Interesting observation regarding caliber differences...

[ScottRiqui]

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.

Say, do you do taxes?

The percentages he's figured are derived from wound channel volume, which depends both on the diameter of the wound track and the length of the wound track.

If the percentages came out essentially the same for 9 mm and .45 ACP, it's because the 9 mm rounds (on average) penetrated further than the .45 ACP rounds.

 

[rep1954]

Well I'm hear to tell you there is no difference between any of them, I dont want to get shot with any of them.

 

[TacticalDefense1911]

Its been pretty well proven on the streets that any of the major service calibers are capable of stopping a threat. Also, its been proven that they may not. The human body is an amazing thing. I dont see the relevence of these numbers; they have been rounded up and used an arbitrary "avg. weight of an adult human male". Bullets expand at different times, to different sizes and penetrate to different depth, even the same bullet in the same caliber may expand differently depending on what the bullet passes through before it hits the body. Way too many variables to consider. If your point is that any major service caliber is fine for self defense, then I guess I see your point but not because of this data.

The amount of soft tissue damage means very little; disrupting major organ systems and blood loss is how you stop a threat.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Bullets expand at different times, to different sizes and penetrate to different depth, even the same bullet in the same caliber may expand differently depending on what the bullet passes through before it hits the body.

I agree with this - part of the problem with using wound volume in calculationes is that it treats penetration depth and wound channel diameter as equally-weighted and interchangeable, which I don't think is the case.

 

[JohnKSa]

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

PRECISELY.

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.

You are absolutely correct, and that was actually the main point I was trying to make in spite of the somewhat misleading thread title.

People seem to believe that a bullet does massive destruction--it doesn't. If you look at actual projections of wound volume the amount of tissue destruction is laughably miniscule.

If the bullet doesn't hit something important it's not going to do anything important.

No one in their right mind would automatically assume a person who is 99.9% intact would be incapacitated. They would ask WHICH 0.1% of the person was damaged before making any comments about the seriousness of the injury.

But on the gun forums it seems to be a given that if someone is shot and isn't automatically incapacitated that something must be wrong. The caliber must be too small, the ammunition must be inadequate, etc.

The point was to provide some big picture perspective. It just happened that all the percentages worked out to the same number when rounded to the nearest tenth.

If the percentages came out essentially the same for 9 mm and .45 ACP, it's because the 9 mm rounds (on average) penetrated further than the .45 ACP rounds.

I want to make it clear that the initial post does not make the assertion that there is no difference between the calibers listed.

It merely points out that the average amounts of tissue disrupted as a percentage of an entire human are identical when the figures for each caliber are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. There are certainly differences, but when one looks at the big picture (how much of the target is actually getting damaged), the differences look very small, as they should. The differences in average wound volume between the calibers were not large to begin with and when are viewed with a big picture approach instead of in isolation the differences are even less apparent.

You're adding in a large number (average weight of a male human) that's relatively unimportant

It's extremely important. Damage is meaningless unless one puts it into context. The context of handgun self-defense is attackers. Human attackers have an average weight and that weight is a very important part of understanding just how much damage a bullet really does to the attacker.

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).

Again, this is missing the point. The point isn't really that they're the same, they're not unless you round to the nearest tenth.

The real point is that the numbers are all VERY SMALL when put into proper perspective.

Which means that differences between these small numbers are even smaller than the numbers themselves when one actually looks at the big picture.

But what it REALLY means is that people need to understand how LITTLE physical damage they're going to do to an attacker by shooting him. If the damage isn't done in the right place it is going to seem insignificant--because it IS insignificant.

Stopping power is about practice and training FAR more than it is about numbers stamped on guns or printed on ammunition boxes.

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.

I don't have FBI figures for .22LR or .30-06. The figure for the .380 rounds down to zero if you round to the nearest tenth. If you put a lot of stock in wound volume as a measure of effectiveness, it would seem that the .380 isn't quite in the same general class as the calibers listed in the original post.

 

[tipoc]

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.
___________

That's right. Well...except for the part about being dead, or crippled, or shouting "ow!, ow!, ow! Don't kill me please!" By the way where is the big smiley face?

Thanks for the info John but I don't think it really means much in and of itself. One could as soon take the weights of various bullets by their grains and compare them to the weight of an "average" human body and declare that some how, someway, there is some relevance to something.

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.....

There is no way to compare the weight of a person and the foot pds. of energy that a certain load is capable of producing from the muzzle.

One ft. pound of kinetic energy is a measurement of the amount of work that it would take to lift a one pound weight one foot off the ground at a given elevation. 500 ft. pounds of energy is the amount of work, or of energy, it would take to lift a 500 pound weight one foot off the ground or a one pound weight 500 feet off the ground. It is a measurement of the ability to do work. Not of force or of power.

The Border Patrol used to use the rough figure of 400 foot pounds of energy and figured that that provided a good bullet enough energy to penetrate and expand at the distances that they typically shot at. It was one factor they used to look at in choosing rounds for their agents to carry. The others being bullet construction and caliber. Back in the 80s and early 90s they used the 9mm+P+, the 38 Super, the .357 Magnum, .45acp and the 45 Colt. Agents could carry revolvers or semis. This was in the years before they standardized their sidearms.

This fits with the M&S figures that the .45ACP is less effective than the .357.

M&S never said this. It's an incorrect reading of their work to believe so.

tipoc

 

[JohnKSa]

That's right. Well...except for the part about being dead, or crippled, or shouting "ow!, ow!, ow! Don't kill me please!"

Except for when none of those things happen.

About 80% of people shot with a handgun do not die. Many handgun wounds do not disable or cripple the person shot. And there are many reports of people remaining fully capable and aggressive even after being shot. Some after being shot more than once.

The figures I presented help understand why that can happen. It's because handgun bullets don't do a lot of damage.

One could as soon take the weights of various bullets by their grains and compare them to the weight of an "average" human body and declare that some how, someway, there is some relevance to something.

Comparing bullet weights to body weight is absolutely not the same thing as comparing the amount of the body weight damaged to the total body weight. The latter two quantities are parts of the same whole--it's a real stretch to pretend that they're not relevant to each other.

There is no way to compare the weight of a person and the foot pds. of energy that a certain load is capable of producing from the muzzle.

I concur. THAT would be like comparing bullet weight to body weight.

 

[BillCA]

It merely points out that the average amounts of tissue disrupted as a percentage of an entire human are identical when the figures for each caliber are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. There are certainly differences, but when one looks at the big picture (how much of the target is actually getting damaged), the differences look very small, as they should. The differences in average wound volume between the calibers were not large to begin with and when are viewed with a big picture approach instead of in isolation the differences are even less apparent.

To use a different analogy to cover two points...

Imagine shooting into a 737 cargo plane that's taking off with the idea of bringing it down. Even if you use a .50 BMG or a 20mm.¹ In comparison to the total volume of the aircraft, the total weight of the aircraft or even surface area, the hole you make is going to represent a very small fraction of that jet. Unless, as JohnKSa points out, you hit something very important. Even that 20mm ripping through the flight deck is no guarantee you'll hit something important enough. Even the amount of energy you pour into the contact points with the aircraft will be miniscule when compared to the aircraft itself.

Regardless of whether or not ft-lbs represents work or force, there seems to be some correlation at work. But like anything else in this world, it's not quite as simple as that. Accuracy and striking vitals is key, however. But since I'm not a perfect shot under stress, I'll take the extra energy to help make up for it.

M&S never said this. It's an incorrect reading of their work to believe so.

In terms of the fabled 1-shot stop, they rated the .45 ACP around 67% IIRC and the .357/125gr in the 90% range. If that's not saying the .45 ACP is less effective, I think you're splitting hairs.



¹ Some planes can be harder to knock down than people

 

[ET.]

Why not add:

.22short-->.01%
.25 acp -->.01%
.32 acp -->.01%
.380acp-->.01%

to go along with:

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

So now the 22 short is equal to the 10mm. This all makes sense to me. I should have no preference as to which I would rather be shot with...a .22 short or a 10mm...because they both inflict less than .1% damage to the overall tissue mass thus leaving 99.9% undamaged. Before this I would have died from ignorance believing that the 10mm wound to the chest I had just incurred was lethal.

Sorry, I'm a newbie and should respect my elders...even if I'm as old as dirt.

 

[RimfireChris]

And there's the human element too. I remember reading an article a good number of years ago, where an emergency room nurse recounted an incident where a young man came in, wounded in the leg by a .25ACP. No arteries hit, through and through, stitches and go home, right? Wrong, the kid died. For no apparent physical reason. On the other end of the spectrum, I used to work with an ex-Dallas LEO, he told me about one time, he shot to shoot a man 5 times with a .357 magnum before he went down, and the guy lived. Granted that incident was in the '70s, so it was probably LRN ammo, but still. I guess there's just no guarentees, just safer bets.

 

[OldMarksman]

So now the 22 short is equal to the 10mm. This all makes sense to me. I should have no preference as to which I would rather be shot with...a .22 short or a 10mm...because they both inflict less than .1% damage to the overall tissue mass thus leaving 99.9% undamaged. Before this I would have died from ignorance believing that the 10mm wound to the chest I had just incurred was lethal.

People have been dying from wounds from .22 Shorts since the Civil War. The 10MM can, of course, kill much larger animals. Neither is an ideal choice for SD unless one fears bear attack.

John's point, I think, is that caliber is not anywhere near as important as some people profess to think it is when it comes to stopping a human being.

That's hard for some people to understand--there's Dirty Harry, and screen dramas with people being blown over backwards by shots from pistols. There's the legend about the fanatical Moros. And there's all that fuss and noise when you set off a magnum at the range. What about all that?

On the other side of the coin, there are the people who have kept coming after having been shot repeatedly by a .40 S&W with JHP bullets. Happened here in town a couple of weeks ago. The LEO shooter is in the hospital. So is the shootee, who fired back.

In the current issue of Guns & Ammo American Handgun Magazine, Patrick Sweeney opines that the Army's insistence on the .45 back in 1905 had to do primarily with the need to stop an enemy cavalryman's horse. That requires penetration. No amount of energy from a pistol is going to wound a horse "massively"--it's hitting something important inside the horse that counts. They tested different loads on live steers. I's a whole lot harder to penetrate to a steer's vital organs than it is to puncture a human being.

Back in the 1920s, Elmer Keith cooked up powerful handloads for his .44 Special revolvers. He used them for hunting game. A standard load just wouldn't penetrate to the vitals of a large animal.

For law enforcement, the .38 Special was considered quite adequate--as long as one didn't have to shoot someone behind a steel car door or someone wearing body armor. Smith & Wesson developed the more powerful .38-44 loading for use in large frame revolvers, and Colt, the .38 Super Automatic for the 1911 action. The former led to the subsequent development of the .357 Magnum, which was offered primarily as a hunting load. Patrick Sweeney has said that had the .38 Super Automatic been available at the time, the Army might well have adopted it rather than the .45 ACP.

The common raison d'etre for all of these higher powered loads was penetration. You need a lot of power to penetrate a horse, a steer, large game (or a goat. for that matter), a car door, a bank window, or body armor. You don't need anywhere near as much to penetrate to the CNS of a standing human being.

But you may well need a couple or three rapid follow up shots to ensure a stop, because if nothing vital is hit, you will be entirely dependent on psychological effects. Too much power can work against the achievement of that objective. The gun has to be controllable.

A .22 Short is likely to not penetrate adequately; a 10MM is overkill except for hunting and will work against rapid follow-up. Personally, I'm not a .380 ACP aficionado, and I prefer the 9MM, and I can handle a .45 ACP with rapid follow up shots. Power alone will not result in a "one shot stop."

But what about all that energy, all that noise? I recently saw an old video in which someone fired a 7.62X51 MM FAL rifle at a man at point blank range several times. The man was wearing protective gear and was no more phased by the impact than the man shooting the rifle. Do not confuse the bang and blast with the effect on the target.

It's penetration and placement that count. With a human target, you only need so much penetration, but proper placement in a self defense encounter may well require a number of rapid shots.

 

[BigJimP]

Interesting perspective John - and thanks for going to the trouble and taking the time to explain your analysis.

I knew intuitively what you were saying was true - but I like your perspective.

In the one in a gazillion chance that I ever need to fire a weapon for defense....I keep coming back to ...... I should carry the gun, and the caliber, I shoot the best - and I think your analysis really confirms that in a new way.

Thanks

 

[cougar gt-e]

Why not add:

.22short-->.01%
.25 acp -->.01%
.32 acp -->.01%
.380acp-->.01%

to go along with:

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

So now the 22 short is equal to the 10mm. This all makes sense to me. I should have no preference as to which I would rather be shot with...a .22 short or a 10mm...because they both inflict less than .1% damage to the overall tissue mass thus leaving 99.9% undamaged. Before this I would have died from ignorance believing that the 10mm wound to the chest I had just incurred was lethal

You forgot that a .50BMG gets that same 0.1%. It is non-expanding and will actually result in a smaller number than the .45acp, .40, 10mm, 9mm, and 357's. So the .22 short and .25acp and the 50 BMG are the same !!

Yeah, my point is pointless and meaning free. As someone that uses statistics the premise of wound channel volume compared to body weight is a prime example of trying to make a non-important relationship seem important. Just my $0.02 adjusted for inflation.

 

[brabham78]

JohnKSa,

If your logic for providing this unusual statistical look at ammunition was to argue that shot placement, and not caliber, is the key factor in self-defense scenarios, then I think you may distracted us with numbers that are ripe for argument. If you'd simply said, "we need to stop worrying so much about caliber, and worry more about shooting it well", I'd have been the first one saying "amen!", because that is what I've always believed. The constant bickering about caliber grows so tiring after hearing it for the 1000th time. I always said - carry what ever you have, shoot it accurately, and stop worrying about "man stopper" statistics. If that is the basic premise of your original post, then we are in complete agreement, but I must say that your way of making this argument really missed the mark.

The reason that I earlier mentioned you might want to also include a .22lr, .38acp and a .30-06 rifle rounds in your number crunching methodology, is because based on your methods, I believed the results would likely fall right in line with the results that you've already given. In your response to my original post you indicated that the data for .380 would mathematically round off to 0.0%, which puts it within +/- 1/10th of one percent of your previously posted numbers. And not only that, such a number (0.0%) would apparently prove that a .380 round will cause zero damage to the human body (again, it's your statistical method, not mine). Can you see how numbers that are crunched in this way are of no real use? If we had the raw data, I think a .30-06 would fall into that statistical range also (using your method). The end result is that you have massaged the numbers in a way that might seem to prove that a .380 pistol round is nearly as effective as a .30-06 rifle? From reading your subsequent posts, your reason for all of this is that you are indeed trying to make the argument that accurate use of your firearm is more important than the caliber. Had you left out the number juggling and just stated that, I think there would have been plenty of us that agree you, and you wouldn't have had to meticulously defend your original post, point by point, quote by quote. As statistically interesting as your results are, when we are talking about something as dynamic as the terminal ballistics of a bullet vs living tissue, those statistics aren't of much use, especially when your original intent was apparently just say that we need to shoot well and stop worrying about caliber.

I spent an entire career working in the field of Experimental Engineering - I retired with 31 year of experience. My mind is geared for running experimental tests. for taking data and for crunching numbers. It's how I made a living. I've massaged data in every way you can think of, and I could make the numbers say anything I want them to say. Your original post, as well meaning at is was, just proves how using the wrong approach with statistics can sometimes take you down the wrong road.. In principle, I agree on the argument of not worrying so much about caliber.


I mean no disrespect by what I've said, so please don't take it that way. You've put a lot of thought in to it, and that's a good thing. In a forum dominated by ridiculous posts like "what the ugliest gun?" and "tell me which gun is best!" and ".40 vs 9mm, which has the most recoil?", it's good so see someone put some time and effort into this firearms hobby. I'm a data junkie, and do a lot of ballistics testing, and whether I'm fond of your current method or not, at least you're doing something other than giving pointless subjective opinions.

 

[rtpzwms]

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

TRUE, Like real estate LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!

 

[FoxtrotRomeo]

I'm just gonna say this and leave it at that. They're all 100% effective if you hit the right vital area on the first shot. lol

And I dunno about the rest of you but I don't intend on wasting a perfectly good cold bore shot. lol

Many "gangstas" have executed people in LA with a simple .22 pistol and a pillow.

And many a LEO and military sniper have stopped an assailant by hitting vitals.

It's the vitals man, the vitals. Aim well.

 

[OldMarksman]

Can you see how numbers that are crunched in this way are of no real use?

I can and I'm sure he can.

The end result is that you have massaged the numbers in a way that might seem to prove that a .380 pistol round is nearly as effective as a .30-06 rifle?

I think you have missed the point entirely.

From reading your subsequent posts, your reason for all of this is that you are indeed trying to make the argument that accurate use of your firearm is more important than the caliber.

I mean no disrespect, but I gathered that from the first post.

Had you left out the number juggling and just stated that, I think there would have been plenty of us that agree you, and you wouldn't have had to meticulously defend your original post, point by point, quote by quote.

I most seriously doubt it. Have you any idea how many times it has been said, or how many times the relevant FBI report has been quoted? Someone needed to try a different approach, and this got a few more people thinking, IMHO.

As statistically interesting as your results are, when we are talking about something as dynamic as the terminal ballistics of a bullet vs living tissue, those statistics aren't of much use, especially when your original intent was apparently just say that we need to shoot well and stop worrying about caliber.

That was the point, I think.

 

[tipoc]

From Oldmarsman;

John's point, I think, is that caliber is not anywhere near as important as some people profess to think it is when it comes to stopping a human being.

Many times over the years John has made this point. He does so again and well in post #25. If he wanted to make it here all he had to do was make it again. But that is not the point he made. Unless of course he has retreated, or you have, from the original post. It's widely understood that the difference between the effectiveness of standard service calibers is largely dependent on shot placement and bullet selection.

The point that less that 1% of the mass of tissue in a human body is damaged by a bullet wound, while an interesting way to look at it, tells you not much at all in and of itself. It's where the damage is, how it is done and the response of the mammel being shot that makes the difference. The figures John presents and figures are flawed however and have no value other than a curiosity. It's more useful to make the point.

As I mentioned before I can add 158 1/7000 of a pound to the weight of a human being and make either no difference to their well being (if I hand them a bullet and they put that 158 gr.s in their pocket) or a great deal of difference.

From John;

About 80% of people shot with a handgun do not die. Many handgun wounds do not disable or cripple the person shot. And there are many reports of people remaining fully capable and aggressive even after being shot. Some after being shot more than once.

The figures I presented help understand why that can happen. It's because handgun bullets don't do a lot of damage.

But this is the area where John is off. Handgun rounds can do quite enough damage. Bones can be shattered and/or fractured, organs disrupted, punctured or shredded, muscle and nerve tissue ripped and torn, lungs collapsed, etc. Any of these can cause great pain and physical shock to set in. John confuses, by associating too closely, the physical damage that bullets can do with "automatic stops" of a person. He says here that people should understand why bullets don't always stop a person and that is because, he says, the bullets do little damage. But the statement is wrong and misleading. Sometimes they do little damage, sometimes a great deal. Sometimes people stop with only a little damage sometimes with a great deal of damage they fight on.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

From BillCa.

In terms of the fabled 1-shot stop, they (M&S) rated the .45 ACP around 67% IIRC and the .357/125gr in the 90% range. If that's not saying the .45 ACP is less effective, I think you're splitting hairs.

I gottta disagree and I think the mistake Bill makes here is a common one.

The aim of some of what MS did was to identify what bullets and loads from which manufacturers had the best "street proven results" in their calibers. In 3 books and many articles, etc. they rated the bullets and loads from various manufacturers for a given caliber in relation to each other based, they said, on their "One shot stop criteria" and their research. They never aimed to rate caliber against caliber. Just within a given caliber which loads and which bullets and bullet designs had what results based on one shot stops, gelatin testing etc.

Thus in their 2001 book "Stopping Power" they give a couple of loads by specific manufacturers with particular bullets for the .357 Mag a 96% One Shot Stop rating (OSS). Pg. 303
On pg. 304 they give a 91% OSS rating to one +P+ load of the 9mm.
On pg. 306 they provide a 93-94% rating for three loads of the 40S&W.
On pg. 310 they give a 96% rating to two loads of the 45acp.

In the real world (particularly given the methods used by M&S) there is no practical difference between 96% effectiveness and 90% effectiveness.

Nowhere do they say that the .357 is better than the .45 acp. In some places they maintain that certain commercial loadings of the .357 Magnum are better than some commercial loads for the .45 acp. They also say that some loads for the 45 acp are better than many loads for the .357 Magnum.
They maintain that the energy, construction of the bullet and it's weight and shot placement make a great deal of difference.

They are wrong in a number of ways but their books deserve reading.

tipoc

 

[Nnobby45]

In the real world (particularly given the methods used by M&S) there is no practical difference between 96% effectiveness and 90% effectiveness.

Except that 96%, starting from 90%, closes the gap more than 50% toward the magic 100%.

Controversial as M&S's work has become , I've always looked at their stats as a valuable tool when comparing bullet effectiveness between different calibers and bullets within calibers. I think that's valid no matter what definition of OSS you want to use.

Sometimes common sense takes precedence over fancy figures.

A .45 caliber bullet that expands from .75 to .90 cal. would seem, in the eyes of a moderately intellectual individual, to have a better chance of hitting blood vessels and lead to quicker incapacition without injecting the % of total body mass the wound channel consists of when much of that body mass is inconsequential to incapacitation.

Seems more logical to take the larger mass of the bullet and the likelyhood of it hitting something vital in the small area known as the upper chest in to account.


Even so, excellent bullet technology makes calibers from 9mm to .45 close enough in effectiveness that all are good choices with GOOD BULLET SELECTION.

I'll leave the % of entire body mass destruction debate to others. LOL