Can 0.0929 inches really make a difference?

[Einar84]

Is the difference in caliber between .38 special and .45 long colt (or 45 acp). I've heard many times about bad fame of .38 in round nose configuration as man stopper ("widow maker" and other) cause presumed tendency of overpenetrate without stopping power and opposed a .45 bullet in same lrn configuration that should be a good man stopper. When we have lrn or other not expansive bullet style (wc/swc, lfp, fmj) and we have also enough energy to pass trough a uman body (but not adequate speed for hydrodynamical shock like .357) i think only diameter of the bull (and then of the wound) is the difference, but can a 0.09 inches make a difference? or the problem is retention of energy determines by weight of a .45 250 grs instead .38 158 when the bullet must pass through a bone? (.38 has not enough energy to do this?)

[jephthai]

Well... an increase of 0.097 makes it a 27% increase in diameter from the 38 to the 45. Sure 0.097 is small, but the total diameters are small. Plus, the total area of 38 vs 45 is 0.1 in^2 vs 0.16 in^2, which is a 60% increase in cross-sectional area. From 158gr to 250gr also represents a 58% increase in total mass, so sectional density is just about the same.

[kraigwy]

Here is an interesting read on One Hit Stops-Hits per shots fired-stops vs. wounds, etc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...l=en_US&pli=1#

You can read all the studies of Handgun Stopping power out there and come up with a variety of opinions. You read as many as you can and make your own decision.

The thing about the above study, is it follows or agrees with, Fairbirn & Sykes book "Shooting to Live, With one hand gun". 1942.

Fairbirn & Sykes worked for the Shanghai Police in the 30s, a time when gangs ruled the city-state, and were involve in over 600 shootings.

"Shooting to Live" is well worth reading, or maybe should be required reading for anyone carrying a pistol/revolver.

Some of Fairbirn's reports are of bandits getting hit several times in the body and the officer having to pistol whip him into submission.

What you are going to get from both, the above study and Fairbirn's book is nothing is guaranteed, be it a 45 or 22. No two bullets will react the same even if shot from the same gun, at the same target.

What will give you the best chance, (though even that isn't guaranteed) is using the one you shoot the best. An example a 22 is better then a 44 Mag if you can't shoot a 44 Mag.

My opinion is, to pick what you want, learn to shoot it, and keep practicing as much as possible.

[natman]

That tiny increase in diameter doesn't seem like much. However since frontal area increases with the square of the radius times pi (3.14....), that tiny increase gives a 60% increase in frontal area and a 60% increase in bullet weight (158 v 250). Since both rounds have similar muzzle velocity this results in 60% more energy for the 45. So yes, there is a difference.

[jephthai]

Since both rounds have similar muzzle velocity this results in 60% more energy for the 45.

Since both kinetic energy and momentum are linearly proportional to mass, this also results in a ~60% increase in momentum. Someone on this forum recently pointed me to some resources that make the case that momentum is a significant factor in penetration. An increase in mass is also an increase in inertia, which will reduce deflection, which I've read also has connotations for terminal ballistics.

[peacefulgary]

It seems to me that the most effective rounds are the ones that carry the most energy with them, whether they garner that energy by increased mass or increased speed.
The .45ACP typically leaves the .38 special in the dust when it comes to energy.

[jrothWA]

shoot and the Secret Service agent that got hit and was SPUN-A-ROUND on his heels, by a .22LR!

It's not what you use BUT where the PLACEMENT IS!!!

Good practice is to shoot a "bowling pin" match, you know when you hit is good and BAD.

Basic for CPL is to know where and how comfortable you are shooting, if a .357Mag to much recoil, then a .38 or 9mm maybe better.

[jephthai]

JrothWA:

It seems to me that the question is only about the bullets, not the shooter-gun-bullet system. As such, in this discussion the placement question is irrelevant.

I think it's axiomatic that, given identical placement and bullet type, the 45 colt is "better" than the 38 special.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk

[C0untZer0]

Kraig, I can't get to the document referenced

[kraigwy]

Kraig, I can't get to the document referenced

It's slow to load, if it doesn't show up like it's suppose to, click the "refresh" button a time or two. That's what I had to do.

[Einar84]

thanks eveyone for your answers, thank you kraigwy for very interesting link; C0untZer0 i can get it, maybe your computer has problems, if you want i can mail you a pdf whit the contenents

[dahermit]

The standard bullet weight for .45 ACP hardball is 230 grains not 250.

[mavracer]

Can really 0.0929 inches make difference?

Sure it can and it's not just about diameter the signifigant difference in mass and momentum gives the bigger bullet an edge when bone gets involved. That said the difference in performance is tiny given that humans run the psycological gamut from fainting at the sight of a little blood to a congressional medal of honor recipient that charges down tanks. You can also have much more difference in mass and structure when concidering the human factor of the BG is he a 5'6" 125# meth addic in a t-shirt or a 6'2" just out of prison buff healthy killer in a WW2 flack jacket. Also there is a greater deal of vairiation in tissue structure within the body. A bullet in the head or a bullet in the liver are bboth fatal left untreated but one is almost certainly instant incapisation while the other may have a couple hours to kill you.

[Mello2u]

Einar84

Can really 0.0929 inches make difference?
Is the difference in caliber between .38 special and .45 long colt (or 45 acp). . . . . i think only diameter of the bull (and then of the wound) is the difference, but can a 0.09 inches make a difference? or the problem is retention of energy determines by weight of a .45 250 grs instead .38 158 when the bullet must pass through a bone? (.38 has not enough energy to do this?)

.357" v .452" diameter.
But it is not the diameter which is the measure of the most reliable method of incapacitation. Rapid blood loss due to the volume of crushed vascular tissue is the most common and reliable method of target incapacitation.


Volume = Pi times the radius squared times the height (or depth of penetration)

To compare volumes let us assume a depth of penetration of 12 inches and no expansion of the bullets.
(0.1785 * 0.1785) * 3.14159 * 12 = 1.2011775 cubic inches
(0.226 * 0.226) * 3.14159 * 12 = 1.9255182 cubic inches

1.2011775/1.9255182 = 0.6238

So the volume of tissue crushed by the hypothetical .38 is only about 62% of the tissue crushed by the .45.
Or you could divide 1.9255182/1.2011775 = 1.6030 and say that the volume of tissue crushed by the .45 bullet is about 60% greater than the .38 bullet.
The diameter of the .357" .38 is about 79% of the .452 " .45.

[C0untZer0]

His terminology doesn't even make sense:

- One shot stop percentage - number of incapacitations divided by the number of hits the person took.

The only way to determine "one shot stops" is to count the cases where a person was shot once and "stopped".

This is another non-scientific person digging up the old Evans/Marshall chestnut and running around the same circuit they've gone round and round on...

[AK103K]

One shot stop percentage

Who only shoots once to know?


This is all very simple. If you want to get closer to one shot stops, get a rifle. No handgun bullet is the thunderbolt. Use what you shoot best with, and dont stop shooting until the threat is down. A good hit with most all of them will give the same result. A bad hit with any of them likely require more hits. All the hand wringing and arguing over paper numbers will just give you sore hands and a headache and are only important in internet arguments to those who are arguing.

Pick the gun you shoot best with, and practice constantly. Accept the fact that in the real world, you move, the target moves, you dont get a perfect draw or presentation every time, nor do you get a perfect sight picture, or even one at all. All rounds in the gun may not hit the target, and if they do, they may not be good hits, and even if they were, the person being shot my not have watched all those TV shows that say youre dead because you were shot (anywhere), and isnt impressed by you or your gun (regardless of caliber) anyway, and you very well may need more than the three rounds the "rule of three" says is all youll ever need. That too is just paper numbers, leading to more sore hands and headaches.

[Sleuth]

I spoke with a Forensic Scientist who told me "if you line up 100 men, all the same height and weight, and shoot each one in the exact same spot with the exact same round, you will get 100 different reactions."

One shot stops are irrelevant. Only your gunfight is relevant.

[cougar gt-e]

If you look at things that are "the same" you can see that tiny differences matter. Take the engine in my first new car - a ford 302 in a 1977 mustang.

302cid 5.0L 2V V-8 134hp (302 = 5 liter in metric speak)

Compare to the latest 5 liter V8 in a ford mustang;
412 hp at 6,500 rpm and 390 lb-ft at 4,250 rpm.

From:
Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...#ixzz1TQENRA4Y


Yeah, they are both 5 liter V8's but one gets 2 1/2 times the horsepower. One also gets 2 1/2 times the fuel economy too. And it's the one with the greater HP! Isolated little seemingly insignificant differences on paper can make huge differences in the real world when they are all combined into a cohesive whole. Doesn't matter if it's cars, boats, planes or handgun calibers. Can't just look at isolated things by paper specs alone.

And your statement "(but not adequate speed for hydrodynamical shock like .357) " is not accurate. The mythical "hydraulic shock" needs bullets hitting north of 2000- 2500 fps before it becomes more than myth. Bullet diameter is a factor too. Smaller diameters need faster speeds to generate the same displacement wave. But even then, the extra damage from that "hydraulic shock" is minimal compared to the physical damage caused by the bullet.

[tipoc]

From Count Zero:

Oh no not Greg Ellifitz again !!!
His terminology doesn't even make sense:

Yeah Ellifitz, the fella whose "study" is not a study and just his opinion. The fella whose conclusions do not add up. He's making the rounds now, it's on the internet so it must be true!

Seriously guys and gals pay attention to what he is saying, it is not accurate.

tipoc

[JohnO]

Who only shoots once to know?

AK103K, You hit the nail right on the head. In any stressful situation when someone is going to use a firearm to protect one self, I can't see how any less than 2-3 round will be fired. Here is why:

1) Anyone that has taken formal training is taught to shoot until the threat stops. This is regardless of caliber. No one ever says, hey, get a .45 and only shoot once.

2) There is a delay from the time your brain sends a signal to your muscles to react. In other words, by the time you realize your first shot may have stopped the threat and your brain says, "stop shooting" you'll have pulled the trigger 1 -2 more times.

3) Those that have actually been in shoot to survive situations all seem to agree on one thing, multiple shots on target stops the threat. Not any one particular caliber.

Personally, I'm one of those guys that feels fine with a .38 spl on up. I rely more on tactics I've learned (and marksmanship) to survive, than the caliber I carry.

[treg]

Thanks for posting that link kraigwy.

Well presented and interesting stuff.

[orionengnr]

Yes.

It's not the diameter (okay, it is to some extent)...it is the weight.

To provide an analogy, would you rather be hit with a Wiffle Ball bat or a Louisville Slugger?

Yes, it is a bit of an exageration, but the theory holds.

[.357SIG]

One thing people fail to touch on when discussing diameter differences in these rounds is the amount of time it will take to incapacitate someone from blood loss/secondary tissue damage, barring shot placement (since the bullet itself means nothing when compared to the skill/luck of the shooter in that case) or psychological factors (since that depends on the person). Realistically, it is far too long to matter, unless you are in some hours-long standoff with a BG you shot, and have to wait for him to bleed out. I personally don't care what will stop/kill in hours or days, but what stops in seconds, when my life is on the line. If you made a good shot, you would not need to rely on wound cavity volume or any other secondary effect to stop someone faster. I make better shots with lower-recoiling rounds, which is why the 9x19 is my favorite SD round. It's assumed you will not do your best shooting under stress, so take all the advantages you can to achieve a good shot (light recoil, more capacity).

Shot placement, which is independent of bullet diameter, is what stops someone immediately. You have to produce enough trauma to interrupt the function of vital-to-life processes that are going on in the body. This is very unlikely to be affected by the ever-so-slight added diameter to the primary wound channel, but a result of a solid hit or hits to a major blood vessel or immediately vital-to-life organ. Even if we are considering the volume of damage to surrounding non-vital tissue, the secondary wound channels are very similar between common SD rounds...to the point that it is irrelevant. You can look to the jell-o blocks for this.

Bone deflection? That is more an issue of the angle it strikes the bone than with the bullet itself. I can assure you that a .38 cal. bullet moving at standard velocity is more than enough to pass through any bone in the body and keep trucking as well as any .45 round. Anything can be deflected. I've seen rounds of all kinds deflected by thin bones, thick bones, vertebrae, etc.

There are always rarities and exceptions, and there are infinitely more variables that also determine the effects of any gunshot, but shot placement is the general rule, even among communities of true experts on ballistics (no, M&S are not experts by any standard I've ever seen). True, more tissue damage is worse for the body, as is more of any trauma; this does not aid in timely incapacitation all the time.

If you don't understand how the body works, how it reacts to trauma, or how psychology plays into life an death situations, you might find this hard to believe, because the avg. person wants to simplify things by saying more always = better. Sorry, it's not true...there are processes that go on in your body that try to mitigate the damage done to it, effectively "cheating" the physics involved; you just cannot simplify this stuff in any way.

...and the wiffle ball bat vs. Louisville Slugger is not a valid comparison at all. That's like a .177 cal BB pistol vs. a .300 Win Mag, or getting hit by a RC car vs. a real one. The big difference is that the .38/9mm rounds perform almost identically to the .45 ACP/Colt defense rounds against most objects. A more fair comparison would be a light aluminum bat vs. a heavier one. Does it sound like it matters as much this way?

[jason_iowa]

I have never seen recoil to be an issue that could not be solved with some nice grips. I have shot a 357 out of a 2in barrel and the thing rolled back in my hand and it was just awful to shoot. I have shot a 357 out of a 2 in barrel that I could shoot all day and not bother me at all. I have shot a 454 cas out of a 2 in barrel and it was not to bad.

If its all I had I would carry a 38 with out hesitation but personally I carry a 45 big and slow wins the race...

[Sleuth]

.357, you have made some excellent points.
I have also read that the average reaction to being shot is ...... no reaction at all. It ain't TV, people do not get thrown through windows by a single hit. In many cases, people who did not expect to get shot have simply continued on (in one case, walking up the steps of the NYC Library), until told they had been shot.

That is just one reason why 'one shot stop' data is, well, irrelevant.