Interesting observation regarding caliber differences...

[JohnKSa]

I used the estimated wound volumes from the most recent version of the published FBI wound statistics I could download in softcopy form.

I averaged all the estimated wound volume figures for each caliber providing an average estimated wound volume figure for each caliber.

I computed the weight of the damaged tissue for each average estimated wound volume figure using the average density of human tissue.

Then I computed those weights as a percent of the total weight of a human being using the average weight of an adult human male in the United States.

I then rounded the numbers to the nearest tenth of a percent.

Here are the numbers for some common handgun self-defense calibers.

9mm--> 0.1%
.357SIG--> 0.1%
.40S&W--> 0.1%
.45ACP--> 0.1%
10mm--> 0.1%
.357Mag-->0.1%

Yeah, that's right. You have to round to hundredths of a percent of total weight before you get any differences.

Which means, among other things, that a handgun bullet from any of the common self-defense calibers listed above will, on average, leave a human 99.9% intact.

 

[Sport45]

So I guess you have to make that 0.1% count with shot placement?

Maybe that's what makes shotguns so good. 9 pellets of 00 gets you up to about 1% in one shot.

 

[Chesster]

Which means, among other things, that a handgun bullet from any of the common self-defense calibers listed above will, on average, leave a human 99.9% intact.

It may be my insomnia, but, the significance in eluding me here. Are you saying that lethal force is not or doesn't have to be necessarily messy or destructive to the body as a whole to be effective?

 

[ZeSpectre]

It's a well known but seldom considered fact that you can be 99% healthy...and still be dead.

 

[ClayInTx]

Then the 9mm is as effective as is the .357?

Hmm...
Something odd here.

 

[OldMarksman]

There was a time when I thought a .38 Special load with 200 grain lead bullets (yeah, I'm old!) would be a more effective than one with the ordinary 158 grain LRN bullets, that a .357 Magnum with the Keith semi-wadcutters would trump the 200 grain Specials by a long way, and that a .41 Magnum....

I still do believe that bigger is better with proper shot placement (which may result entirely from luck, in a real SD encounter) provided that one can get back on target very, very quickly for the second shot, and for a third if needed.

I no longer believe in handgun "knock down power" (why I didn't figure that out in first year physics class I do not know) or in the concept of a reliable one shot stop.

Nor do I accept what people put in handgun effectiveness tables without a very large grain of salt.

Think about it--there are hundreds and hundreds of places in which a person might be struck by one or more bullets, and thousands of possible angles of entry, not to mention the multiplicity of other variables such as build, conditioning, adrenalin, externally induced chemical influences, psychology, and so on.

So....if one were to try to catalog real-world events to determine the relative effectiveness of just the .380 ACP, the 9MM Parabellum, and the .40 S&W for "stopping" people, one would need many, and perhaps many, many hundreds of detailed observations for each chambering to reliably separate out the effects of the other variables. And now we can add more to discuss bullet construction.

Yet for some reason, some people seem to want to discuss the effects of shots on a few goats!

 

[CDW4ME]

I think the difference in 9mm, 40 and 45 with a well placed shot using a "good" HP would be minimal.

I think it's wise to consider the speed at which you can accurately place follow up shots with the chosen pistol.

Yea, I started the recent thread about the goat "test". Assuming the test happened, they attempted to eliminate variables and compare equally placed shots.

I do know this, I've shot deer with a 100 gr. .243 bullet from a rifle and a 45 cal. bullet from a muzzleloader; the deer were inside 100 yards so the impact energy would have been high. The deer after taking a lethal hit with a considerable anount of energy were still able to run about 70 yards. Keep in mind, the muzzle loader uses a 250 gr. 45 HP pistol bullet.

I've also had deer run about 70 yards after taking a 1 3/16'' three blade broadhead though both lungs.

I'm not talking about big deer either, average size 150# animals.

Deer can cover 70 yards in just a few seconds (less than 10).

Now, imagine if they (deer) were armed and could shoot back; that 7 seconds they used to run away would be used shooting back.

I'm still focused on speed of accurate follow up shots given 9mm and up.

Edit: John, thanks for the data it reinforces my opinion.

 

[Daryl]

And the relevance is?

You're adding in a large number (average weight of a male human) that's relatively unimportant, and using it to distort the smaller number that may be important, andthen rounding to the nearest 10th of a percent...

Which proves...????

Nothing.

Daryl

 

[brabham78]

While you have your calculator out, if you wouldn't mind, throw a .22lr, .380 acp and .30-06 rifle rounds into your number crunching methods. I'd be interested to see how the results compare to your current ones.

 

[Sgt127]

But wait!!!

Here's the foot pounds of energy of a good .357 Magnum:

357 Magnum:
KE = 1/2 x ((125 / 7000) / 32.2) x (1450 fps x 1450 fps) = 583 foot pounds.

The average weight of an American male is: approx. 190 pounds...

So, if you figure things that way, the .357 Magnum is delivering 3.068 times more energy than a human weighs.

And, that explains it all, right?

I mean, really, if 583 pounds were simply sitting on my chest, it would kill me eventually.....



Placement is king.
Penetration is queen.
Everything else is just angels dancing on the head of a pin.

 

[shafter]

If that .1% happens to be in the heart or brain your good to go.(most of the time) The heart and brain make up far more than .1 percent of a human body.

 

[.357SIG]

That seems about right to me. (Speaking of the effectiveness...I know nothing about the numbers, but believe it for sure.)

Ft/lb, size (within reason), etc. is all conjecture. No real-life evidence supports the "bigger is better", or the "energy is better" crowds. I know this upsets some, but its true. I like Sgt127's statement:

Placement is king.
Penetration is queen.
Everything else is just angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Your body reacts to the wounds, not the extra .1" you gain between .38/9mm and .45 ACP/Colt/Casull/etc. (No, bleeding out is not something worth considering to make the argument about the .1" difference. No such thing as "bleedout" winning a normal gunfight with any hint of reliability...sorry.) Furthermore, extra energy is superfluous for humans. All tissues in the body can be destroyed with even the weakest SD round. You can't make something "deader" than dead.

I have seen the argument that shots in the same place can result in a miss with a .355" bullet, but a grazing wound with a .451 bullet, but that is splitting hairs to keep the argument alive. The chances of you getting in a gunfight are slim...the chances of that being reality are slimmer by a million times.

 

[Sarge]

Good post, John. I have said for years that the difference between .380 ball and the best .45 JHP, would not make up for 3" of lateral dispersion from the centerline of the body.

 

[CWPinSC]

IMO, worthless.

 

[Jimmy10mm]

When I was 15 years old and watched Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald with a 38 spl from a 2" bbl and Oswald went down like a rock I was amazed. Even more that he didn't live an hour. A policeman friend of mine told me that he has shot guys with 40s and it stops them quite nicely.

 

[Sgt127]

Placement is king.
Penetration is queen.
Everything else is just angels dancing on the head of a pin.

I wish I could take credit for it. I stole it from this, or another forum. My thanks to the original creator, I have used it a lot.

 

[CDW4ME]

Another interesting caliber comparison

Coltman 77 posted this on another thread.
Not really that much difference looking at it like that.

 

[Nnobby45]

Here are the numbers for some common handgun self-defense calibers.

9mm--> 0.1%
.357SIG--> 0.1%
.40S&W--> 0.1%
.45ACP--> 0.1%
10mm--> 0.1%
.357Mag-->0.1%

Anyone who can, on paper, turn a 9mm that expands to .65 caliber into the equal of a .45 HST that expands to as much as .90 is a pure genius (or works for the federal budget office).

Say, do you do taxes?

 

[BillCA]

John,

That's an interesting data point, but I can't see the relevance.

It is which tissues are destoryed that make all the difference in the world. Destruction of .1% of a thigh muscle will not have the same impact as destroying the same amount of brain, heart, spleen or liver tissue.

We don't shoot killer Jell-o creatures from planet-X. The human body has nerves, blood vessels and tissues of differing densities. The blood filled organs, such as the spleen, may consist of a smaller fraction of total body weight, yet their disruption and leakage can cause systemic failures out of proportion to the tissues damaged.

Hitting the spine with a .32ACP can cause a small amount of physical damage yet be lethal or cause systemic collapse.


I tend to lean towards the energy vs. mass concept myself, for a simplistic theory. When we see that the "best" manstopper loads produce between 525 and 585 ft-lbs (125gr .357 Mag)¹ then this begins to make some sense. That's 3 to 3.5 times the average man's weight. Fast .45ACP loads, .357, .41 & .44 magnums produce as much or more energy.

Most .45 ACP, .40 S&W and 9mm loads fall short of 500 ft-lbs. This fits with the M&S figures that the .45ACP is less effective than the .357.

But I also think that the tissues disrupted account for a huge portion of the effect on an organic target, far more than almost anything else. Bullet shape, expansion and whether it tumbles is probably second.

That's my $0.02 worth.

¹ Marshall & Sanow - Despite criticisms of their work, it still serves as a useful reference for the amount of energy needed to reliably stop a human being.

 

[ScottRiqui]

When we see that the "best" manstopper loads produce between 525 and 585 ft-lbs (125gr .357 Mag)¹ then this begins to make some sense. That's 3 to 3.5 times the average man's weight.

Not sure what the bolded comparison means. The 525-585 ft-lbf values are not weights, they're muzzle energies, so comparing them to the weight of a man (or of anything else) isn't appropriate.