energy', to one that 'may occasionally' deliver spectacular performance.

.As for the excess energy allowing the projectile to exit the BG's body and going on to cause other undesirable effects, what about the many times that the lighter HP projectiles that were flying freely since they did not end up in the BG's body?

If after a few rounds and the BG does not show any effects, coolness evaporates quickly, and the remaining rounds are not fired coolly, and accurately, but bordering on panic, UNLESS one has practiced extensively. <--- key !

K my friends coffee or a cool San Miguel in the patio, but remember, the firefight stays in here. he he

Don Jose d e La Mancha\
"I exit to Live, not live to exist"