Velocity VS Bullet Weight

This is a discussion on Velocity VS Bullet Weight within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; For your SP101 I ouwld go with the 158 gr .38 over the .357...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Velocity VS Bullet Weight

  1. #16
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,087
    For your SP101 I ouwld go with the 158 gr .38 over the .357
    Sometimes I wonder who the old man in the mirror is....

    Lord, Grant me a good sword and no need to use it.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array Stevew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,232
    Part of the formula for bullet energy is bullet velocity squared X bullet weight. So, without a doubt I will have to go with velocity.
    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws. Plato

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array Stevew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,232
    For my MOD 60 I either go with a fast lead hollow point SWC 158g (900+ ft per sec) in 38 or 357, when using 357 I ain't to picky. For my wife I go with 148 lead SWC at around 600 fps. With the lighter 642 her follow up shots are slower with heavier recoil. Velocity still gets the nod and I seldom carry 38 rounds in my 357. Thays the reason for having the 357. Power.
    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws. Plato

  5. #19
    Member Array odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    19
    I'm no expert. What exactly does "bullet energy" do to stop an attacker? We know that people can be shot, even mortally wounded, and still be able to do enough to kill you. Is 500 ft/lbs of energy at one small spot on your chest enough to "stop" an attacker?

  6. #20
    Senior Member Array taseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Boca Raton, FL
    Posts
    907
    depends... people diss the little fn pistol round that shoots a 27gr bullet at over 2,100fps. but love a 230gr .45 that goes at less than half the speed.

    Both have killed many people.

    it's just all about where it hits.

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array taseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Boca Raton, FL
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by odysseus View Post
    I'm no expert. What exactly does "bullet energy" do to stop an attacker? We know that people can be shot, even mortally wounded, and still be able to do enough to kill you. Is 500 ft/lbs of energy at one small spot on your chest enough to "stop" an attacker?
    that energy number is equated into other things like penetration, capability of barrier passing etc (along with bullet design) also remember when that bullet hits, all thatenergy transfers to you. it's like using your chest to stop a baseball or a bowling ball.

  8. #22
    Member Array Dutch1951's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    50
    Foot Pounds of Energy!

  9. #23
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    C - Terminal Ballistic Performance.
    "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

  10. #24
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,554
    I like the faster ones. It's too easy to duck the slower ones.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,851
    For smaller calibers, using lighter weight bullets, velocity is the only thing that makes them viable, and also hang the hope of " textbook lab " results on impact. Some folks will hang their hat on that and be quiet confident with their choice, and for the most part all will be fine.

    " Its all about shot placement". Heres where the problem begins with the small lighter bullets. I am sick and tired of hearing this often misquoted inet wisdom regurgitated and taken completely out of context.

    Sure, its a given that good shot placement is the first consideration for a desired SD shooting effect. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that a shot to the CNS, will have more effect than a shot to the arse cheek ( although that could be a deterrent)

    But the terminal performance is just beginning after the bullet penetrates the layers of skin, and of course, all hopes are hinged on the bullet performing like it is advertised.

    Heres one that did not. The picture below is a hot stepping 124 weight HP by a major manufacturer of LE ammo. As a matter of fact it is ammo supplied to me by my agency for those grandfathered in to carry the 9mm. I have kept this bullet as a reminder of why light weight high velocity ammo will never, ever again be loaded in my carry guns.
    I dug this round out of a feral dog, about the size of a large shepherd, a few days after I shot it. The dog ran off at full tilt boogy. While cutting brush a few days later, I found it, several 100 yards from where I shot it. Curious, I performed the stinking job of opening the dog up, and found the bullet had only penetrated one lung, and was found against the protective membrane of the other lung, with little damage to it.

    The bullet is pretty enough for pictures that lab rats love to show off, and this one is a beauty! However, its almost flat as a quarter, and failed miserably. I shot the rest for target practice. Heres the pic;


    Will they all do this? Who can say for sure. One thing I do know is this; if that bullet had a little more sectional density, which in this case would be weight, it would have been a double lung hit, and performed much better. If it had been a lswc of the same weight, Im willing to bet my farm the results would have been different, much different.
    So much for perfect shot placement being the end all answer, don't ya think?

    If you really want to know how a fishing lure works, ask a fisherman. If you want to know how bullets perform on flesh, ask a hunter.

    And....I suppose the animal could not understand ballistic equations
    OldVet, zacii, DrahtDog and 2 others like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,439
    Kill two birds with one stone. Use 230 gr. .45 +p
    glockman10mm likes this.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  13. #27
    Senior Member Array hayzor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    For smaller calibers, using lighter weight bullets, velocity is the only thing that makes them viable, and also hang the hope of " textbook lab " results on impact. Some folks will hang their hat on that and be quiet confident with their choice, and for the most part all will be fine.

    " Its all about shot placement". Heres where the problem begins with the small lighter bullets. I am sick and tired of hearing this often misquoted inet wisdom regurgitated and taken completely out of context.

    Sure, its a given that good shot placement is the first consideration for a desired SD shooting effect. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that a shot to the CNS, will have more effect than a shot to the arse cheek ( although that could be a deterrent)

    But the terminal performance is just beginning after the bullet penetrates the layers of skin, and of course, all hopes are hinged on the bullet performing like it is advertised.

    Heres one that did not. The picture below is a hot stepping 124 weight HP by a major manufacturer of LE ammo. As a matter of fact it is ammo supplied to me by my agency for those grandfathered in to carry the 9mm. I have kept this bullet as a reminder of why light weight high velocity ammo will never, ever again be loaded in my carry guns.
    I dug this round out of a feral dog, about the size of a large shepherd, a few days after I shot it. The dog ran off at full tilt boogy. While cutting brush a few days later, I found it, several 100 yards from where I shot it. Curious, I performed the stinking job of opening the dog up, and found the bullet had only penetrated one lung, and was found against the protective membrane of the other lung, with little damage to it.

    The bullet is pretty enough for pictures that lab rats love to show off, and this one is a beauty! However, its almost flat as a quarter, and failed miserably. I shot the rest for target practice. Heres the pic;


    Will they all do this? Who can say for sure. One thing I do know is this; if that bullet had a little more sectional density, which in this case would be weight, it would have been a double lung hit, and performed much better. If it had been a lswc of the same weight, Im willing to bet my farm the results would have been different, much different.
    So much for perfect shot placement being the end all answer, don't ya think?

    If you really want to know how a fishing lure works, ask a fisherman. If you want to know how bullets perform on flesh, ask a hunter.

    And....I suppose the animal could not understand ballistic equations
    Sounds like the bullet performed fine - 1 dead dog. Nice shooting by the way.
    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. Albert Einstein

    "People in Arizona carry guns," said a Chandler police spokesman. "You better be careful about who you are picking on."

  14. #28
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    'bout time for some one to throw out the 125 grain 357mag round as a example that doesn't fit.

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array sensei2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    867
    to me, the way the original question was phrased is like asking, "which is more important to a car, the tires or the engine?"

    zero mass at infinite speed won't do much. neither will infinite mass at zero velocity.

  16. #30
    RKM
    RKM is offline
    Distinguished Member Array RKM's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,795
    I tend to sway towards the heavy stuff, especially for handgun ammo. Cor-Bon DPX and other rounds loaded with Barnes Bullets seem to be the exception of light weight bullets, due to their design.

    However, it would be hard to argue that a big .45 traveling at 850fps will outperform a smaller, lighter, but much faster traveling a 7.62x51 traveling at 2800FPS.

    It's proven that heavy and slow wins in the handgun world. But where does this reach it's end? Eventually small, light and fast takes over in the rifle world. I'm sure bullet design plays a part. I don't fully understand terminal ballistics. But I base my carry and defense choices off of what seems to be proven. 45ACP 230gr+P and 9mm 147gr HST in my defensive pistols, and .223 75gr TAP or 5.56 Mk318 62gr in my defensive rifle. I have nothing but confidence in these loads.

    Shot placement being equal, I think the heavy round will perform better. But a 115gr 9mm to the face beats a 230gr .45ACP to the big toe.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

bullet mass vs velocity
,
bullet speed vs weight
,
bullet velocity vs weight
,

bullet weight

,
bullet weight and velocity
,
bullet weight versus velocity
,

bullet weight vs speed

,

bullet weight vs velocity

,
speed vs weight in bullets
,
velocity vs bullet weight
,
velocity vs weight
,
velocity vs. weight handgun bullets
Click on a term to search for related topics.