|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 25, 2012, 12:57 AM | #51 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
But let's see what some people with professional credentials who have scientifically studied the subject say:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; September 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM. Reason: correct typo |
|||||
September 25, 2012, 01:51 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 4,114
|
Folks may want to drop by here and poke around some...
http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/9mmvs45ACP.htm http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/357Magnum.htm tipoc Last edited by tipoc; September 25, 2012 at 01:58 AM. |
September 25, 2012, 07:22 AM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
I go with muzzle velocity as being the more important of the two. When I handload a round, I always have a specific velocity figure in mind that I want to hit. I don't recall ever starting out to work up a load based on muzzle energy. OTOH though,,,,the OP specified defensive rd. - not handloads or hunting loads. There again though,,,I always look at the velocity of a particular round before I look at the muzzle energy. The second thing I look at is the bullet weight. I expect a high velocty to translate into a higher energy figure - which is why I say, it's either there or it isn't. |
|
September 25, 2012, 09:26 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
It's about the relative magnitude of the cavities - temporary and permanent- as compared to the size of the critter (or bad guy) bein' effected by those temporary and permanent cavities.
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION |
|
September 25, 2012, 12:28 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 714
|
Energy is more important.
Whether you like a slow and heavy round, or a light and fast round, you still want a high energy round. Low energy rounds just suck, like a 35g .25 auto from a 2" barrel, which will only give you around 60 ft. lbs. of energy. Or a 60g .32 auto from a 4" barrel, which only give you around 120 ft. lbs. of energy. Compare that to a 200g .45+P from a 5" barrel, which will give you over 500 ft. lbs. of energy. Or a 125g .357 magnum from a 4" barrel, which will give you around 580 ft. lbs. of energy. Or a 155g .40S&W from a 4" barrel, which will give you around 500 ft. lbs. of energy. High energy rounds are just more effective than low energy rounds (when it comes to quickly stopping aggressive humans) regardless of the velocity, IF the bullet stays inside the target and dumps all of its energy in to that target. |
September 25, 2012, 12:42 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,989
|
For those who poo-pooed the autopsys of animals, they do represent living tissue, which ballistic gelatin, pine boards, Duxseal and other media do not.
The bullet's relative performance on living animals, large or small, is a good representation of the bullet's effect on human beings. Remember in testing the .45 ACP the Army used live goats for tests. But a bullet that does not expand on a small critter, won't expand in the human body. And a bullet that expands too soon in an animal, will likely expand too soon on the human torso. Common sense must dictate any observation. Bob Wright |
September 25, 2012, 12:46 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,989
|
Hal wrote:
Quote:
Bob Wright |
|
September 25, 2012, 12:49 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Depends on the animal, Bob.
For large quadrupeds, loads are normally designed with more penetration potential than is considered optimal for human targets. This raises concerns about over-penetration and inadequate expansion. |
September 25, 2012, 01:09 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,989
|
I will say this, from my observations, I elect to use the .44 caliber Remington Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point bullet as my personal defense selection.
I have observed its effect on animate tissue loaded in the .44 Magnum. So, I elect to use it in my .44 Special. Until I'm proved wrong in actual practice, this will be my choice for daily carry. Bob Wright |
September 25, 2012, 01:25 PM | #60 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
[2] But "energy dump" is meaningless. [3] See post 51 for the back-up for my opinion. [4] The effectiveness of a cartridge for self defense is related to the amount of tissue damage and resultant blood loss. And that is related to the diameter of the hole (permanent wound cavity) made by the bullet as long as it penetrates sufficiently. Quote:
The physiological effects of any particular amount of tissue damage would be vastly different for a 200 pound man compared with a 20 pound mammal. The man has greater depth, density and amount of musculature, heavier bones, larger organs and a much greater blood volume. If, for example, a bullet damages 0.5% (by weight) of a 20 pound animal's total tissue mass (about 1.6 ounces), that amount of tissue damage is only 0.05% of the 200 pound man's total tissue mass. And even 2% of the dog's tissue mass is still only 0.2% of the man's. Understand that there are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees. Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis. Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it. The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help. So as a rule of thumb --
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
September 25, 2012, 02:39 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 517
|
Quote:
As for credentials, they are great but simply saying "pistol bullets" is like saying a Vespa, a Fatboy, and a Hayabusa are bikes or that an S10 and a Peterbuilt are trucks. They are very different things and a 147 grain 9mm fmj and a 125 grain 357 magnum hp from a 6" barrel are different things. Also, different types of tissue react very differently. I have shot hogs with a 30-06 whose lungs were turned to mush but the heart was unharmed. I once shot a rat with a 300 grain xtp mag. It literally exploded and it's heart stuck to a buddy's jeans and was in one piece. There is also what happens when bullets strike bone and the bone fragments cause additional damage. There are lots of variables. One thing doesn't change though. Work cannot be done without energy, period. Therefore, damage must come from the combination of having enough energy and using that energy effectively. That is a very simple fact. What you are trying to debate and where the real debate lies is just how effectively that energy is used. I have said from the beginning that is a major variable and that larger bullets are generally more efficient at doing so.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin |
|
September 25, 2012, 03:10 PM | #62 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Of course, for the bullet to be effective in that way, it must have sufficient mass and momentum. And if it has sufficient momentum, it will have some certain minimum energy as well, since momentum and energy each vary with velocity. But while momentum is proportional to velocity, energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Therefore it is possible for a perhaps more effective cartridge, with a larger diameter bullet designed to expand appropriately at the velocity at which it is driven and having a large mass and high sectional density, to have less energy than a cartridge firing a small diameter, light bullet with a considerably lower sectional density but at a higher velocity and thus a higher energy.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
September 25, 2012, 05:07 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
Hunting loads may be a bit on the hot side for indoor use. |
|
September 25, 2012, 05:21 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 517
|
I am actually not focused on energy. I am simply making a point. What concerns me is the amount of it that can be used effectively and that has an awful lot to do with bullet construction, yet another variable, and what we consider effective for a given task.
I am going to make up numbers here just to illustrate my point. Lets say we have 2 cartridges. 1 has 500 ftlbs and uses 400 of those effectively to create damage. 2 has 800 ftlbs and uses 500 of those effectively to create damage. Assuming that damage is done to equivalent areas of the target, cartridges 2 is less efficient but more effective. On the other hand, if cartridge 3 has 600 ftlbs and uses 300 of those effectively, it will be less effective than cartridge 1. Again, I am not talking about energy being dumped into the target. I am talking about energy being effectively used to create damage. In all cases, energy is a limiting factor. You can't do X amount of damage without at least X amount of energy to work with. The application is much more complex with many variables but the basic concept is simple. Energy = potential energy used effectively = damage bigger bullets = usually use more of their energy effectively Obviously, none of this takes into account many other highly important variables like accuracy, rate of fire, ability to recognize the threat, ability to draw and get on target quickly, the nerve to do what is necessary, accounting for innocents who could be in here's way... The original question was velocity vs energy and the obvious answer is energy. They actually can be separated for the sake of argument, particularly when comparing multiple calibers. Given the same bullet however, no they couldn't. An example would be comparing the 5.7x28 to a 40. The 5.7 has a lot more velocity but less energy. Right or wrong, that is how I interpreted the original question.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin |
September 25, 2012, 05:59 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Quote:
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
|
September 25, 2012, 06:02 PM | #66 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Your fundamental premise is fallacious.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
September 25, 2012, 06:03 PM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
From the perspective of evaluating/determining which factor is most important in terminal ballistics, I think that Duncan MacPherson, one of my favorite authors on the topic, nails it pretty well here-
Excerpt from "Bullet Penetration" Quote:
__________________
QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION |
|
September 25, 2012, 06:50 PM | #68 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 517
|
155 grain Speer Gold Dot = 496 ftlbs
Quote:
What do you mean where do I come up with such a notion? Work can't be done without energy, period. That is elementary school level science. A bullet in motion has a given amount of energy. That is also elementary school level science. The variables are where and how that energy is used. That is common sense. Some of the energy is used to displace air on the way to the target. Some is used penetrating, damaging, and moving the target. Some is often used behind the target. The part we care about, the part used effectively, is the part used penetrating and damaging the target. That damage cannot occur without the energy to do it and all the energy in the world does no good behind the target. That is why we don't normally use fmj bullets to hunt with. There is nothing fallacious or "out of the box" about this. It is basic science and common sense. Let me try phrasing this another way. The bullet does work because it possesses energy. Without that energy, it cannot do the work. Likewise, whatever work is done on anything other than damaging the target, is usually of little or no use. Quote:
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin |
||
September 25, 2012, 07:55 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
As I understand it, energy that creates a temporary cavity is often ineffective, because elasticity of tissue may often allow tissue to stretch beyond the temporary cavity without taking major damage.
Most handgun rounds do not have the energy to exceed such limits (unlike most rifle rounds, which can really tear things up). So, energy that does not directly contribute to creating a permanent wound channel may merely be expended without lasting effect. Also, while energy is required for work, penetration is affected more by momentum, sectional density, and bullet type. Last, those handgun rounds which can reach levels of energy that can really do extra damage, typically are hard for the average shooter to control - and the average shooter may not be willing to practice enough to get a good hit with the first shot. Even good shooters will have a harder time with follow up shots with heavy magnum type loads. |
September 25, 2012, 08:52 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 517
|
MLeake, good post.
I will add a few comments here for the sake of clarity. A temporary cavity is not what I consider damage. I am not going to say it is of no value since I believe there is value in pain. How much is debatable and I certainly wouldn't put faith in it. Damage is obviously needed to cause incapacitation. I agree that momentum is generally a better indicator of penetration in soft tissue. Hard barriers are a different issue. Again, it goes back to how much of the energy is used effectively. I also don't disagree in regards to shootability, especially in regards to small easily concealed handguns. Every firearm is a compromise and that is certainly true of handguns. That is a different question though.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin |
September 25, 2012, 10:30 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 4,114
|
From Frank:
Quote:
Energy does not do the damage either in handguns or rifles, the bullet does the damage in both. Energy has neither weight nor mass so in and of itself it can do no damage. There are no energy beams at present. We all know that the faster we get a bullet going the more potential damage that bullet can do. It doesn't matter the caliber or the mass as long as the bullet is a good one for the speed it's going and built right for the job the faster one has the potential to do more damage once it strikes. But why? Simply because what ever it hits can't get out of the way fast enough. The bullet pushes it's way through flesh and bone, tearing and disrupting tissue as it goes. As it expands, providing it does, the amount of disruption increases. At lower velocities the amount of damage is usually limited to the area right around the bullet's path. At higher velocities the damaged area can be several times larger. I've seen wounds where bone has been cracked and a neat hole punched through from a 45 Colt. I've also seen wounds in deer and hogs where sections of flesh were liquified and the bone splintered and fractured from high velocity rifle rounds. In general the faster we get a round going the more damage it can potentially do. There are other factors involved of course, a .22 l.r. round will not do as much damage as a 38 Spl. even though it is faster. The energy figures we use, so many foot pounds, etc., measure the potential for the bullet to do it's work. But in and of itself the energy does no damage. The bullet does the damage. Energy cannot be destroyed only transferred. As the bullet travels down the muzzle, through the air, penetrates, expands, etc. it sheds energy. Transfers it, mostly into heat, the bullet utilizes the energy to do it's work. All bullets do this. A .45 acp at 860 fps does it as much as a 30-06 round at 2800 fps. They both utilize energy to do their work and because one has a good deal more energy than the other it can do it's work over a longer distance and do more damage once it gets there. It has more energy, in this case, because it's faster among other things. We've known this since we were kids and throwing rocks. We observed all this then. We threw rocks in lakes and puddles, into mud and watched the results. We debated the merits of cinder blocks, vs. bricks, vs. a good hard round stone from a stream, vs. a dirt clod. tipoc |
|
September 25, 2012, 10:35 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,594
|
Go read my post on the first page...
|
September 25, 2012, 10:38 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 4,114
|
Quote:
tipoc |
|
September 25, 2012, 10:57 PM | #74 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Look again at post 67 with 481's quote of Duncan MacPherson (with my emphasis added to the McPherson quote);
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
September 25, 2012, 11:22 PM | #75 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,972
|
Quote:
Kinetic energy causes damage any time a moving projectile causes damage. Does it tell the whole story? No, and it can be difficult to use energy to make relative assessments of the performance of rounds that differ significantly in other respects, but it's important not to wander too far afield of what science tells us about what kinetic energy means. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There are two major misconceptions about kinetic energy when it comes to terminal ballistics. 1. Kinetic energy tells the whole story. 2. Kinetic energy doesn't have anything to do with the answer. Neither is true.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
|
|