Do you realize that a single 00 pellet has less energy and momentum than a .380?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAm_Not_Lost

Did anyone think that each individual pellet was as effective as a 9mm or 380? I have never known anyone that thinks that. Interesting points though.

---

I have heard numerous people, including folks right here on the forum, say that a round of 00 Buck was equivalent to "9 9mm rounds at once." That is demonstrably untrue. However, shotguns are one of those mythical, ego-bound, sacrosanct things that one can never question, or suggest are NOT the mythical wands of ultimate death that many people think they are. Even, as in Tangle's case here, one is not questioning the effectiveness of the round, but is rather only seeking to better understand WHY they are so effective when the physics indicate that the total effect is somehow more than the sum of its (rather low powered, relatively speaking) parts.

I like shotguns. I have owned one since I was 15 - a Remington 870 was the second firearm I ever bought (right after a Ruger 10/22). I have used them for skeet, bird and small game, deer, and in combat. I have no doubt as to their effectiveness, IN THEIR ROLE. I just think that their role in SD is relatively limited, and that there are better alternatives in many situations. But that is all neither here nor there - the point at hand is simple: a 00 Buck pellet does not have as much energy as one might suspect. That alone shouldn't bruise any egos, but then again things seldom go as they "should."

You guys are all off base.

We all know, and it's scientifically proven, that the mass & energy of 00 buckshot isn't what gives the shotgun it's reputation as a man stopper.

It's been proven time and again that the hyper-frequency of the metabolic microwave, produced by the auditory percussion actuated by racking the slide, causes the involuntary bowel movement of all evil persons, thus making their hasty retreat most expedient, lest they die of olefactory overload and dehydration ...


:wink:


Sent from my Galaxy S2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tangle

I had never given it a thought! My perception of 00 buckshot is that it would penetrate and destroy anything in its path. Then I think it was comparing 000 to 00 buckshot after a hunter mentioned it penetrated deeper. I think that's all it took to get me started down this path.

A 00 pellet has no where near the ballistics of a 9mm - it's not even in the ballpark. That's why I used the .380.

Just one more time for clarity, this is not in any way suggesting that only one 00 pellet is going to hit the threat or barrier or whatever. Nor does it question the devastating stopping power of a shotgun. But given that each pellet that hits the threat or whatever, is not close enough to any other pellet to cause a supportive effect, each pellet that hits the threat has less terminal ballistics than a .380.

So again, getting shot simultaneously with 7 .380s is equivalent in energy to 9 low recoil 00 pellets.

---

The problem appears to be that you are reading the numbers on the box of .380 which are likely from a 5 inch barrel -- common .380s have a bbl length of 2-3 inches... Shotguns all have barrels long enough to reach full velocity while .380s are losing power with every millimeter their barrel is missing. If you had chronographed the .380 and the shotgun, then physics would apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stanislaskasava

The problem appears to be that you are reading the numbers on the box of .380 which are likely from a 5 inch barrel -- common .380s have a bbl length of 2-3 inches... Shotguns all have barrels long enough to reach full velocity while .380s are losing power with every millimeter their barrel is missing. If you had chronographed the .380 and the shotgun, then physics would apply.

---

That would only serve to make the .380 less powerful. It would not impart any more mass, momentum, or energy to the shotgun pellet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tangle

No doubt there are ways to force the pellets to work close to a whole. But when we do that, we are no longer talking about the normal spread of shot, nor the effect of pellets working independently of each other.

There are basically threee effects with shot, one, they work together and exhibit nearly the full energy of the load; two, they work independently of each other and exhibit only the energy level of an individually pellet; or something in between.

This thread is looking at the ballistics of pellets when they are separated far enough to act independently. E.g. we fire a 9 pellet, 00 low recoil shot at 10 yards and they strike in a 10" group. The target is presented with the full energy of the load. But, since each pellet is working independently, the penetrative power is a function of individual pellet energy and momentum. The example of the #6 shot against the car door illustrates this effect.

---

.
.
You mean like this? It's kind of like when our Preacher says, "There are no big shots here, we're all just little shots shooting in the same direction. Same, only different. :yup:
.
.
http://imageshack.us/a/img23/7788/051600155000.jpghttp://imageshack.us/a/img38/5720/051600154901.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stanislaskasava

The problem appears to be that you are reading the numbers on the box of .380 which are likely from a 5 inch barrel -- common .380s have a bbl length of 2-3 inches... Shotguns all have barrels long enough to reach full velocity while .380s are losing power with every millimeter their barrel is missing. If you had chronographed the .380 and the shotgun, then physics would apply.

---

A couple of things. First good point. However, we don't know what barrel length either the shotgun or the .380 data was based on. Not all shotgun loads are shot from 18" barrels. It may very well be that the ballistics for the shotgun came from a longer barrel and developed more velocity than would be realized from an 18" barrel.

The physics are correct, i.e. the concepts, the numbers would change if we changed the velocities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brady

...You mean like this? [pic not "quoted"]It's kind of like when our Preacher says, "There are no big shots here, we're all just little shots shooting in the same direction. Same, only different. :yup:

---

Yep, exactly like that.

If you don't mind me asking, what brand and type ammo was that shot with?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OPFOR

I have heard numerous people, including folks right here on the forum, say that a round of 00 Buck was equivalent to "9 9mm rounds at once." That is demonstrably untrue. However, shotguns are one of those mythical, ego-bound, sacrosanct things that one can never question, or suggest are NOT the mythical wands of ultimate death that many people think they are. Even, as in Tangle's case here, one is not questioning the effectiveness of the round, but is rather only seeking to better understand WHY they are so effective when the physics indicate that the total effect is somehow more than the sum of its (rather low powered, relatively speaking) parts.

---

Thanks, OPFOR - you concisely, and accurately, summarized the intended points of the thread.

I’d spend a few minutes and read this:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Basically a paper on how handguns wound/incapacitate. The author and a couple studies point out that “energy” really doesn’t play that big a role in how handguns incapacitate (or OO in this case), due to the fact that at their velocities are low and the elasticity of human tissue.

It also goes on to state that the only sure way to incapacity with a handgun is hit the CNS, or major organs/arteries until the individual bleeds out. And that the temporary cavity produced by energy really doesn’t count for much: “temporary cavity has no reliable wounding effect in elastic tissues”.

This is pretty much the reason why the shotgun is superior to most handgun rounds regardless of the energy of the individual projectiles. The shotgun simply has more “opportunities” to hit the CNS or enough vital stuff for the target to bleed out as long as the shot size selected has enough penetration to reach them.

Chuck

Again, this isn't about the effectiveness of a shotgun for stopping a threat. Nor is it about the effectiveness of energy stopping a threat. It is about how the 00 pellets compare to some common pistol rounds, especially the .380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in a bit of a drift, just FWIW:
The contribution of energy is probably widely misunderstood because some 'experts' claim energy has no bearing on incapacitation. But energy plays a vital and even predominate role in incapacitation. E.g. if a .380 and a .308 are both 30 caliber bullets, why will one stop a deer and the other won't? Energy difference. Why is a .22 long rifle not as effective of a fight stopper as a .223? They're the same caliber, the big difference is energy.

In all fairness, I think what the 'experts' debate about energy is whether the energy contributes to incapacitation through an energy dump or shock. It has been argued both ways, but it appears that later studies and findings indicate that even handguns do produce or at least can produce remote damage. To wit:

"Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history.

In such meticulously selected cases brain tissue was examined histologically; samples were taken from brain hemispheres, basal ganglia, the pons, the oblongate and from the cerebellum. Cufflike pattern haemorrhages around small brain vessels were found in all specimens. These haemorrhages are caused by sudden changes of the intravascular blood pressure as a result of a compression of intrathoracic great vessels by a shock wave caused by a penetrating bullet.

It has often been asserted that hydrostatic shock and other descriptions of remote wounding effects are nothing but myths. A recent article in the journal, Neurosurgery, reviews the published evidence and concludes that the phenomenon is well-established."

Those waxed shotgun (video above) pellets are great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ppkheat

Those waxed shotgun (video above) pellets are great.

---

Haven't had a chance to try any - what do you use them for?

THANKS Tangle great thread....my wisdom re this thread...vehicle's often burn after being shot with OO...with practice you can gain skills to achieve a certain relibility (burning sheetmetal/upholstry best be friendly with your local FD))...try that with a 9...HA !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptSmith

THANKS Tangle great thread....my wisdom re this thread...vehicle's often burn after being shot with OO...with practice you can gain skills to achieve a certain relibility (burning sheetmetal/upholstry best be friendly with your local FD))...try that with a 9...HA !

---

What do you figure your odds are of incapacitating a car by causing it to burn with 00? And how does one gain skills at that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tangle

Yep, exactly like that.

If you don't mind me asking, what brand and type ammo was that shot with?

Thanks.

---

12 gauge, Winchester 2¾ inch, 00Buck lead, 9 pellets, regular load.