Common handgun muzzle energy vs melee weapons

[rantingrelentlessly]

Any physics majors out there? I was wondering how comparable common handgun cartridges (.9mm, .38 special, .357 mag, .44 mag etc) are to common melee weapons in terms of energy. Not really interested in stabbing/slashing weapons. Thinking more along the lines of blunt force (hammer, baseball bat, thrown beer bottle (full or empty)

[rantingrelentlessly]

I know there are many many factors at play here like type of ammo, barrel length etc. Let's not get crazy here. Ballpark figures will do

[wogpotter]

Orders of magnitude.
You can easily calculate the energy of a swung weapon.
For most projectiles the minimum suggestion for instant incapacitation is often quoted to be 1,000 Ft/Lbs.
That's equivalent to either dropping a 1Lb weight 1,000 feet or swinging a 1,000Lb weapon at 1 FT/Sec, or anything in between.

[dahermit]

Inasmuch as bullet penetrate and melee weapons (blunt force), do not, the energy figures for bullets are not comparable. For instance in the example of 500 ft. pounds of energy delivered by a .38 Super, if the bullet achieved full penetration, how much of that energy was actually delivered to the target and opposed to that which remained with the bullet? As I see it, the only way a comparison of bullets with blunt force objects could be relevant, is if the bullet did not penetrate at all and still, what would be the point of that comparison?

[JeffK]

9 mm bullet, just an example from Underwood (http://www.underwoodammo.com/9mm-lug...ollow-point/): 115 gr, 1300 ft/s, 432 foot-lbs of muzzle energy

Swung mace (https://books.google.ca/books?id=6sA...mace&f=false): 1.8 lbs, 50 ft/s, 101 foot-lbs of impact energy

You won't do a lot better with a mace unless you're The Hulk, but you can do much better with ammo, like .50 BMG (http://www.hornady.com/store/50-BMG-750-gr-A-MAX-Match/) with 13241 foot-lbs of muzzle energy. However the .50 BMG will sail right through you after doing devastating damage along the way, probably exploding your head if it hits there, while the mace will "just" crush your skull. Hard to compare, both can kill people but in different ways.

[Sport45]

I don't think there's a simple energy or momentum calculation you can use for comparison.

I remember reading a good while ago about some test where live animals were used to test "stopping power." When the cartridge failed to do the trick the animal was put down with a hammer (not a better cartridge).

Here's one.

[Doc TH]

Above comments are correct. Weapons such as the mace, staff, morning star, club, flail, etc. are not easily comparable to cartridge projectiles in terms that are limited to the kinetic energy imparted to the target. While a mace may have and deliver much less energy than a firearm projectile, a blow directed at the head will likely be quite effective in disabling an opponent, and the same may be true if the blow lands on the point of the shoulder, the neck, groin, etc. A bullet is designed to penetrate, and blunt striking weapons are not. The data we are seeing on brain injury in football shows that what we have viewed as trivial injury is in very many cases not so. The popularity of the axe as a medieval weapon - although it is designed to be penetrative - was mainly due to the fact that even a single hit was likely to be rapidly lethal or disabling.

[dayman]

[QUOTE]For most projectiles the minimum suggestion for instant incapacitation is often quoted to be 1,000 Ft/Lbs.
That's equivalent to either dropping a 1Lb weight 1,000 feet or swinging a 1,000Lb weapon at 1 FT/Sec, or anything in between/QUOTE]

That's not actually true, but it does highlight one of the major problems with using the english standard system for physics.
A foot-pound is a unit of energy that refers t applying a force of 1lb through a distance of 1 ft.

A pound of force isn't quite the same as a pound of mass.
1 pound of force is equal to one pound of mass multiplied by the gravitational constant of earth (32ft/s/s).

So a falling 1lb(mass) weight would generate 32lb(force), and lifting it up a foot would require 32ft-lbs of energy.

So, basically, to translate you need to divide everything by 32.
So, 1ft/lb is more like the energy needed to move 0.5oz a foot.
Though, there's waaay more going on than just that. Inertia, and a whole bunch of other things are going to have a pretty big affect on how far something actually moves if it's hit.

Confusing?
That's why virtually all physics are done in SI units.

[Buzzcook]

The fastest swung object in sports AFAIK is a golf driver/ John Daily has been clocked at ~130mph, that translates into 190.6fps

Most of us would be lucky to swing a club at 90mph, 132fps.
http://www.calculateme.com/Speed/Mil...tperSecond.htm

The record for the 16pd shot put is 23.12m. my guess is that it was airborne for about a second. The hammer is also 16pd and the record is 86.74m.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw

So lets assume Conan the Hammer Golfing Shot Puter wants to whack someone the best calculation would be 16 x 190.6^2

I'd like to suggest that is probably close to the greatest amount of force possible with a melee weapon.

[Lost Sheep]

I have a rather long personal story of the relative effectiveness of a 20-lb sledge hammer vs 9-lb sledge, jackhammer, front-end loader. But not enough time to relate it here, now. Suffice it to say that momentum trumps energy in many cases. There is no substitute for mass when it comes to breaking things by impact.

But, if you are interested in terminal effects, particularly wound ballistics, you have to take into account bullet placement.

Hit an elephant with a car vs hitting the same elephant with a pill from a 500 Nitro Express or .475 H&H. Big difference, and broad conclusions will not apply because placement of the impact is so important. Penetration, hydrostatic shock effects, tissue destruction (especially vital organs and blood vessels) and other factors come into play to confuse the issues of effectiveness on the recipient.

Lost Sheep

[Lost Sheep]

Posted by the illustrious Iowegan in Rugerforum.net

http://rugerforum.net/reloading/7566...rgy-chart.html

Lost Sheep

[James K]

A medium power handgun will have more lethal force than a mace, even though in actual practice at arms length, there probably would not be that much difference. But the handgun is not limited to arms length, and does not require a hard swing and a lot of strength to achieve that force. That is why guns are still around and you hardly ever see a cop carrying a morning star or a mace anymore. (Mace, maybe, but not a mace.)

Jim

[TXAZ]

The pure energy of the 2 classes of weapons is no contest, the firearms are simply 1-3 orders of magnitude more energetic.
There is however another aspect to consider: there are some relatively simple strategies to defeating an attacker with a hand held weapon that are taught in self defense classes. Out in the open, the person being attacked has significantly less chance of survival facing a marksman vs. a batsman.

[Doc TH]

The initial poster asked about "energy, but did not address lethality nor the range of various weapons.

[BlueTrain]

In the days when some soldiers wore some form of body armor and before hand held firearms were common, some weapons like war hammers were used to overcome body armor with blunt force. But I don't know how they compared energy-wise with stabbing weapons or how much energy was required to pierce plate armor. I do know, however, that bullets from matchlock muskets will penetrate armor plate (16th century armor plate, that is), having examined such things.

These days, the opposite approach seems to work better but blunt force isn't the way to do it.

[James K]

Some years ago, the NRA tested a breastplate (I don't recall the date) with handguns and found that only the .44 Magnum fully penetrated. The .357 Magnum cracked the breastplate and partly penetrated. No other handguns did any more than make a dent. (At that time, the .44 Magnum was the most powerful handgun in production, so they didn't test any shortened rifles firing 7.62 NATO or 5.56.)

Jim

[BlueTrain]

Supposedly some .30 caliber handgun bullets such as the .30 Tokarev or .30 Mauser will penetrate some armored vests. Curiously, neither of them are as powerful as a .30 carbine, which has such a bad reputation. In any event, soft armor will only prevent penetration (if it does) but the trauma from a non-penetrating round is transmitted through the armor to an extent and will cause a certain amount of harm. I assume that doesn't happen with hard armor.

How much energy do you suppose there is in a nightstick enthusiastically wielded?

[44 AMP]

For most projectiles the minimum suggestion for instant incapacitation is often quoted to be 1,000 Ft/Lbs.

I believe this number (1,000ft/lbs) is discussed in relation to big game rifles, not defensive handguns. There is no common defensive handgun that generates anywhere near that amount of energy, and we all know that they are all capable of instant incapacitation if the shot placement is correct.

You can compare the calculated energy numbers from melee weapons to those from firearms. And from that, you can tell that X has a different amount than Y. But that is all the value it has. Other factors, in combination are what determines the effectiveness (or lethality, if you like) of the weapon.

some weapons like war hammers were used to overcome body armor with blunt force. But I don't know how they compared energy-wise with stabbing weapons or how much energy was required to pierce plate armor. I do know, however, that bullets from matchlock muskets will penetrate armor plate (16th century armor plate, that is), having examined such things.

the NRA tested a breastplate (I don't recall the date) with handguns and found ..

If you look at surviving examples of quality plate armor, made after the introduction of firearms, (and made for use, not for show), you will usually find a dent in the breastplate. The dent is (usually) from a pistol ball.

The Smith would shoot the breastplate (QA), to prove it would stop a ball. It was the common that customers would disdain a plate that hadn't been "proofed", and I think this might be the origin of the use of "proof marks".

When it comes to armor and blunt vs edged weapons, there are numerous factors in play. One of them that is often overlooked is that in medieval melee combat, one need not kill the opponent, only break them to the point where they cannot function offensively. Killing them in the process is a plus, not a necessity.

Swords vs plate armor, plate has an advantage, as one simply cannot shove a piece of steel through another by hand alone. So the edge/point of the sword is only useful against the joints of the armor, where it may penetrate. Other wise the sword is just an impact weapon, and not as good as the mace or ax.
(less mass, less impact energy)

The ax is a good weapon, combining the edge (and usually point) of the sword with more mass, although usually less mass than the mace or war hammer. Very flexible, tactically.

The mace is very good for a lot of things, Having the mass to break joints of an opponent, even one in full plate. And maces/clubs etc, have a large, but usually overlooked today, advantage over swords, axes, daggers, and other edged weapons. The rarely get stuck.

You don't see this in the fantasies shown on the screens, but in the real world, edged weapons often get stuck in the body, and can take some time and effort to get loose. Meanwhile, other guys are trying to stick their swords through you. It is, effectively a "jam". (I wonder if there was a 16th century drill for this? "kick, twist pull"?) which might not be "cleared" as easily as "tap, rack, bang".

Maces & clubs, rarely "jam".