45 vs 9mm interesting test

[Koda94]

Never heard of Ellifritz study until this thread and had to look it up. According to Ellifritz himself...

"The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers"

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alte...stopping-power

[JohnKSa]

The 9mm is great! Oh, wait, the 9mm isn't good enough! The 10mm is great! oh, wait, the 10mm is too much,, the 10lite is great! oh, wait the guns are still too big! The .40 is great....oh wait, you've improved the 9? The 9mm is great, again.....

What's really interesting is that if these changes had any real world effects, we've never heard a squeak about it.

Some folks were freaking out when FBI went back to 9mm and a lot of LE organizations followed their lead. But it's been nearly a decade and instead of the predicted doom and gloom, nothing seems to have changed at all. It's like the anti-gunners warning that concealed carry was going to result in blood in the streets and instead it resulted in things going on just like they always had.

You specifically asked for the average weight of the tissue which would be damaged by a handgun bullet.

That is exactly correct. I know what I asked and I have no idea how you could have gotten so wildly confused in the process of trying to answer it.

To answer the question you need to know the average volume of tissue destroyed by a handgun bullet. You've actually done wound volume calculations on this thread, so this question should pose no problem at all for you.

You also need to know the average density of human tissue. That's even easier--an internet search reveals that the average density of human body is about 985 kilograms per cubic meter.

From there it's simple math. But it could have been even easier than that. I posted a thread on TFL some time back that calculated wound volumes for all the FBI testing data I could find at the time and, using the average density of the human body, calculated average weight destroyed as a percentage of a 180lb person for all of the service pistol calibers. And I posted the value on this thread, in a post that you actually quoted.

The tangent you went off on makes no sense at all unless you legitimately do not understand the meaning of the word 'average'.

...you would know that the measurements are usually units of volume rather than weight...

It is child's play to convert a volume number to a weight value using a density value. If one doesn't know the exact density, or if the density is expected to vary over a range, one can use an average density value instead to get the average weight. Basic science, simple math.

So, in order to answer your question, it would be necessary to convert the measurements that are actually taken of such things (units of volume) into the units of measurement that you asked for (units of weight) and such conversions are not possible without information such as specific tissue densities.

I know exactly what would be necessary. Your objection about needing to know specific tissue densities is complete nonsense because I intentionally asked for an average value.

We cannot say that the effect of caliber is insignificant because we do not know how significant the effects of other variables for which we do not have data are on the ultimate outcome. Even if caliber is a significant factor in the outcome, the other variables for which we have little to no data may simply be more significant to the point that they obscure the effect of caliber.

If other effects are obscuring the difference due to caliber terminal performance differences in the real world, and your many and continuing arguments that they are should be more than adequate to convince anyone who didn't already agree, then that means that caliber isn't making a detectable difference in the real world.

Your repeated assertion that making caliber differences apparent will require a controlled environment that eliminates real-world variables and their effects is essentially the same thing as asserting that the effects due to caliber are not detectable in the real world.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
That is exactly correct. I know what I asked and I have no idea how you could have gotten so wildly confused in the process of trying to answer it.

To answer the question you need to know the average volume of tissue destroyed by a handgun bullet. You've actually done wound volume calculations on this thread, so this question should pose no problem at all for you.

You also need to know the average density of human tissue. That's even easier--an internet search reveals that the average density of human body is about 985 kilograms per cubic meter.

From there it's simple math. But it could have been even easier than that. I posted a thread on TFL some time back that calculated wound volumes for all the FBI testing data I could find at the time and, using the average density of the human body, calculated average weight destroyed as a percentage of a 180lb person for all of the service pistol calibers. And I posted the value on this thread, in a post that you actually quoted.

The tangent you went off on makes no sense at all unless you legitimately do not understand the meaning of the word 'average'.

The human body is not homogenous and the "average" density you quote takes all the various tissues of differing densities into account. In order to get a truly accurate answer to the question, you would have to determine what area of the body is struck by the "average" gunshot in order to exclude the densities of tissues which are unlikely to be impacted. For example, if the "average" gunshot is to the torso, then you would not want the density of brain tissue being factored into your weight calculation because, obviously, brain tissue isn't found in the torso.

As I said before, the whole question was a waste of time. Even without the unnecessary conversion to weight (volume would have answered it just as well and probably more accurately), it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know and gets us no closer to the answers we're looking for. The whole exercise is pointless at best and a red herring at worst.

If other effects are obscuring the difference due to caliber terminal performance differences in the real world, and your many and continuing arguments that they are should be more than adequate to convince anyone who didn't already agree, then that means that caliber isn't making a detectable difference in the real world.

Your repeated assertion that making caliber differences apparent will require a controlled environment that eliminates real-world variables and their effects is essentially the same thing as asserting that the effects due to caliber are not detectable in the real world.

You keep switching back and forth between focusing on the word "detectable" and the word "significant," but they are not synonyms and, as you already pointed out, words mean things. I readily concede that, in the Ellifritz study at least, the difference between .45 ACP and 9mm in real world shootings was not detectable. This is self-evident because a detectable difference would have yielded a greater difference in the final result. However, your argument seems to be that because the difference is not detectable, it must not be significant either. You have yet to provide any data or reasoning to support the idea that something which is undetectable is necessarily insignificant though you've spent several pages dancing carefully around the issue.

We can find many examples of things which are undetectable, yet not insignificant. Physicists hypothesize that dark matter is undetectable, yet if their theories are correct it certainly isn't insignificant. The true degree of support for President Trump and Vice President Harris in the most recent election was apparently undetectable, or at least not accurately detectable, by many pollsters, yet it was most obviously significant. Finally, pancreatic cancer is, sadly, often undetectable in its early stages, but I think most would argue that a disease with only a 12% five-year survival rate is hardly insignificant.

[JohnKSa]

The human body is not homogenous and the "average" density you quote takes all the various tissues of differing densities into account.

Exactly. That's why they call it an average.

In order to get a truly accurate answer to the question, you would have to determine what area of the body is struck ...

That's why I didn't ask what would happen in a brain shot or torso shot, but for an average.

As I said before, the whole question was a waste of time.

Only if you don't understand what an average is.

We can find many examples of things which are undetectable, yet not insignificant.

The effects of all the things you mention are detectable. It is a detectable and significant effect that led physicists to propose the theory of dark matter. Since someone won the election, the effect of the support is detectable and certainly significant. Since people die of pancreatic cancer, its effects are both significant and detectable.

You keep switching back and forth between focusing on the word "detectable" and the word "significant," but they are not synonyms...

I didn't claim they meant exactly the same thing. In this case, they are related in that if a difference is not detectable, then we can also say it is not significant since if you can't even detect it, there's no way it can be doing anything for you. If it could be shown to be doing something significant for you, if it could be shown to be having a significant effect, that effect would, by definition, be detectable.

It is true that it could be detectable and still not be significant. So you are correct, they are not synonyms.

So in this case, significant does mean detectable, but detectable doesn't necessarily mean significant.

However, your argument seems to be that because the difference is not detectable, it must not be significant either.

Correct. Because significant in this case would mean that the caliber could be shown to be having an effect that provides a practical, real world benefit for defenders. We can all agree that an effect that doesn't provide a practical, real world benefit to defenders isn't significant. If it can be shown to be providing a significant benefit for defenders, then, by definition, it would have to be detectable effect.

[stagpanther]

OK--I'm back with a refill of beer and potato chips...

I'm one of those oddballs that likes to explore "the edges" of what a cartridge can be pushed to do, and we live in a wonderful time when the reload options for both cartridges have vastly increased since their inceptions.

I'll just leave this here:

pressure limit for average 9mm case is in the vicinity of 34-35 K psi
pressure limit for average 45 acp case is in the vicinity of 21 - 23 K psi

[Pumpkin]

I think that as long as;

Bullet type (FMJ vs Exp)

+p or standard load

Barrel length (Service 5”-4” vs Backup 3” or less)

Location of body shot

Are kept consistent, the data might be able to supply a reasonable answer to the real world difference between the two calibers.

[stagpanther]

To me this has always been a classic "Tastes Great vs Less Filling" argument.

[44 AMP]

Are keep consistent, the data might be able to supply a reasonable answer to the real world difference two calibers.

The data already does. ]

Trouble is some people don't want to accept that what they are searching for just isn't there.

"There ain't no Coupe de Ville hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box!"

Some folks can't seem to accept that, and keep digging...

there's no question, size does matter, and it absolutely belongs on the list, along with many other factors.

Where on the list it goes, ranked by importance varies with the situation AND the difference in size between what you are comparing.

Take the greatest difference in size that you will commonly find statistics available for, ,22 vs. .72 (12ga). The difference in caliber is enough to be an obvious indicator that bigger works better, as a principle and enough bigger is a significant factor.

HOWEVER, what is "enough bigger" to ALWAYS be a significant thing? I think it has to be more than the difference between .35 and .45 calibers, otherwise the data would show it.

[Pumpkin]

Post # 206,

Major grammar corrections. Much apologies!

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
That's why I didn't ask what would happen in a brain shot or torso shot, but for an average.

OK, so say we run the calculation based on the average density of all tissues in the human body, of what use is the result? Different tissues in the body an tolerate being damaged to different degrees, so without knowing which specific tissues are being damaged by a hypothetical gunshot, the average volume of tissue damaged doesn't really tell us much. For example, I have cared for patients that were able to live relatively normal lives for decades after having a pneumonectomy or nephrectomy, so we know that you can lose up to 50% of your lung or kidney tissue, but if you lost half of your brain or cardiac tissue you wouldn't be able to survive. Like I said, calculating the average amount of tissue, whether by weight or volume, damaged by a gunshot is a waste of time because it doesn't help us predict the outcome of a shooting.

The effects of all the things you mention are detectable. It is a detectable and significant effect that led physicists to propose the theory of dark matter. Since someone won the election, the effect of the support is detectable and certainly significant. Since people die of pancreatic cancer, its effects are both significant and detectable.

Well, as the very existence of dark matter is theoretical, it is therefore, by definition, undetectable. Pollsters typically base their methodologies upon factors which were found to be significant in the previous election such as voter demographics and which issues are most important to voters. Given that the result of the election was quite different than the results of the polls suggested, either the pollsters misunderstood the significance of the factors they focused on, or they failed to detect factors which turned out to be significant.

Finally, the reason that pancreatic cancer has such a high mortality rate is that people who contract it are typically asymptomatic until Stage 4 at which point the cancer has metastasized to other organs and is extremely difficult to treat. Therefore, in it's early stages, pancreatic cancer typically goes undetected, but is very significant to the ultimate health of the patient.

I didn't claim they meant exactly the same thing. In this case, they are related in that if a difference is not detectable, then we can also say it is not significant since if you can't even detect it, there's no way it can be doing anything for you. If it could be shown to be doing something significant for you, if it could be shown to be having a significant effect, that effect would, by definition, be detectable.

It is true that it could be detectable and still not be significant. So you are correct, they are not synonyms.

So in this case, significant does mean detectable, but detectable doesn't necessarily mean significant.

Based on Ellifritz's study, what factors have effects that are detectable? Because bullet type is largely unknown or at least unreported, how can we detect the effect it might have? Accuracy was defined only as hits to the head or torso, a fairly large target which allows for a lot of variation between what would typically be considered a "good," "bad," or "mediocre" hit, so how can we detect what effect accuracy had? The type of gun used is unknown/unreported so we can't detect what effect that might've had. We don't know who fired the first shot, or even if more than one party was shooting so we can't detect if that had an effect. We don't know the physical characteristics or state of mind of the person shot, so we certainly can't detect if those factors had any effect. We don't know the environmental factors that might be at play such as whether it was light or dark, or was it inside a building or outdoors, so we certainly can't detect whether those factors had an effect.

It seems to me that there are as many or more factors in the Ellifritz study with effects that are undetectable as opposed to those which are detectable. So, by your own reasoning, factors like bullet type, firearm type, accuracy, physical/mental attributes of the person shot, and environmental factors must all be insignificant because they are undetectable. The only other factor that Ellifritz even reports for every caliber is accuracy as defined by percentage of hits to the head or torso, but even that doesn't correlate as .45 ACP had significantly better accuracy at 85% than 9mm did at 76%, yet the difference in their incapacitation numbers was quite small. Also, other calibers like .357 Magnum/Sig, Centerfire Rifles, and Shotguns had similar accuracy numbers to .45 ACP, but fared significantly better in their incapacitation percentages. Therefore, by your own reasoning, the only factor which is both detectable and significant is, and only by inference, not completely missing the target with every shot fired. Gee, what a revelation

In light of all of that, I stand by my assertion that, due to the limited data upon which it is based, the Ellifritz study gives us no useful information upon which any meaningful conclusion can be drawn. Therefore, it stands to reason that either not completely missing the target is the only significant factor in the outcome of a shooting, or there must be some factors which are significant even though their effect cannot be detected, so which do you claim?

[stagpanther]

It's interesting to me to read the average number of shots, hits etc in that report. Purely anecdotally--but most fatal police shootings I hear about on the news generally involves many shots, sometimes an entire magazine (or more if there are more than one officer involved). I know it varies from one unit to the next, but I saw one law enforcement unit being tested one day and the primary pass/fail criteria I saw that day was how many shots fired how fast would strike center of mass (distance looked to me about 7 yards). I've witnessed a few shootings (urban drug gang environment) as well as having been shot at (what was that, an angry bee?) I saw a car pull up at a stop sign where a guy was standing to cross the street, down came the window from the rear passenger compartment and out came a hand holding a 45 acp handgun (I was there when the police recovered the shell casings and the victim was treated) and the guy emptied the magazine at maybe 3 ft away at his target. All but one of his shots missed, and the guy took off running like a track racer--right towards me, I was on the other side of the street. I ran home and called it in, the police captured both the shooters and the victim. The victim had been hit by one bullet which passed clean through his lower left side. He remained standing while the paramedics treated him.

[JohnKSa]

I think that as long as;

Bullet type (FMJ vs Exp)

+p or standard load

Barrel length (Service 5”-4” vs Backup 3” or less)

Location of body shot

Are kept consistent, the data might be able to supply a reasonable answer to the real world difference between the two calibers.

The victims would need to be reasonably similar in age in size and weight, in reasonably similar physical condition and in reasonably similar mental states at the time of the shooting. The victims would need have reasonably similar mindsets--those who have a never give up, never surrender philosophy would be expected to respond differently from someone who had a defeatist mindset. The angle of the shot, not just the location of the shot would need to be controlled.

There may be some more factors that would need to be controlled. But I do agree if one can control enough variables, it should be possible, with enough shootings, to detect a difference.

Now, think about how many shootings it would require to have a significant number of them where all of those variables are matched up. If you want 100 shootings to compare, you would need millions of shootings to start from so you could throw away all the ones where the loadings didn't match, where the angle was wrong, where a victim was too large or too small, or in very good or bad physical condition, etc., etc.

And there's another problem. If it takes that much control to see the difference, how does that really relate to the real world? Gel testing is very precise, very controlled, it shows us easily measured differences. But no one can relate them to the outcome of real-world shootings and show that the comparisons in the gel actually mean something significant in the real world. If we could somehow control the real world so tightly that none of the variables that normally obscure caliber differences are a factor, then the difference might be detected. But that's a paradox because the real world isn't that tightly controlled. It can't be.

It seems to me that there are as many or more factors in the Ellifritz study with effects that are undetectable as opposed to those which are detectable.

Unknown does not mean the same thing as undetectable.

I don't know how tall you are, but your height is certainly detectable. It's been measured many times in your life. I can't tell if you're really having trouble with the semantics or if you're grasping at straws to come up with arguments.

In light of all of that...

"All that" is problematic reasoning based on problematic semantics using non-standard definitions for common words. It is too flawed to have any negative impact on any claims I've made nor to be useful to you in supporting the assertions you are trying to prove.

Different tissues in the body an tolerate being damaged to different degrees, so without knowing which specific tissues are being damaged by a hypothetical gunshot, the average volume of tissue damaged doesn't really tell us much.

If you understood what you wrote, then you are right on the edge of starting to understand the real issue.

You are exactly correct. Caliber differences affect wound volume. That's all they do. But without knowing which specific tissues are being damaged, that wound volume doesn't tell us much.

But that's only part of it. Because you are resisting carrying through with the calculations, you still don't have the perspective the results would provide, and that's a big part of this topic.

If you had done the calculations, you would have found that the wound volumes in question are quite small in relation to the total volume of a person. (I converted everything to weight because it's common to think of humans in terms of their weight, but rare to think of them in terms of their volume. But since basic science tells us how to easily convert between volume and weight, if you prefer to think in terms of volume it doesn't change anything.)

Anyway, the wound volumes are, in perspective, very small when we start looking at them as what they are--damage to a human. Based on number crunching a ton of FBI testing data for wound volumes, I found that on average, a service pistol bullet will destroy about a thousandth of a 180lb human.

But that's not what we're interested in. We're interested in the wound volume differences. Let's say one bullet destroys 27% more than another. That number was put out as a possible wound volume difference earlier.

Now we have one bullet that destroys a thousandth of a 180lb person, and a second one that destroys a thousandth (0.001) plus 27 hundred thousandths (0.00027) of a 180lb person. The difference in wound volume amounts to 27 hundred thousandths of a 180lb person. Now we start to really understand why it's not the difference in performance that matters, it's what kind of tissue the bullet hits that matters.

This perspective helps us understand why no one has been able to demonstrate that terminal performance differences due to caliber choice in the service pistol class affect outcomes in the real world.

[Webleymkv]

Unknown does not mean the same thing as undetectable.

I don't know how tall you are, but your height is certainly detectable. It's been measured many times in your life. I can't tell if you're really having trouble with the semantics or if you're grasping at straws to come up with arguments.

John you're grasping at straws. Since you have no way of measuring my height, that information is not only unknown, but also undetectable by you. As the unknown variables are not only unknown to us, but we have no practical way of obtaining that information, they are, for the purposes of this discussion, undetectable. I understand semantics just fine, well enough in fact to recognize when someone is attempting to use them to distract from the deficiency of their claims.

"All that" is problematic reasoning based on problematic semantics using non-standard definitions for common words. It is too flawed to have any negative impact on any claims I've made nor to be useful to you in supporting the assertions you are trying to prove.

There you go again, taking a piece of a sentence out of context and trying to build a straw man out of it.

Now we have one bullet that destroys a thousandth of a 180lb person, and a second one that destroys a thousandth (0.001) plus 27 hundred thousandths (0.00027) of a 180lb person. The difference in wound volume amounts to 27 hundred thousandths of a 180lb person. Now we start to really understand why it's not the difference in performance that matters, it's what kind of tissue the bullet hits that matters.

What you're ignoring is that, because different tissues have different damage tolerances, a small difference in wound volume might make little to no difference in one tissue while making a drastic difference in another. Also, while the average bullet wound may represent a very small proportion of the body as a whole, individual organs are substantially smaller than the whole of the body so the bullet wound would represent a larger proportion of the specific organ that it damages. Afterall, the entire body doesn't need to be damage or destroyed in order to be incapacitated, though I suppose disintegration would be a guaranteed one-shot-stop.

So, having had our detour through semantics and Anatomy & Physiology, will you answer the question I posed in my previous post: which factors have effects which are detectable in the Ellifritz study and what is their significance?

[wild cat mccane]

Federal said themselves in an email a few yrs ago that every internet measure we use is wrong. It's all about jhp bullet performance. If you are signed up for their newsletter, you also got it. They make the best bullets. They said in the email that caliber no longer matters, it's bullet performance. And all these single unit measures aren't proving HST/Gold Dot performances.

FMJ is the perfect example. An fmj 380 can go just as far as a 10mm fmj. So pretty much every kinetic, lbs, velocity, blah blah blah forgets this fact.

All our measures for get drag. Drag is 4xs greater than velocity per unit. Bullet drag does nothing to increase peformance.

Look at luckygunner. 150gr 900fps HST 9mm in a 3.5 barrel beats 40, 357, and 10mm.

It's only about performance. And 9mm shape has a lot going for it.

Shoot, the once underdog 380 in Federal 380 DEEP is taking on old style 9mm JHP.

[JohnKSa]

There you go again, taking a piece of a sentence out of context and trying to build a straw man out of it.

Not at all. You built an entire construct on the flawed foundation that 'unknown' means the same thing as 'undetectable'. There's no need to quote the entire thing to point that out, nor is it necessary to deconstruct the entire argument--it's only necessary to show the foundation is fatally flawed.

A more valid (though still somewhat problematic) synonym for 'detectable' would be 'knowable', just as 'unknown' would be more accurately paired with 'undetected'.

Because your argument hinged on the incorrect use of a word, nothing you said in any of it is actually relevant to my comments about significance and detectability.

What you're ignoring is that, because different tissues have different damage tolerances, a small difference in wound volume might make little to no difference in one tissue while making a drastic difference in another. Also, while the average bullet wound may represent a very small proportion of the body as a whole, individual organs are substantially smaller than the whole of the body so the bullet wound would represent a larger proportion of the specific organ that it damages.

I'm not ignoring any of that. Those are all good points. In fact, if you wanted to list out some common tissue types, rank their damage tolerances, and maybe give some general idea of what percentage of the body is composed by each of them, I think that would be very interesting.

The point of the questions was to help provide perspective. To make it easier to grasp, for example, what "27% more wound volume" actually means in the real world. Here's what I said when I posted them:

"I'm not saying the answer to this whole question is contained in their answers, but they are worth thinking about."

People tend to have a sort of mental picture of the magnitude of the differences in service caliber terminal performance. It usually bears very little resemblance to what those differences actually mean in terms of real-world perspective.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
Not at all. You built an entire construct on the flawed foundation that 'unknown' means the same thing as 'undetectable'. There's no need to quote the entire thing to point that out, nor is it necessary to deconstruct the entire argument--it's only necessary to show the foundation is fatally flawed.

A more valid (though still somewhat problematic) synonym for 'detectable' would be 'knowable', just as 'unknown' would be more accurately paired with 'undetected'.

Because your argument hinged on the incorrect use of a word, nothing you said in any of it is actually relevant to my comments about significance and detectability.

You chose to quote only the introductory clause to a singe sentence in a long post which expressed many complex ideas. The introductory clause in an of itself doesn't express any of the many complex ideas expounded upon in my post so I'm at a loss as to the point of quoting it at all if not to build a straw man that is easier for you to knock over. Then again, as you continue to want to argue about the minutiae of 'undetectable vs. unknown' despite the fact that, because neither of us are in a position to be able to detect the factors which are unknown in the Ellifritz study, they are for the purposes of this discussion undetectable and/or unknowable.

The point of the questions was to help provide perspective. To make it easier to grasp, for example, what "27% more wound volume" actually means in the real world. Here's what I said when I posted them:

"I'm not saying the answer to this whole question is contained in their answers, but they are worth thinking about."

People tend to have a sort of mental picture of the magnitude of the differences in service caliber terminal performance. It usually bears very little resemblance to what those differences actually mean in terms of real-world perspective.

The problem is that your questions are framed so broadly that while avoiding "getting into the weeds" of specific tissue densities and the damage tolerances of specific tissues, it obscures important details. For example, if we use your figure that the average gun shot damages tissues which represents roughly 1/1000th of the total body mass of a 180 lb person, that would translate out to 2.88 oz of tissue (180 x .001 x 16). Further, consider that the average human heart weighs approximately 10 oz, and we find that 2.88 oz represents approximately 29% of the mass of the average heart. If we increase 2.88 oz by 27%, we now have 3.66 oz which would represent approximately 37% of the mass of the average heart. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the whole exercise is so generalized that you can't draw any meaningful conclusion from it and is, therefore, a waste of time.

Now, after yet another detour through semantics and Anatomy & Physiology, I ask again will you specify which factors in the Ellifritz study meet your definition of "detectable" and what is the significance of their effects? I've now asked this question three times and you have carefully avoided it through attempted distraction by focusing on semantics and A&P, but if you cannot define and recognize what is detectable and significant then I can't see how you could determine what is undetectable or insignificant.

[stagpanther]

Match point to Webley.
John to serve.

[JohnKSa]

You chose to quote only the introductory clause to a singe sentence in a long post which expressed many complex ideas.

I addressed 3 portions of your post by quoting representative portions and responding to each.

For the portion that you're taking about here that was based on the idea that undetectable and unknown mean essentially the same thing, I only quoted the introductory part because the rest of it was all based on that flawed foundation.

Look, undetectable and unknown have common definitions and those definitions are not at all the same. Trying to use them interchangeably will result in nonsense. There's no need to write a book on the topic because it's already been done. Take it up with Merriam Webster or the OED.

...will you specify which factors in the Ellifritz study meet your definition of "detectable" and what is the significance of their effects?

There is no point in answering the question as long as you are using nonstandard definitions for words in the question.

You talk about "my definition". That is nonsense. There's no point in communication if one doesn't use standard definitions for common words or carefully define terms that aren't going to be used in accordance with their normal definitions. Therefore I am not using "my definition", I'm using the standard definition. As such anyone who knows the definition and has a decent grasp of the topic under discussion can answer the question. 'Detectable' is not some magic complicated word, it's a simple word with a simple definition. Same with 'unknown'.

But, I'm willing to be helpful. Give me a factor that you have questions about, and I will, using the standard definition of 'detectable' tell you if that factor meets the definition. I'll do that for one or two, but, assuming your reading comprehension and language skills are up to par, you should be able to take it from there.

HOWEVER, let's just be clear before we get started that this is a digression from the actual statement I made which was not about the detectability of the factors involved, but about the detectability of the real-world practical advantage in shooting outcomes due to terminal performance differences relating to caliber selection.

You were the one who digressed from my comments about detectability of real world advantages into the detectability of the various factors in the study and then obfuscated things further by trying to conflate 'undetectable' and 'unknown' even though they clearly have different meanings. Which is to say that your protestations that I'm the one doing the "detouring" is clearly ridiculous.

...attempted distraction by focusing on ... A&P...

Hard to see how anatomy and physiology are distractions from the general topic of how bullets of different caliber affect anatomy and physiology.

... that would translate out to 2.88 oz of tissue (180 x .001 x 16). Further, consider that the average human heart weighs approximately 10 oz, and we find that 2.88 oz represents approximately 29% of the mass of the average heart. If we increase 2.88 oz by 27%, we now have 3.66 oz which would represent approximately 37% of the mass of the average heart.

That all makes sense IF you assume that the entire trajectory of the bullet in the body is contained within the heart. Obviously that's a completely unrealistic assumption. Typical penetration figures are 12" to 18", and the average human heart is only about 3.5" wide/thick. Obviously you can't pack 12" to 18" of penetration into something that size. Let's assume a bullet penetrates a total of 14", just to pick a figure in between the two limits. Then only 25% of the total penetration damage is going to affect the heart since 3.5" is 25% of 14". If we use 2.88oz as representative for the entire wound volume, then the 25% of the wound channel that affects the heart would amount to 0.72oz of tissue destroyed. Not quite 3/4 of an ounce.

But remember, we are looking for DIFFERENCES, so we want to see what happens when we increase the overall wound volume as a result of going to a bigger caliber.

So if we increased the wound volume by 27%, that would mean that instead of 0.72oz of damage to the heart, there would be 0.91oz of damage done. A change of 0.19oz, about 2 tenths of an ounce of difference.

Using 10oz from your post as the total weight of an average heart, then the amount of heart tissue damaged would change from about 7% of the total weight to about 9% of the total weight of the heart.

That actually provides some useful perspective. One could do some additional similar calculations with other vital human organs to get more general insight.

[ojibweindian]

Reading this thread reminds me of Sammy Hagar’s “There’s Only One Way to Rock”….

[Sharkbite]

Using 10oz from your post as the total weight of an average heart, then the amount of heart tissue damaged would change from about 7% of the total weight to about 9% of the total weight of the heart.

The math is beyond my meager abilities, but i keep coming back to it's just not enough difference to matter in the real world. Small statistical differences that are lost in the noise of the chaos of wound ballistics are just not worth anything.

If one caliber made them say “ouch” and the other turned them into a quivering mound of jello…we would be having a different discussion. But thats not the case. In actual shootings, there has been no discernible difference in outcomes based on the caliber of service round used. If there had been, it would be widely reported…its not.

The above quote claims a 2% difference in wound volume. Does that gain you a 2% increase in incapacity potential? Even if it does, its only 2%!!! And that comes at the cost of bigger guns, less ammo, more recoil, increased training costs, etc.

If your plate has 1 or 2 more grains of rice, i dont see a nutritional difference in the servings.

[stagpanther]

If your plate has 1 or 2 more grains of rice, i dont see a nutritional difference in the servings.

Chinese or Indian? The difference in spices are detectable.

[Pumpkin]

Something wrong with Mexican

[Ricklin]

It is best to have a gun. All else esp. caliber is of FAR less importance.
I once kidded myself for a while, G19 appendix carry. I managed about a year with that.
Still have the G19 and it still goes along with me, in my backpack or murse. If going to the big city an LCP in my pocket as well.
Very low risk environment.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
I addressed 3 portions of your post by quoting representative portions and responding to each.

For the portion that you're taking about here that was based on the idea that undetectable and unknown mean essentially the same thing, I only quoted the introductory part because the rest of it was all based on that flawed foundation.

Look, undetectable and unknown have common definitions and those definitions are not at all the same. Trying to use them interchangeably will result in nonsense. There's no need to write a book on the topic because it's already been done. Take it up with Merriam Webster or the OED.

Merriam Webster defines "detect" as follows:

1: to discover the true character of
detecting drug smugglers
2: to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of
detect alcohol in the blood
Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your voice?
3: demodulate

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detect

As I have a reasonably good understanding of the English language, I know that detectable means something which can be detected and undetectable means something which cannot be detected. So, I ask you, how based on the information available to us in the Ellifritz study, can we discover the true character of, discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of, or demodulate the effect of any of the unknown factors I mentioned? We both know that we cannot because we don't have the means to do so. Therefore, at least to you and I, the effects of those factors are both unknown and undetectable. Of course, you might want to argue that with different information or methodology those effects might be detectable by someone else, but that same argument could be made about the effects of caliber

There is no point in answering the question as long as you are using nonstandard definitions for words in the question.

You talk about "my definition". That is nonsense. There's no point in communication if one doesn't use standard definitions for common words or carefully define terms that aren't going to be used in accordance with their normal definitions. Therefore I am not using "my definition", I'm using the standard definition. As such anyone who knows the definition and has a decent grasp of the topic under discussion can answer the question. 'Detectable' is not some magic complicated word, it's a simple word with a simple definition. Same with 'unknown'.

Again, because the factors I described are unknown, and we have no reasonable way to know them, we have no means of detecting their effects therefore they are also undetectable. As the commonly understood definition of "detectable" is that which can be detected yet you argue that factors whose effects we lack the means to detect are simply "unknown" rather than "undetectable," I must assume that you're either using a different definition or intentionally trying use semantics in order to distract from the fact that your argument has painted you into a corner. As I don't wish to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, I've elected to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're using a different definition.

But, I'm willing to be helpful. Give me a factor that you have questions about, and I will, using the standard definition of 'detectable' tell you if that factor meets the definition. I'll do that for one or two, but, assuming your reading comprehension and language skills are up to par, you should be able to take it from there.

OK, I'll give you an easy one as, unlike many of the factors I described, this one has at least some data available: Based upon the Ellifritz study, does accuracy as defined by Ellifritz as shots impacting the head or torso have a detectable effect on the outcome of real-world shootings and, if so, is that effect significant.

HOWEVER, let's just be clear before we get started that this is a digression from the actual statement I made which was not about the detectability of the factors involved, but about the detectability of the real-world practical advantage in shooting outcomes due to terminal performance differences relating to caliber selection.

Your entire argument has been that, because the effect of caliber is undetectable that effect must therefore be insignificant. By your own reasoning, any effect which is undetectable must then also be insignificant. Therefore, it is entirely germane to the discussion as to which factors have detectable effect because, if their effect is undetectable then, according to you, they must be insignificant.

You were the one who digressed from my comments about detectability of real world advantages into the detectability of the various factors in the study and then obfuscated things further by trying to conflate 'undetectable' and 'unknown' even though they clearly have different meanings. Which is to say that your protestations that I'm the one doing the "detouring" is clearly ridiculous.

If, as you claim, caliber is an insignificant factor because its effects are undetectable, would it not also be helpful to eliminate other factors which are insignificant due to their undetectable effects? As we've spent so much time and energy arguing about one supposedly insignificant factor then wouldn't it be a great savings of time and energy to identify other insignificant factors now rather than repeat these mental and linguistic gymnastics for all of them?

Hard to see how anatomy and physiology are distractions from the general topic of how bullets of different caliber affect anatomy and physiology.

Hard not to see the irony in accusing me of digression of a debate that is essentially about data analysis by applying your own definitions to other factors in the study we're debating and then turning around and claiming that your own detour through A&P is entirely germane to the discussion

That all makes sense IF you assume that the entire trajectory of the bullet in the body is contained within the heart. Obviously that's a completely unrealistic assumption. Typical penetration figures are 12" to 18", and the average human heart is only about 3.5" wide/thick. Obviously you can't pack 12" to 18" of penetration into something that size. Let's assume a bullet penetrates a total of 14", just to pick a figure in between the two limits. Then only 25% of the total penetration damage is going to affect the heart since 3.5" is 25% of 14". If we use 2.88oz as representative for the entire wound volume, then the 25% of the wound channel that affects the heart would amount to 0.72oz of tissue destroyed. Not quite 3/4 of an ounce.

You do understand that the numbers I quote were not meant to be taken literally but rather used to illustrate the point that the percentage of total body mass destroyed by a gunshot doesn't tell us anything useful, right?

Using 10oz from your post as the total weight of an average heart, then the amount of heart tissue damaged would change from about 7% of the total weight to about 9% of the total weight of the heart.

And isn't 7% and 9% still substantially larger figures than the 0.1% and 0.127% of total body mass that you quoted earlier? My point remains the same, individual organs are smaller than the body as a whole and a gunshot wound will damage a substantially larger portion of them so calculating what proportion of the body as a whole will be damaged by a gunshot wound is pointless.

[fastbolt]

You know folks, if there were an obvious 'superior' handgun caliber for service/defensive use against humans, we'd have discovered it by now.

Instead, the major ammo makers and their engineers have been busy designing their ammunition to meet the same performance characteristics ... and gun companies and their engineers have been busy responding to the desires of their LE/Gov and private owner markets ... and here we are.

Perhaps just like in the various venues of motor racing sports, when it comes right down to it, it's more about the user than the gear.

Use what you're given, or use what you're told or required to use, or use what you wish ... the same element is always going to be present ... meaning you.

If trying to count the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin makes you feel better about yourself, or any putative (or wished for) attributes of your gear ... go for it. Don't forget to carry your other lucky charms or talismans, too.