Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
Terminal Ballistics from the Morgue
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ldp4570" data-source="post: 1199257" data-attributes="member: 5168"><p>In short, my first choice in almost all situations will be a shotgun, followed by a rifle, followed by a handgun.</p><p></p><p>After re-reading some of my previous posts on wound ballistics and how bullet weight and velocity affect wound characteristics, I'm not sure I did as good of a job of explaining it as I might have. Let me see if I can rephrase some of this stuff and reduce it to something useful (I hope). I'll try to keep the scientific end of things to a minimum, but some of it is necessary to get the gist of it. Anyway, the kinetic energy imparted by a bullet as it enters the body depends on two things--the weight of the bullet and the velocity at which it is traveling. Of the two, velocity is more important. Doubling the velocity quadruples the kinetic energy; doubling the bullet weight only doubles it.</p><p></p><p>When a bullet strikes tissue the kinetic energy begins to create a temporary cavity behind it, sort of like the videos you've seen of space capsules re-entering the atmosphere. Maximum expansion occurs some time after passage of the bullet (measured in milliseconds) and the diameter of the expansion depends largely on velocity (as well as tissue density and cohesiveness, but we've already touched on that), with higher velocities producing larger temporary cavities. The temporary cavity is extremely important in that it is largely responsible for producing injuries to arteries, veins, organs, and nerves that are not directly struck by the bullet or its fragments. In fact, it's possible for the bullet to strike nothing vital at all but still produce incapacitation or death by the temporary cavity that does.</p><p></p><p>Because of the relatively low velocity of most handgun projectiles, the temporary cavity produced is generally quite small, extending only a short distance into the surrounding tissues. With high velocity bullets, such as with rifles, the picture changes dramatically. Because of the quadrupling of kinetic energy, this temporary cavity is GREATLY enlarged and subsequent damage to surrounding nerves, tissues, blood vessels, and organs is GREATLY enhanced, and fractures to bones incidental to the temporary cavity can occur even without the bullet directly striking them.</p><p></p><p>So at what velocity does this increased (hence, more effective) temporary cavity occur? From what I've read (and confirmed on the autopsy table) this is around 2600-2900 fps. At these velocities the characteristics of the wound change from one with a minimal temporary cavity to one in which the temporary cavity increases dramatically.</p><p></p><p>As for the bullet exiting the body versus staying in the body, I read just yesterday that most ballistic experts now agree that my suspicions all along are correct. Although kinetic energy is determined by the weight and velocity of the bullet, wound damage is determined by the kinetic energy lost in the tissue. In other words, kinetic energy lost when the bullet exits is not imparted to the body; conversely, when a bullet remains in the body, all of its kinetic energy is spent doing damage to the tissue. So I guess that finding a bullet that is less likely to exit is bad for the BG who gets hit and good for the civilian standing behind him.</p><p></p><p>Ok, so where does this leave us? It sounds like we want a big bullet moving at high velocity that bleeds (no pun intended) off its kinetic energy so fast that it stays in the body rather than exiting. Also, the weapon that shoots it would have to be small in order to be concealable (after all, that's what the gist of this CCW forum is even though this thread has morphed far beyond that), controllable, and capable of firing multiple shots in rapid succession. Wonderful! Now all someone has to do is invent it because it certainly doesn't exist right now.</p><p></p><p>Like most things in life, everything is a tradeoff here. In order to get the much-needed high velocity necessary to produce a large temporary cavity we've got to opt for rounds commonly associated with rifles and somehow put them in a handgun. About the only ones I know of are things like the Thompson Centers or the Remington XP-100, and somehow neither of these would be very high on my list of self-defense weapons. Concealability aside, working the bolt of an XP-100 in a firefight just doesn't appeal to me. And if you think a snubbie can be hard to hide in hot weather, try a Thompson Center. Even if it were possible to somehow shrink them to concealable size and produce multiple shots, how easy would it be to control a caliber designed for rifles but put in a handgun?</p><p></p><p>So we're back to handguns, when going out and about, aren't we? Ok, think back to the two things that control our all-important temporary cavity, i.e., bullet weight and velocity. In most handgun calibers that are designed for self-defense, we can't do a lot about velocity. We just can't get the velocity up to the all-critical 2600-2900 fps, so we're left with bullet weight. Again, doubling the bullet weight doubles the kinetic energy. So, do you still want to shoot that 125-grain 9mm when you could have a 230-grain .45?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where does it leave or how does it explain the most-deadly reputation of the 125 grain .357? Does that reputation hold up if fired from a 1 7/8" snub? Or the commonly carried .38 special +P launched from a 1 7/8" snub? According to <a href="http://le.atk.com/pdf/SpeerTech38_135HP.pdf" target="_blank">http://le.atk.com/pdf/SpeerTech38_135HP.pdf</a> Speer Gold Dot .38's (135 grain bullet) fired from a S&W 640 1 7/8" barrel yields about 870 fps (which they compare with a 124 grain GDHP bullet from a Glock 19 with 4" barrel at about 1,200 fps).</p><p></p><p>I don't have velocity information for other bullets handy, but it would seem that to a CCW wheelgunner it would behoove one to compare their chosen caliber offerings for velocity from a barrel length as close as possible to what they carry, compared with the weight of the bullet, and look for the best combination of high velocity viz high bullet weight. I'm not sure what weight to give to bullet shape in this analysis, versus velocity and weight.</p><p></p><p>Steven Camp has done some of this and I'll have to re-read his and your postings. Pretty much he recommends 158-grain LSWCHP +P .38 special from a 1 7/8" snub revolver (Remington, Federal or Winchester) but the pages seem a bit dated. They are however EXCELLENT, easy to read and well illustrated. I highly recommend reading them. Hopefully they'll be updated soon.</p><p><a href="http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm</a> (although a 2 1/2" barrel was used for testing, not 1 7/8")</p><p><a href="http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38%20Special%20158gr%20LSWCHP.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38 Special 158gr LSWCHP.htm</a> (refers to but hasn't yet tested 135 gr GDHP)</p><p><a href="http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Feedingthe38Snub.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Feedingthe38Snub.htm</a></p><p></p><p>Edited to Add:</p><p>I just found this information on Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel rounds on their website</p><p><a href="http://le.atk.com/Interior.asp?section=2&page=pages/cci...ccispeer_GoldDot.asp" target="_blank">http://le.atk.com/Interior.asp?section=2&page=pages/cci...ccispeer_GoldDot.asp</a></p><p></p><p>.357 125 gr short barrel is clocked at 1,000 fps from a 2" vented barrel. Here's some abbreviated muzzle velocity and 25 foot velocity in parenthesis info from the page on short barrel, with my calculation of % velocity retained at 25 feet:</p><p></p><p>* 9mm +P 124 gr 3.5" barrel 1150 fps (1089) 94.6%</p><p>* .38 Spcl +P 135 gr 2" vented barrel 860 fps (839) 97.5%</p><p>* .357 Mag 135 gr 2" vented barrel 1000 fps (966) 96.6%</p><p>* .40 S&W 180 gr 3.5" barrel 950 fps (922) 97.0%</p><p>* .44 Mag 200 gr 4" vented barrel 1075 fps (1031) 95.9%</p><p>* .45 ACP 230 gr 4" barrel 820 fps (801) 97.6%</p><p></p><p>I don't know why they used a vented barrel for some of the tests. I would guess that most users would not have vented barrels, and that velocities would be higher if tested in non-vented barrels (but so would recoil/muzzle flip).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ldp4570, post: 1199257, member: 5168"] In short, my first choice in almost all situations will be a shotgun, followed by a rifle, followed by a handgun. After re-reading some of my previous posts on wound ballistics and how bullet weight and velocity affect wound characteristics, I'm not sure I did as good of a job of explaining it as I might have. Let me see if I can rephrase some of this stuff and reduce it to something useful (I hope). I'll try to keep the scientific end of things to a minimum, but some of it is necessary to get the gist of it. Anyway, the kinetic energy imparted by a bullet as it enters the body depends on two things--the weight of the bullet and the velocity at which it is traveling. Of the two, velocity is more important. Doubling the velocity quadruples the kinetic energy; doubling the bullet weight only doubles it. When a bullet strikes tissue the kinetic energy begins to create a temporary cavity behind it, sort of like the videos you've seen of space capsules re-entering the atmosphere. Maximum expansion occurs some time after passage of the bullet (measured in milliseconds) and the diameter of the expansion depends largely on velocity (as well as tissue density and cohesiveness, but we've already touched on that), with higher velocities producing larger temporary cavities. The temporary cavity is extremely important in that it is largely responsible for producing injuries to arteries, veins, organs, and nerves that are not directly struck by the bullet or its fragments. In fact, it's possible for the bullet to strike nothing vital at all but still produce incapacitation or death by the temporary cavity that does. Because of the relatively low velocity of most handgun projectiles, the temporary cavity produced is generally quite small, extending only a short distance into the surrounding tissues. With high velocity bullets, such as with rifles, the picture changes dramatically. Because of the quadrupling of kinetic energy, this temporary cavity is GREATLY enlarged and subsequent damage to surrounding nerves, tissues, blood vessels, and organs is GREATLY enhanced, and fractures to bones incidental to the temporary cavity can occur even without the bullet directly striking them. So at what velocity does this increased (hence, more effective) temporary cavity occur? From what I've read (and confirmed on the autopsy table) this is around 2600-2900 fps. At these velocities the characteristics of the wound change from one with a minimal temporary cavity to one in which the temporary cavity increases dramatically. As for the bullet exiting the body versus staying in the body, I read just yesterday that most ballistic experts now agree that my suspicions all along are correct. Although kinetic energy is determined by the weight and velocity of the bullet, wound damage is determined by the kinetic energy lost in the tissue. In other words, kinetic energy lost when the bullet exits is not imparted to the body; conversely, when a bullet remains in the body, all of its kinetic energy is spent doing damage to the tissue. So I guess that finding a bullet that is less likely to exit is bad for the BG who gets hit and good for the civilian standing behind him. Ok, so where does this leave us? It sounds like we want a big bullet moving at high velocity that bleeds (no pun intended) off its kinetic energy so fast that it stays in the body rather than exiting. Also, the weapon that shoots it would have to be small in order to be concealable (after all, that's what the gist of this CCW forum is even though this thread has morphed far beyond that), controllable, and capable of firing multiple shots in rapid succession. Wonderful! Now all someone has to do is invent it because it certainly doesn't exist right now. Like most things in life, everything is a tradeoff here. In order to get the much-needed high velocity necessary to produce a large temporary cavity we've got to opt for rounds commonly associated with rifles and somehow put them in a handgun. About the only ones I know of are things like the Thompson Centers or the Remington XP-100, and somehow neither of these would be very high on my list of self-defense weapons. Concealability aside, working the bolt of an XP-100 in a firefight just doesn't appeal to me. And if you think a snubbie can be hard to hide in hot weather, try a Thompson Center. Even if it were possible to somehow shrink them to concealable size and produce multiple shots, how easy would it be to control a caliber designed for rifles but put in a handgun? So we're back to handguns, when going out and about, aren't we? Ok, think back to the two things that control our all-important temporary cavity, i.e., bullet weight and velocity. In most handgun calibers that are designed for self-defense, we can't do a lot about velocity. We just can't get the velocity up to the all-critical 2600-2900 fps, so we're left with bullet weight. Again, doubling the bullet weight doubles the kinetic energy. So, do you still want to shoot that 125-grain 9mm when you could have a 230-grain .45? Where does it leave or how does it explain the most-deadly reputation of the 125 grain .357? Does that reputation hold up if fired from a 1 7/8" snub? Or the commonly carried .38 special +P launched from a 1 7/8" snub? According to [url]http://le.atk.com/pdf/SpeerTech38_135HP.pdf[/url] Speer Gold Dot .38's (135 grain bullet) fired from a S&W 640 1 7/8" barrel yields about 870 fps (which they compare with a 124 grain GDHP bullet from a Glock 19 with 4" barrel at about 1,200 fps). I don't have velocity information for other bullets handy, but it would seem that to a CCW wheelgunner it would behoove one to compare their chosen caliber offerings for velocity from a barrel length as close as possible to what they carry, compared with the weight of the bullet, and look for the best combination of high velocity viz high bullet weight. I'm not sure what weight to give to bullet shape in this analysis, versus velocity and weight. Steven Camp has done some of this and I'll have to re-read his and your postings. Pretty much he recommends 158-grain LSWCHP +P .38 special from a 1 7/8" snub revolver (Remington, Federal or Winchester) but the pages seem a bit dated. They are however EXCELLENT, easy to read and well illustrated. I highly recommend reading them. Hopefully they'll be updated soon. [url]http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm[/url] (although a 2 1/2" barrel was used for testing, not 1 7/8") [url]http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38%20Special%20158gr%20LSWCHP.htm[/url] (refers to but hasn't yet tested 135 gr GDHP) [url]http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Feedingthe38Snub.htm[/url] Edited to Add: I just found this information on Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel rounds on their website [url]http://le.atk.com/Interior.asp?section=2&page=pages/cci...ccispeer_GoldDot.asp[/url] .357 125 gr short barrel is clocked at 1,000 fps from a 2" vented barrel. Here's some abbreviated muzzle velocity and 25 foot velocity in parenthesis info from the page on short barrel, with my calculation of % velocity retained at 25 feet: * 9mm +P 124 gr 3.5" barrel 1150 fps (1089) 94.6% * .38 Spcl +P 135 gr 2" vented barrel 860 fps (839) 97.5% * .357 Mag 135 gr 2" vented barrel 1000 fps (966) 96.6% * .40 S&W 180 gr 3.5" barrel 950 fps (922) 97.0% * .44 Mag 200 gr 4" vented barrel 1075 fps (1031) 95.9% * .45 ACP 230 gr 4" barrel 820 fps (801) 97.6% I don't know why they used a vented barrel for some of the tests. I would guess that most users would not have vented barrels, and that velocities would be higher if tested in non-vented barrels (but so would recoil/muzzle flip). [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
Terminal Ballistics from the Morgue
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom