Pistols are pistols.
Rifles are rifles.
The 5.7x28 is not a rifle round.
In my LFI-1 class a while back, we sat through over an hour of autopsy photos showing just how devastating wounds from all sorts of weapons can be. Fortunately these were autopsy and not crime scene photos, so there were no puddles of blood or gobs or brain matter to deal with.
Relative to the discussion at hand, two photos stand out in my memory. One was a gun who was shot in the center of the forehead with a 5.56. From the front, all you saw was a red dot, but from the rear, his entire skull was emptied out like a pumpkin. The other was a guy shot in the bicep area with a .308 (no idea of bullet type). It was pretty much a frontal shot and the victim's arm was by his side when he was hit. The shot took out a big chunk of arm, but a much bigger chunk of adjacent chest tissue including part of a lung, even though the bullet itself never touched the chest. The "collateral damage" was just from the hydrodynamic shock to the tissue surrounding the bullet path.
Back on topic.
I'm sure none of this is new to you since you seem to have your mind made up, but I thought I would write it out anyways.
There are 2 significant mechanisms of injury that occur in high velocity penetrating trauma which is what rifle wounds are classified as. One is the actual crushing of tissue, the other is temporary cavitation. Most pistol rounds are considered medium velocity penetrating trauma and the only significant mechanism of injury is the tissue crushed by the actual round.
Yes, crushed tissue in either a high velocity or medium velocity penetrating wound is crushed and destroyed. Yes, both pistol and rifle rounds crush the tissue they pass through. When the bullets impact elastic tissue like muscle there isn't much difference in the wound created, I'll give you that. Assuming the rifle round is FMJ and passes straight through without yawing I'll even say that the pistol may cause more tissue damage to straight skeletal muscle because it is larger diameter and crushes more tissue as it penetrates. Injuries to elastic tissue aren't going to incapacitate someone quickly so that crushed tissue is just going to provide a place for blood to exit the body.
The difference in "killing power" as you called it is when the rounds impact nonelastic organs or bones. A rifle round is going to do a lot more damage than a pistol if the round strikes the heart, liver, brain, bladder, or even full intestines. Those types of tissue don't stand up to cavitation very well. The fragmentation that occurs when a high velocity round encounters something hard like a bone is also very destructive and something to keep in mind when comparing rifle and pistol ballistics. Soft or hollow point rifle rounds don't need to hit bone to fragment and neither do FMJ rounds when impacting at a high enough velocity.
The way I see it is that both pistol and rifle rounds can crush tissue just the same, especially in extremity wounds. The rifle round has the added bonus of being able to cause extra damage to nonelastic organs or dense tissue such as bones. The rifle is not going to do more damage in all situations. It does have the ability to do more in certain situations though.
I think "a hole is a hole" is simplifying wound characteristics a wee bit.
I don't like absolutes. How many time have we heard rifles are rifles and pistols suck? Not all pistols are created equal, that is why I like medium caliber high velocity rounds like the 357 Magnum, 357 Sig and the 155 grain 40 S&W. I may be a bit biased on the 40 as the load we were issued in the BP was about 100 FPS faster than the commercial loading.
.357 Magnum Speer 125gr Gold Dot - YouTube
The good ole 10MM Now thats a nice round that does some damage...
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
sparkykb, I'm not going to disagree with what you said here. The higher velocity of a rifle round certainly does have the potential to create more damage.
I just disagree with the ideation that handguns of a proper caliber and power level are poor stoppers/ killers.
Of course if I knew I was going to a fight, I would choose a rifle, any rifle over a pistol. But, it would be for more of the hit potential than for power factor, although, in a war/ or environment scenario where barriers are a concern, that would also factor into choice.
That 5.57×28 is a potent round designed to tumble after impact... not to mention its highly accurate ...
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
There's a line of though out there in search-engine-land that claims that bullets tumbling for enhanced terminal ballistics never, ever was a design consideration for military 5.56 ammo, either from the beginning or at present.
It's pretty lame to depend on trick bullets to do the work and provide special "killing power" in an otherwise medium varmint number. I subscribe to the no-tumbling notion myself. At the very least, dependable bullet tumbling as a feature of .223/5.56 is way overstated.
I remember watching a show about the history of the modern military firearms and the reasons behind them. They had an interview of one of the military guys that helped choose the 5.56 round. He was quick to debunk the whole tumbling myth. Let's face it, the 5.56 is a good close to mid-range round that most soldiers can handle with ease. That was the real reason it was chosen.
A good shooter can make effective use of the round for longer distances as well. It's just not a nominal choice for longer shots being made today. Snipers are taking some shots today that were never even considered possible back when we were in Vietnam.
More importantly, rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols. Different platfoms with different pros and cons.
Comparing an extremely lucky ricocheted 5.56 shot to having a short fat man taking several pistol rounds makes no sense. Different targets are easier to kill with the proper equipment. Just because you can kill a deer with a rifle chambered in .22 LR, it doesn't mean it's the right round for the job.
I don't know if you have seen this link, http://concealedcarryholsters.org/wp...e-Shootout.pdf but it shows the result of a shoot out using several calibers. It is ugly, but informative.
Wiggity, I'd say that's a pretty bold statement. But if so, please enlighten me, I'm always up to learning something new.
Seems to me the best you can do is quote scripture from the bible of old FBI data and insult others opinion while only being able to repeat studies you have read and have adopted as your own knowledge.
You will never, ever, read where I quote from studies or tests that others have done. What I say is what I believe from my own experience. I don't need anyone to do my thinking for me, especially a parrot.