Velocity VS Bullet Weight

[pgrass101]

For your SP101 I ouwld go with the 158 gr .38 over the .357

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Stevew]

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.

[Stevew]

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.

[odysseus]

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?

[taseal]

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.

[taseal]

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.

[Dutch1951]

Foot Pounds of Energy!

[sgb]

C - Terminal Ballistic Performance.

[OldVet]

I like the faster ones. It's too easy to duck the slower ones.

[glockman10mm]

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

[varob]

Kill two birds with one stone. Use 230 gr. .45 +p

[hayzor]

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.

[21bubba]

'bout time for some one to throw out the 125 grain 357mag round as a example that doesn't fit.

[sensei2]

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.

[RKM]

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.