.44 Special "target" WC from a snubby vs .38 Special FBI Load from service revolver

[pettypace]

Let's "follow the science" to see how a .44 caliber wadcutter "travelling in the leisurely manner of bygone days" (as Captains Fairbairn and Sykes worded it) might compare to the classic "FBI Load" from a .38 Special service revolver.

Why pick the FBI load when there are countless other more "modern" ammo choices for comparison?

Partly because the FBI load has an established reputation for effectiveness and reliability and partly because Fackler published a "wound profile" for the FBI load that shows its likely penetration and expansion in bare 10% gelatin.

The full set of Fackler wound profiles can be found online in the very last issue of Fackler's Wound Ballistics Review here: https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2001-Vol5No2.pdf

I don't believe it strains the principle of "fair use" to post one of those profiles here:

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/profile_38_fbi.png

For the metrically-impaired (me included) that 15 mm expanded diameter converts to about 0.59 inches and the 32 cm of penetration is about 12.6 inches.

So, apparently that combination of a 60 caliber projectile capable of penetrating 12-13 inches of bare gelatin is sufficient to establish an "exemplary" reputation for "reliability and effectiveness in the human target."

But why?

It's easy enough to understand the penetration part: Long ago the FBI "followed the science" to determine that a projectile capable of penetrating 12 inches of 10% gelatin is very likely capable of penetrating deep enough to hit something "vital" in the human target from most any likely angle. The FBI load, even with full expansion, meets that minimum penetration requirement.

But is there anything special about the 0.59 inch expanded diameter? Well, sure! That has to do with the volume of the permanent cavity shown in Fackler's wound profile.

About the same time the FBI settled on the 12-18 inch penetration requirement, they also realized that the only other useful measurement of handgun ammunition effectiveness was volume of the permanent wound cavity. That idea is well explained in a short paper by Special Agent Urey Patrick entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectivess" which can be found online here: http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

The whole paper is well worth reading, but here's the key paragraph on permanent cavity volume:

"The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity. The bullet must penetrate sufficiently to pass through vital organs and be able to do so from less than optimal angles... and the permanent cavity must be large enough to maximize tissue destruction and consequent hemorrhaging."

There's more that could be said about just how the volume of the permanent cavity should be calculated for different bullet nose shapes. But maybe it's better to stop here and see if there's enough interest to make the topic worth pursuing.

[HWooldridge]

I have been loading my S&W 38 snubby with 4.9 gr WW231 under a 158 gr SWC in W/W lead for many years and have dispatched a lot of animals with it, such as feral hogs and varmints caught in traps. This is supposed to duplicate the FBI load and in every case I can recall, the bullet went all the way through. Of course, I am quite close - almost point blank range, but the penetration is still there. I shoot hogs in the head and never through the hide shield but I'm sure it would at least go to the opposite side under the skin.

[376Steyr]

I have been loading my S&W 38 snubby with 4.9 gr WW231 under a 158 gr SWC in W/W lead for many years and have dispatched a lot of animals with it, such as feral hogs and varmints caught in traps. This is supposed to duplicate the FBI load and in every case I can recall, the bullet went all the way through. Of course, I am quite close - almost point blank range, but the penetration is still there. I shoot hogs in the head and never through the hide shield but I'm sure it would at least go to the opposite side under the skin.

While I am sure your snubby load has given you good service, the FBI load features a much softer lead hollowpoint. My sole experience using the FBI load out of a 3" barrel was at close range, into the chest of a 50 lb canine, which was facing me. Said canine instantly collapsed and the bullet did not exit. I did not dig the bullet out for examination.

[stubshaft]

I have shot a fair number of animals with the 38 and a few with the 44 special WFN. I would have no problem carrying a 44 snubbie IF someone would make a decent one and NOT that Charter Arms garbage!

[44MAG#1]

I sometimes carry a S&W M69 2.75 inch with 44 Special loads with a 250 gr wadcutter at maybe 700 to 750 FPS and surely don't feel undergunned.
Am I undergunned carrying that combo?

[pettypace]

I sometimes carry a S&W M69 2.75 inch with 44 Special loads with a 250 gr wadcutter at maybe 700 to 750 FPS and surely don't feel undergunned.
Am I undergunned carrying that combo?

Good question. (Although I expect you already know the answer.)

My guess is that load should be just as effective as the FBI load with the added benefit of not relying on expansion for its effectiveness and having maybe twice as much penetration if needed.

[ddixie884]

I sometimes carry a S&W M69 2.75 inch with 44 Special loads with a 250 gr wadcutter at maybe 700 to 750 FPS and surely don't feel undergunned.
Am I undergunned carrying that combo?

I would say you are North of a .455 Webley with a better shaped bullet and that aint a bad neighborhood..........

[shooting on a shoestring]

Ummmm?…
Where’s the part about the 44?

[pettypace]

Ummmm?…
Where’s the part about the 44?

Here's how that .44 Special "target" wadcutter load (220 grains at 625 f/s) compares to the FBI load in two screenshots of a free Android app from the Google Play store:


https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/43_WC_220_625.png

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/MSH_59_158_880.png


While the FBI load has considerably more energy (271 ft-lb vs 190 ft-lb), the app shows that the two loads produce essentially the same "Defense Wound Mass." (My guess is that much of the extra energy of the FBI load goes into producing that fairly big temporary cavity shown in the Fackler wound profile.)

Because it has more sectional density, the .44 wadcutter, even at just 625 f/s, penetrates deeper than the FBI load.

With almost the same power factors (PF=137 and PF=139) the recoil should be about the same in guns of equal weight.

So, which load is likely to be more effective?

[44MAG#1]

I am going to go ahead and say this as I know it is coming.
"It's not what you hit them with it is where you hit them".

[black mamba]

If you would get the 44 WC up to about 750 fps, its numbers would blow away the 38 Special, and still be completely controllable in rapid double-action shooting. At handgun velocities, there is just no substitute for bullet size and mass.

[pettypace]

I am going to go ahead and say this as I know it is coming.
"It's not what you hit them with it is where you hit them".

In the case of the FBI Load vs .44 "target" Wadcutter -- I'd agree.

But in this case (here's the "before")...

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/before.jpg

...(and here's the "after")...

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/after.jpg

...I think size matters.

[44MAG#1]

In the case of the FBI Load vs .44 "target" Wadcutter -- I'd agree.

But in this case (here's the "before")...

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/before.jpg

...(and here's the "after")...

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/after.jpg

...I think size matters.

Well let's say a drugged up thug is coming through your door and you center his brain with the 22LR would that more likely be more effective than a 12 Guage through the foot or hand? I know that is extreme examples but.......

[Bigslug]

Pettypace, I think you're just a smidgen off on your understanding of how the FBI has come to prioritize what is desirable:

#1 is shot placement. If you don't put your bullet through something that's going to bleed profusely or disrupt nerve signals, it's unlikely that the problem will be solved quickly.

#2 is penetration. The bullet has to make it to the Tootsieroll center of the Tootsiepop in order to cause the effects we want. 12" was arrived at as a MINIMUM desirable depth because if you have an upper arm in the way on a profile shot - as was the case with Michael Platt in Miami - you have to dig deeper to get to the goodies, and 12" can be really marginal in those kinds of event.

On the topic of #3 - expansion - the FBI is clear on it being a very distant last place in the priority list. Effectively they say "so long as items #1 and #2 are not compromised, take all the diameter you can get, but don't lay awake nights worrying about how to get more".

I've thought about your wound mass formulas a bit, and I'm not sure how good a yardstick it really is. The first and last couple inches of torso penetration are basically exterior muscle structures, so probably don't add much meaningful data. On the interior, what you hit is more important than what you hit it with. Once you get above pin holes, it probably doesn't really matter if you make a hole through the aorta that's 75% of its diameter with a 9mm hollowpoint or sever it completely with a 12 gauge slug. This is why penetration gets priority - it gives you more chance to hit more important things. This is also why the 12 gauge slug is unquestionably superior - it's penetration is not compromised by it's larger diameter. The same cannot be said in the pistol world.

In the case of your OP comparison, I'd choose the .44 Special Wadcutter over the FBI Load .38 because of the greater penetration being helpful across a greater range of possibilities. If the circumstances prevented that from factoring in, a coroner probably couldn't tell the difference between the two until they pulled out the bullet to measure. That said, I'd probably choose a non-expanding .38 WFN over either because it will penetrate as well or better than either and be available in a thinner profile revolver than the .44.

[pettypace]

Well let's say a drugged up thug is coming through your door and you center his brain with the 22LR would that more likely be more effective than a 12 Guage through the foot or hand? I know that is extreme examples but.......

Yes... There's nothing quite like the confidence of having a Hammerli free pistol in your hand when that drugged up thug comes through your door. I can picture the ads in Guns & Ammo right now!

[44MAG#1]

Yes... There's nothing quite like the confidence of having a Hammerli free pistol in your hand when that drugged up thug comes through your door. I can picture the ads in Guns & Ammo right now!

Would you rather for someone to be armed with something they can handle well or something they can't handle well?
A couple pops in the brain from a 22RF would probably ruin the shootees day. Personally I carry a 45 Auto. But sometimes carry a 9MM
Never a 22RF and I don't think Walmart would like me to carry my shotgun slung over my shoulder.

[pettypace]

I've thought about your wound mass formulas a bit, and I'm not sure how good a yardstick it really is.

You may be right, Bigslug. But consider this:

With thanks (and apologies) to Dr. Fackler, here's a composite of two butchered wound profiles. On the top is the classic .38 Special FBI load and on the the bottom is .45 ACP GI hardball. It's as though Dr. Fackler had carefully prepared a big block of ballistic gel, fired two shots, and both rounds performed exactly as intended.

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/38_FBI_vs_45_FMJ_profile.png

So, which cartridge is likely to be more effective for self defense?

Here are some "yardsticks" to help make the decision:

https://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/SSS/38_FBI_vs_45_FMJ_data.png

If the threat is a charging grizzly, I'm going with the extra penetration of GI hardball. But for most likely scenarios of civilian self-defense, I'm not so sure. The WTI wound mass "yardstick" is pointing to something that isn't obvious in the other measurements. I know... "They all fall to hardball!" But, is it possible the FBI load is actually a significantly better "manstopper" than GI hardball? Given the history of both cartridges, you'd think there'd be plenty of real world data to help answer that question.

[44MAG#1]

How did the 45 Auto do with a 230 grain hard cast with a generous flat point? Can something be cobbled together to show that? Just because it is a FMJ or a Hard Cast doesn't mean it has to be a round nose.
I for one would like to see the comparison of the FBI 38 Special load compared to a FMJ Flat Point and a Hard Cast Flat Point that is generous like a Saeco 058 in 230 grains.

[pettypace]

How did the 45 Auto do with a 230 grain hard cast with a generous flat point? Can something be cobbled together to show that? Just because it is a FMJ or a Hard Cast doesn't mean it has to be a round nose.

I for one would like to see the comparison of the FBI 38 Special load compared to a FMJ Flat Point and a Hard Cast Flat Point that is generous like a Saeco 058 in 230 grains.

MacPherson (in Bullet Penetration) provides modeling data for wadcutters (he used cylinders with perfectly flat noses) and semi-wadcutters (he used the Saeco 068 shape), but nothing in between.

He also wrote that "Bullet configurations with a flat nose diameter near the caliber (e.g., Keith semi-wadcutter)...can be modeled as cylinders with a diameter of the flat nose face" (page 193).

That "trick" might work well enough for those long, heavy wadcutters (for example, Accurate 43-270W (http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=43-270W)) with a cylindrical nose just less than caliber. But it certainly doesn't work for my old "night stand" load (Lyman 452423 @ 650 f/s) where it predicts over 3 feet of penetration and only 19 grams of "WTI" wound mass. That ain't right! And if it doesn't work for the Lyman 452423, it won't work any better for your Saeco 058 bullet.

Maybe what we need is a modern-day Dr. Mann with enough time, money, and curiosity to do some serious gelatin testing.

[44MAG#1]

MacPherson (in Bullet Penetration) provides modeling data for wadcutters (he used cylinders with perfectly flat noses) and semi-wadcutters (he used the Saeco 068 shape), but nothing in between.

He also wrote that "Bullet configurations with a flat nose diameter near the caliber (e.g., Keith semi-wadcutter)...can be modeled as cylinders with a diameter of the flat nose face" (page 193).

That "trick" might work well enough for those long, heavy wadcutters (for example, Accurate 43-270W (http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=43-270W)) with a cylindrical nose just less than caliber. But it certainly doesn't work for my old "night stand" load (Lyman 452423 @ 650 f/s) where it predicts over 3 feet of penetration and only 19 grams of "WTI" wound mass. That ain't right! And if it doesn't work for the Lyman 452423, it won't work any better for your Saeco 058 bullet.

Maybe what we need is a modern-day Dr. Mann with enough time, money, and curiosity to do some serious gelatin testing.

So you are saying a Saeco 058 bullet at 900 to 925 fps is no improvement over a FMJRN or a Hardcast RN? Or a 230 FN at 850 fps isn't any better than a RN non expandable bullet?

[pettypace]

So you are saying a Saeco 058 bullet at 900 to 925 fps is no improvement over a FMJRN or a Hardcast RN? Or a 230 FN at 850 fps isn't any better than a RN non expandable bullet?

Nope. Just saying that MacPherson didn't test bullets with a big-for-diameter meplat and his suggested work-around clearly doesn't work for a Keith bullet.

[44MAG#1]

Nope. Just saying that MacPherson didn't test bullets with a big-for-diameter meplat and his suggested work-around clearly doesn't work for a Keith bullet.

So, to put this country simple, if you were faced with a thug that was armed with a machete and he was intent to chop your head off and you had a 45 Auto with a choice of two bullet types 1. a FMJRN and 2. a FMJFP with a good diameter meplat and you had time to get off one shot which bullet type would you choose?

[pettypace]

So, to put this country simple, if you were faced with a thug that was armed with a machete and he was intent to chop your head off and you had a 45 Auto with a choice of two bullet types 1. a FMJRN and 2. a FMJFP with a good diameter meplat and you had time to get off one shot which bullet type would you choose?

Is the round already chambered?

[44MAG#1]

Is the round already chambered?

That is a funny one there. I carry with an empty chamber, empty magazine and the ammo loose in my pocket. Ha Ha. It is good to have fun.

[Led]

I take the metric of bullet over penetration very seriously. Say your shoot is fully justified but the slug you put in the bad guy makes it out and hit's a bystander. I guarantee the local prosecutor would file charges against you for the hit on the bystander. In a self defense situation we have to think not only about our own safety but also the safety of those around us.

[44MAG#1]

I take the metric of bullet over penetration very seriously. Say your shoot is fully justified but the slug you put in the bad guy makes it out and hit's a bystander. I guarantee the local prosecutor would file charges against you for the hit on the bystander. In a self defense situation we have to think not only about our own safety but also the safety of those around us.
Would that be worse than a miss hitting an innocent bystander? How would one regulate over penetration, enough penetration and underpenetration? With the varying thicknesses of people plus being slightly turned, facing broadside, standing with their side presented or weight 140 pounds 200 pounds or like my buddy used to weigh around 400 how would we get the correct bullet?

[Led]

If memory serves, the FBI considers 12 - 18 inches of penetration in ballistic gel to be adequate. I generally carry a 44 spl so my loads attempt to match those specs.

[HWooldridge]

My great uncle witnessed a “gunfight” in Fredericksburg, Texas in 1907, when he was 10 years old, and he was fond of telling the story in later years. He and his father were waiting in the barbershop when a skinny little fellow walked in and shot the local butcher in the stomach while he was getting a shave (both were seeing the same woman). My uncle said his father told him later that it was “a 38”. The butcher was a very fat man and the bullet stopped in his belly rolls. He got up from the barber chair and proceeded to beat the smaller man almost to death. After the sheriff came and hauled the broken gunman off to jail, the butcher sat down in the chair and had the barber dig out the slug. This was dropped into a mason jar, where it stayed for a few years.

Clearly a case of insufficient penetration…:mrgreen:

[44MAG#1]

My great uncle witnessed a “gunfight” in Fredericksburg, Texas in 1907, when he was 10 years old, and he was fond of telling the story in later years. He and his father were waiting in the barbershop when a skinny little fellow walked in and shot the local butcher in the stomach while he was getting a shave (both were seeing the same woman). My uncle said his father told him later that it was “a 38”. The butcher was a very fat man and the bullet stopped in his belly rolls. He got up from the barber chair and proceeded to beat the smaller man almost to death. After the sheriff came and hauled the broken gunman off to jail, the butcher sat down in the chair and had the barber dig out the slug. This was dropped into a mason jar, where it stayed for a few years.

Clearly a case of insufficient penetration…:mrgreen:
That sounds more like a shooting to me than a gunfight.

[HWooldridge]

That sounds more like a shooting to me than a gunfight.

That's why I put it in "quotes"...:Fire:

[Bigslug]

Re Post #17 - FBI .38 Load vs. GI Hardball. . .

The problem I have with the using the FBI Load as a yardstick is that it's making bare minimum of what the FBI now considers adequate penetration. It WORKS because it does make that adequate penetration number, but it doesn't solve your Michael Platt upper arm problem or intermediate barrier problems very well, PLUS, the .38 Special is known for HUGE performance variability based on what barrel length you shoot it out of. .45 Hardball WILL penetrate a human torso and any of its appendages in a pretty much straight line, making its effectiveness dependent on where the hit is - - it's going to transect anything vital in its path. The FBI Load has a much greater chance of not making it that far.

Your wound mass formulas just give a weight of tissue turned into goo, but they don't account for WHAT gets turned into goo. Short version - I WANT an exit wound with complete pass through along my line of sight. If the bullet falls to the ground six inches past or is caught by the skin or exit side clothing (as many current duty rounds often are), I'm OK with that, but I want depth over diameter.

[44MAG#1]

Re Post #17 - FBI .38 Load vs. GI Hardball. . .

The problem I have with the using the FBI Load as a yardstick is that it's making bare minimum of what the FBI now considers adequate penetration. It WORKS because it does make that adequate penetration number, but it doesn't solve your Michael Platt upper arm problem or intermediate barrier problems very well, PLUS, the .38 Special is known for HUGE performance variability based on what barrel length you shoot it out of. .45 Hardball WILL penetrate a human torso and any of its appendages in a pretty much straight line, making its effectiveness dependent on where the hit is - - it's going to transect anything vital in its path. The FBI Load has a much greater chance of not making it that far.

Your wound mass formulas just give a weight of tissue turned into goo, but they don't account for WHAT gets turned into goo. Short version - I WANT an exit wound with complete pass through along my line of sight. If the bullet falls to the ground six inches past or is caught by the skin or exit side clothing (as many current duty rounds often are), I'm OK with that, but I want depth over diameter.

What if one can have depth and diameter?
Would both be better than just one of them?

[pettypace]

Re Post #17 - FBI .38 Load vs. GI Hardball. . .

Well-stated, as usual, Bigslug. Let me react (as opposed to rebut) piece by piece...



The problem I have with the using the FBI Load as a yardstick is that it's making bare minimum of what the FBI now considers adequate penetration.


I used the FBI load as a standard because Fackler's wound profile authoritatively established its expansion, its penetration, and its "exemplary ... reputation for effectiveness in the human target." My intent was not to sing the praises of the FBI load, but rather to suggest that a lightly loaded wadcutter load from a .44 Special snubby should be every bit as effective.



It WORKS because it does make that adequate penetration number...


You left out the part about making just about as much wound mass as you can get out of a .38 in the process. After all, the .38 LRN has way more penetration with no such reputation for effectiveness.



...but it doesn't solve your Michael Platt upper arm problem or intermediate barrier problems very well...


The expansion shown in Fackler's wound profile is against bare gel -- no barriers, not even denim. But I'd guess most of the usual barriers would actually increase the penetration of the FBI load by "disarming" the hollow-point. I wouldn't expect that to improve effectiveness, but lack of penetration would not likely be a problem.



PLUS, the .38 Special is known for HUGE performance variability based on what barrel length you shoot it out of.


What do you mean by "performance?" Velocity, expansion, wound mass, or effectiveness? The FBI load achieved its reputation in spite of that and I think it's true that the FBI used it from its 3" model 13's.



.45 Hardball WILL penetrate a human torso and any of its appendages in a pretty much straight line, making its effectiveness dependent on where the hit is - - it's going to transect anything vital in its path.


You could say pretty much the same thing for 9mm hardball or a hard-cast .38 Keith bullet.



The FBI Load has a much greater chance of not making it that far.


Maybe. But you have to wonder just what the FBI was thinking when they settled on that 12" minimum. I know they meant 12" after barriers. But the FBI load is likely to penetrate more than 12" after most barriers.



Your wound mass formulas just give a weight of tissue turned into goo, but they don't account for WHAT gets turned into goo.


I'd rather you said "MacPherson's wound mass formulas" rather than "your wound mass formulas." I didn't dream up the formulas -- I just advocate for them.

But either way, "WHAT gets turned into goo" can't be established before the shot is fired. It seems to me that a round that gives "adequate" penetration and makes 36 grams of goo, has a better chance of hitting something vital than a round that has "excessive" penetration and makes only 26 grams of goo.



Short version - I WANT an exit wound with complete pass through along my line of sight. If the bullet falls to the ground six inches past or is caught by the skin or exit side clothing (as many current duty rounds often are), I'm OK with that, but I want depth over diameter.

I don't think we disagree on much -- except, maybe, the usefulness of MacPherson's "WTI" wound mass calculation. And that's probably because I haven't done a good job of explaining it. MacPherson's formula factors in both depth and diameter as well as bullet nose shape. But it stops counting after 18" of penetration on the assumption that after 18" the bullet has more than likely exited the target. The VIRGEL android app includes the "Big Game Wound Mass" for the entire penetration path.

[Bigslug]

What if one can have depth and diameter?
Would both be better than just one of them?

Absolutely, but we are in fact often painted into corners with SAAMI cartridge specs, what the shooter can handle, what the gun can handle, what the gun can generate (compactness or the compromise of short barreled .38's for example).

The current crop of 147 grain duty 9mms will finish up around .65-.70 caliber and often finish closer to the 18" limit of the FBI spec than the 12" and they've been doing very well for themselves out in the Wide World of Sports.

Pettypace's .44 wadcutter is going to mimic THAT wound channel a little more closely than the FBI load will, but really it's just the FBI load's lack of penetration that gives me pause. Otherwise, it profiles like a modern 9mm without the jacket.

[44MAG#1]

Absolutely, but we are in fact often painted into corners with SAAMI cartridge specs, what the shooter can handle, what the gun can handle, what the gun can generate (compactness or the compromise of short barreled .38's for example).

The current crop of 147 grain duty 9mms will finish up around .65-.70 caliber and often finish closer to the 18" limit of the FBI spec than the 12" and they've been doing very well for themselves out in the Wide World of Sports.

Pettypace's .44 wadcutter is going to mimic THAT wound channel a little more closely than the FBI load will, but really it's just the FBI load's lack of penetration that gives me pause. Otherwise, it profiles like a modern 9mm without the jacket.
Saami spec, what one can handle, what the person can handle and what the barrel length produces is what it is.
We all know all those have a part in making up the links in the chain of stopping power on the intended target be it animal or human or something of another world.
We who have studied and read know a wadcutter is formidable. As far a penetration it would be no great deal to insure penetration if one just has the understanding.

[Bigslug]

Pettypace, the reasoning behind the FBI's minimum penetration standard of 12" isn't hard to comprehend. Measure the distance from the outside of an average male's upper arm to the center of his chest. Odds are, it's pretty close to 12". The reason that's the MINIMUM is that it can work very well if everything goes right, such as a textbook perfect frontal shot. In those cases, the rapid opening / big diameter options can be impressive.

The 18" standard (personally, I'd be more comfortable with 24") is for when everything goes wrong. In that regard, we can can probably label Michael Platt as one of the most useful murdering buttholes in the history of gunfighting. From a marksmanship perspective, the shot that ultimately killed him was perfect, but while it was on a beeline straight to his heart, it stopped about an inch short because its designers were fixated on diameter and "energy dump" over penetration. Platt took something like two minutes to finally keel over due to blood loss from a clipped brachial artery in his upper arm, and dealt effective damage to the good guys after taking that hit. In that engagement, a 9mm FMJ of any standard weight, .45 hardball, or even the much maligned 158 grain .38 round nose would likely have rendered Platt dead on the ground in less than 10 seconds, because it would have made it to the vitals that a 115 grain Silvertip did not.

I say again, extra diameter is not a bad thing, but in handgun arena we're discussing, our full range is usually .35" at an unexpanded minimum to about an inch for the most gonzo pancaking .45 you can think of. The biggest thing you can therefore deliver in a duty handgun power level will give you an extra .32" of radius / .65" diameter with which to nick something on it's way past. Useful? Maybe, but dialing back to a still useful diameter that severs everything in a direct line through the entire torso will be more of a sure thing than a bullet the coroner will have to go digging to find.

I think we are splitting hairs over rendering the threat STOPPED vs. rendering the threat DEAD, but effectively generating the former will very often result in the latter. The threat gets stopped most rapidly by either catastrophic nerve damage to the spine or making a hole in one of the major arteries that is a large percentage of the inside diameter of that artery - both of which take reliable penetration. If either of those things is achieved, turning the surrounding tissue to pulp is entirely irrelevant. Remember that Platt kept fighting after taking a bullet that was designed to do that.

As 44MAG#1 brings up, it would be good to have penetration AND diameter. Veral Smith's book Jacketed Performance with Cast Bullets has some GREAT practical field observations on. We do, HOWEVER, need to take it with a grain of salt, which is that is that he is dealing mostly with large caliber magnums well above the ken of what practical carry, tactics, and realistic training for the masses hint at what is useful.

Somewhere within the bowels of this forum is a link to gel testing one of the notable writers did with the black powder revolvers of the middle 19th Century. What stood out to me in that was that the round ball out of the .44 Colt 1860 Army was delivering a wound track that looked A LOT like either a modern 9mm duty load or Pettypace's .44 wadcutter. Apparently, we HAD a good understanding of what was necessary, which we have managed to come back around to after the misguided forays of the 1980's

[44MAG#1]

I try to understand these types of posts but sometime I think someone runs across the Fairbairn and Sykes and Fackler experiment and think the are new or something to that effect. Stopping Power discussions and wound channel size and penetration isn't anything new. But, it serves to give a subject that some like to over think about.
Whether this is good or bad is up for grabs.

[tazman]

I was at a gun shop in Peoria IL a number of years ago. Probably around 1994. There was a Peoria police officer working there part time who had been on the force for quite a few years at that point. Several of the patrons and the owners (two of whom were retired officers) were having much the same discussion as we are having here.
That officer stated that, while he like the capacity of the 9mm, he would rather have a bullet that had sharper edges on it like a wadcutter or SWC.
He claimed hollow points and FMJ bruised their way through flesh while the wadcutter/SWC cut their way through, leaving a wound that bled really well.
He also preferred the complete pass through so as to have two bleeding holes instead of just one.
I have heard that last part stated by quite a number of people over the years and it seems to make sense to me. I can't say about the difference in blood loss between bullet types as I have no experience.
Having seen that officer shoot at an indoor range, I can attest that he should have been able to provide good placement no matter what handgun he was using.
He also indicated he had some experience with this type of thing.
Make of this what you will.

[HWooldridge]

Our family doctor was killed a few years ago in a home invasion. The perp was an addict looking for something to steal and unfortunately, the family had forgotten to close the garage door and the house door was unlocked. The bad guy was walking down the street and came inside the first place that was unlocked.

The confrontation happened in the hallway - the intruder had a 9mm and the doctor had a .357 revolver; both shot simultaneously from about 10 feet or so. The perp was hit in the right upper chest and his lung collapsed, while the doctor was hit in the upper part of his liver. The perp ran out of the house the way he came in and the doctor’s wife called 911. The doctor was conscious until the ambulance arrived but died on the way to the hospital. The bad guy was found several houses away bleeding severely but survived to stand trial and was sentenced to life. Both bullets were found lodged in the walls.

I knew Clay quite well because he was our primary physician for almost 15 years - we talked about guns and hunting every time I went to his office. He was a great pistol shot but dumb luck worked against him and his life came to a premature end. It was a great loss to the local community and I still miss him.

From an analytical perspective, both handguns were similar but where the bullets landed made all the difference.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I have shot a fair number of animals with the 38 and a few with the 44 special WFN. I would have no problem carrying a 44 snubbie IF someone would make a decent one and NOT that Charter Arms garbage!


How about this one? S&W696 5 shot .44 Special now Replaced by the S&W69 which is a 5 shot .44 Magnum. 250 gr. Keith Boolits at 800 fps will deal with most threats permanently.

Randy

[pettypace]

I try to understand these types of posts but sometime I think someone runs across the Fairbairn and Sykes and Fackler experiment and think the are new or something to that effect. .

Which "Fairbairn and Sykes and Fackler experiment" is that?

[44MAG#1]

Which "Fairbairn and Sykes and Fackler experiment" is that?

Just anything you want to dig up. I may have used the wrong wording but you get the idea. Models, experiments, theory, idea belief, cobbling, discussion, feeling, dream, epiphany, supposition, vision, ETC..

[pettypace]

Just anything you want to dig up. I may have used the wrong wording but you get the idea. Models, experiments, theory, idea belief, cobbling, discussion, feeling, dream, epiphany, supposition, vision, ETC..

Not exactly the words that come to mind when I think of guys like Fairbairn and Sykes and Fackler.

[44MAG#1]

Not exactly the words that come to mind when I think of guys like Fairbairn and Sykes and Fackler.

Your words may be different. To each his own. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. Or some such words. I am probably incorrect even on that.

[44MAG#1]

This is my answer to carry ammo that I like. Why, one may ask. Just because.

295444

[44MAG#1]

The Hammer.
295460

[W.R.Buchanan]

The Hammer.
295460

Ok that will leave a nice 7/16" hole behind.

Randy

[44MAG#1]

Ok that will leave a nice 7/16" hole behind.

Randy

Thank you, I think. How much of a hole will the 45 Auto leave behind?

[44MAG#1]

Or maybe we could go this route. Liberty Civil Defense 9MM or an Underwood 45 Auto Extreme Defense.
295555

[deltaenterprizes]

I have been loading my S&W 38 snubby with 4.9 gr WW231 under a 158 gr SWC in W/W lead for many years and have dispatched a lot of animals with it, such as feral hogs and varmints caught in traps. This is supposed to duplicate the FBI load and in every case I can recall, the bullet went all the way through. Of course, I am quite close - almost point blank range, but the penetration is still there. I shoot hogs in the head and never through the hide shield but I'm sure it would at least go to the opposite side under the skin.
The FBI load has a hollow point bullet!

[JoeJames]

I may be, and probably am old school, but I think a .430" SWC already has the inherent diameter that lesser calibers try to aspire to with hollow point bullets. But my standard 44 Special load also has the weight on them at 240 grains. Lee Cast .430" 240 grain SWC’s with 6.8 grains of Unique averages 894 fps in my Ruger NM Blackhawk 4 1/4".

312321

[44MAG#1]

What does VIRGEL say?
He is the last word.

[deltaenterprizes]

The Hammer.
295460

There was a New York City cop and author who designed a bullet like that with a split half way down the middle so that it would open up and stop over penetration!
I can’t remember his name.
He loved the 44 Special for defensive work!

[Stacts]

I think it's interesting that so many conclusions are drawn from the performance of a single bullet of a single caliber from a single gun from a single encounter in which many dozens of bullets of varying calibers and from varying guns were fired. Every firearm has the potential to deliver lethal force.

To decide if a caliber/gun/bullet/cartridge is sufficient to save one's life, more data than a single bullet should probably be considered. Throughout its many decades of service, the 9x19 has proven itself reliable and deadly. Throughout its many decades of service, the .45 ACP has proven itself reliable and deadly. Through its many decades of service, the .38 spcl has proven itself accurate and deadly.

I would not consider caliber choices made before the advent of smokeless powder as being particularly relevant to the decisions being made today. Smokeless powder produces much higher pressures and velocities than black. Today, we are spoiled with a cornucopia of bullet designs to choose from. In the 19th century, there were two choices: Round Ball or Round Nose Minnie Ball.

Today, we know that hollow point performance contributes to the success rate of a given caliber to stop a threat. We know that hollow point performance is dependent upon velocity. We, as hand loaders, know that velocity is dependent upon powder choice, powder charge, and barrel length (assuming a standard/unchanging boolit weight). A change in any of those three variable necessitates a re-verification of the chosen boolit or J-word.

If a non-hollow point is chosen, less importance is placed upon velocity to achieve the requisite performance.

[44MAG#1]

I think it's interesting that so many conclusions are drawn from the performance of a single bullet of a single caliber from a single gun from a single encounter in which many dozens of bullets of varying calibers and from varying guns were fired. Every firearm has the potential to deliver lethal force.

To decide if a caliber/gun/bullet/cartridge is sufficient to save one's life, more data than a single bullet should probably be considered. Throughout its many decades of service, the 9x19 has proven itself reliable and deadly. Throughout its many decades of service, the .45 ACP has proven itself reliable and deadly. Through its many decades of service, the .38 spcl has proven itself accurate and deadly.

I would not consider caliber choices made before the advent of smokeless powder as being particularly relevant to the decisions being made today. Smokeless powder produces much higher pressures and velocities than black. Today, we are spoiled with a cornucopia of bullet designs to choose from. In the 19th century, there were two choices: Round Ball or Round Nose Minnie Ball.

Today, we know that hollow point performance contributes to the success rate of a given caliber to stop a threat. We know that hollow point performance is dependent upon velocity. We, as hand loaders, know that velocity is dependent upon powder choice, powder charge, and barrel length (assuming a standard/unchanging boolit weight). A change in any of those three variable necessitates a re-verification of the chosen boolit or J-word.

If a non-hollow point is chosen, less importance is placed upon velocity to achieve the requisite performance.

If you were to condense what you said into a couple sentences what would it be?

[Stacts]

If you were to condense what you said into a couple sentences what would it be?

Search for multiple tests conducted by different people of whatever bullet/caliber/gun you want. If all your data come from a single source, it is easy to be misled. Never put all your faith in a single event, test, or report.

[44MAG#1]

Search for multiple tests conducted by different people of whatever bullet/caliber/gun you want. If all your data come from a single source, it is easy to be misled. Never put all your faith in a single event, test, or report.

Thanks. In my 70 years I have found most people are going to believe what they want to believe or find convenient to believe based on their agenda.
This includes me.
And most I know.

[Jtarm]

Well let's say a drugged up thug is coming through your door and you center his brain with the 22LR would that more likely be more effective than a 12 Guage through the foot or hand? I know that is extreme examples but.......


Would you rather for someone to be armed with something they can handle well or something they can't handle well?
A couple pops in the brain from a 22RF would probably ruin the shootees day. Personally I carry a 45 Auto. But sometimes carry a 9MM
Never a 22RF and I don't think Walmart would like me to carry my shotgun slung over my shoulder.

OK, which is it? Drugged up thug at home, or wandering the aisles of a big box?

In the first scenario, I’ll take the 12 gauge, thank you. It’s a pretty odd duck who can shoot a .22 handgun better than a shotgun.

A shooter incapable of making center-of-mass hits with a center fire at normal SD range (under 10 yards) isn’t going make a double-tap to the brain with a .22 while under real duress. Actually, I doubt if there’s many folks not named Jim Cirillo who could pull that off.

A head shot that penetrates to the brain is actually pretty tricky, especially with a .22. With an opponent facing you, it has to be pretty close to center and 90-degrees, otherwise the bullet deflects off the skull, which is a surprisingly tough nut to crack.

[44MAG#1]

OK, which is it? Drugged up thug at home, or wandering the aisles of a big box?

In the first scenario, I’ll take the 12 gauge, thank you. It’s a pretty odd duck who can shoot a .22 handgun better than a shotgun.

A shooter incapable of making center-of-mass hits with a center fire at normal SD range (under 10 yards) isn’t going make a double-tap to the brain with a .22 while under real duress. Actually, I doubt if there’s many folks not named Jim Cirillo who could pull that off.

A head shot that penetrates to the brain is actually pretty tricky, especially with a .22. With an opponent facing you, it has to be pretty close to center and 90-degrees, otherwise the bullet deflects off the skull, which is a surprisingly tough nut to crack.

Actually I was trying to sooth the shot placement over all else guys so they would feel good.
Now, condense what you were saying to maybe one sentence.
I have a 12 gauge loaded and ready at home. The shot placement over all else guys were going to rear their heads soon so I just helped them out

[Ed K]

Ok, it's been over two months. That should serve as sufficient intro to the "44 Special "target" WC from a snubby vs .38 Special FBI Load from service revolver" discussion.

[pettypace]

What does VIRGEL say?
He is the last word.

Here's what VIRGEL says about the FBI load from a 4" barrel and expanding as intended:

http://rewebster.org/pics/Virgel_MSH_59_160_880.png

And here's VIRGEL's take on a 220 grain .44 caliber wadcutter with no expansion:

http://rewebster.org/pics/Virgel_WC_43_220_650.png

Probably not "the last word." But at least some quick and easy data.

[charlie b]

Another data source. No .44 data. .45acp is all HP stuff. And good videos of all.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#45ACP

He also has the FBI load (Winchester 158 LSWCHP +P)
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/#38spl

[44MAG#1]

Here's what VIRGEL says about the FBI load from a 4" barrel and expanding as intended:

http://rewebster.org/pics/Virgel_MSH_59_160_880.png

And here's VIRGEL's take on a 220 grain .44 caliber wadcutter with no expansion:

http://rewebster.org/pics/Virgel_WC_43_220_650.png

Probably not "the last word." But at least some quick and easy data.

Thank you. Glad you clarified it. VIRGEL came through again.

[Bigslug]

Ummm. . .what in the seven hells differentiates "Defense Wound Mass" from "Big Game Wound Mass"???

[pettypace]

Ummm. . .what in the seven hells differentiates "Defense Wound Mass" from "Big Game Wound Mass"???

"Defense Wound Mass" is an estimate of the amount of tissue crushed by the bullet in not more than the first 15" of penetration and ignoring the last 3" of penetration. It's what MacPherson refers to as "effective wound mass" with the understanding that he's talking about a human target.

"Big Game Wound Mass" is an estimate of the amount of tissue crushed in the entire penetration path.

With moderate penetration, there's not much difference between the two calculations. But with fierce penetration, the difference can be surprising. For example, a 30-40 Krag military ball load has a "Defense Wound Mass" of only about 13 grams but a "Big Game Wound Mass" of maybe 75 grams.

The difference between "Defense Wound Mass" and "Big Game Wound Mass" helps explain the story in LaGarde's book about the Moro warrior in the Philippines who absorbed ten hits (including three in the chest) from 30-40 Krag rifles as he "charged the guard" from a distance of 100 yards. According to the report, that brave man stumbled and fell within five yards of the riflemen and was killed by a trumpeter with a shot to the head from a .45 Colt's revolver.

It also explains Fackler's statement that many Vietnam era servicemen owe their lives to the fact that the AK-47 ammo used against them often failed to tumble until it had already passed through their bodies. This would also give a "Defense Wound Mass" of about 13 grams (about the same as .32 ACP hardball) despite having a much larger "Big Game Wound Mass."

[44MAG#1]

VIRGEL is the best thing to come along for handgunners. It has changed the way we look at defensive calibers and ammo

[pettypace]

VIRGEL is the best thing to come along for handgunners. It has changed the way we look at defensive calibers and ammo

When did all that happen? I can't run fast enough to give VIRGEL away.

[44MAG#1]

When did all that happen? I couldn't run fast enough to give VIRGEL away.

Don't sell yourself short. Your introduction of VIRGEL has proven that a lot old ideas and beliefs were wrong. Stories from the past handed down without any proof about good defensive calibers and ammo.
Now we know how to choose the proper ammo and calibers.
Just plug in the numbers and there it is. Defense wound mass. Knowing we need as close to 40 grams as we can get based on 15 inches penetration. The closer to 40 grams the better it is.
Science has proven that now. Experiments and the crunching of numbers is where it's at.

[pettypace]

Don't sell yourself short. Your introduction of VIRGEL has proven that a lot old ideas and beliefs were wrong. Stories from the past handed down without any proof about good defensive calibers and ammo.
Now we know how to choose the proper ammo and calibers.
Just plug in the numbers and there it is. Defense wound mass. Knowing we need as close to 40 grams as we can get based on 15 inches penetration. The closer to 40 grams the better it is.
Science has proven that now. Experiments and the crunching of numbers is where it's at.

VIRGEL is just a calculator. It doesn't "prove" anything.

But guys like Fackler have "proven" (to my satisfaction, at least) that velocity, energy, and momentum are not the best indicators of defensive ammo performance. It makes sense to me that the amount of tissue "crushed" is a better indicator. VIRGEL just makes it easier to calculate an estimate of that number.

Of course, it's understood that accuracy and penetration are vitally important. But after that, wound mass trumps velocity, energy, and momentum.

[44MAG#1]

VIRGEL is just a calculator. It doesn't "prove" anything.

But guys like Fackler have "proven" (to my satisfaction, at least) that velocity, energy, and momentum are not the best indicators of defensive ammo performance. It makes sense to me that the amount of tissue "crushed" is a better indicator. VIRGEL just makes it easier to calculate an estimate of that number.

Of course, it's understood that accuracy and penetration are vitally important. But after that, wound mass trumps velocity, energy, and momentum.

VIRGEL in and of itself is a creation that gives us the results that Fackler gave in his knowledgeable experiments and writings thereof.
VIRGEL is your baby. Be proud of it as it is an achievement that many only aspire to.
It brings to those of us who are challenged in finding pertinent info and calculating said info at our fingertips.
That is what is so good about it.

[billmc2]

When did all that happen? I can't run fast enough to give VIRGEL away.

I'd be willing to give it a try. I just did a search of the web and found it listed in Google Play. I have an Apple phone or a Linux computer. Anything available for either of those platforms?

[pettypace]

I'd be willing to give it a try. I just did a search of the web and found it listed in Google Play. I have an Apple phone or a Linux computer. Anything available for either of those platforms?

Try: http://rewebster.org/virgel.html

Still a "work in progress." But should work on any browser -- including your iPhone.

[Stacts]

With no insult meant, I find the virgel calculations to be of dubious value. By its own admission, it is incapable of calculating/estimating/demonstrating the effects of bullets within bodies (tumbling/fragmenting/expanding). For solid, non-expanding bullets at typical handgun velocities from 800 through 1200 FPS, it provides a generic estimate of effectiveness. If the bullet is designed to deform itself in any way or if the velocity is well above typical handgun velocities (5.7x28 at 1500+ FPS) virgel is next to useless, and practical testing is needed for any comparison.

[44MAG#1]

Try: http://rewebster.org/virgel.html

Still a "work in progress." But should work on any browser -- including your iPhone.

But what a "work". It has changed me.

[pettypace]

With no insult meant, I find the virgel calculations to be of dubious value. By its own admission, it is incapable of calculating/estimating/demonstrating the effects of bullets within bodies (tumbling/fragmenting/expanding). For solid, non-expanding bullets at typical handgun velocities from 800 through 1200 FPS, it provides a generic estimate of effectiveness. If the bullet is designed to deform itself in any way or if the velocity is well above typical handgun velocities (5.7x28 at 1500+ FPS) virgel is next to useless, and practical testing is needed for any comparison.

Could you give a brief description of the "practical testing" that provides a quantitative comparison of permanent cavity volume or wound mass?

[Stacts]

Could you give a brief description of the "practical testing" that provides a quantitative comparison of permanent cavity volume or wound mass?

Nope. I have no reason to. My point was that virgel has limits. In every test of 5.7x28 ammo I have seen, the rounds have tumbled or otherwise deviated from a regular path, thus producing larger temporary and permanent wound cavities. Virgel, by its own admission, cannot calculate this behavior.

[pettypace]

Nope. I have no reason to. My point was that virgel has limits. In every test of 5.7x28 ammo I have seen, the rounds have tumbled or otherwise deviated from a regular path, thus producing larger temporary and permanent wound cavities. Virgel, by its own admission, cannot calculate this behavior.

Your unwillingness to describe a practical test to quantify permanent cavity volume suggests that you probably don't have a clue about the likely permanent cavity wound mass from 5.7x28 ammo. That's OK. I didn't either. But VIRGEL does!

Here's a youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJR_DDgcaY)that shows a 40 grain 5.7 Gold Dot fired from a pistol at about 1600 ft/s through "heavy clothing" and expanding uniformly to about 0.300" in Clear Ballistic Gel. Here's VIRGEL's take on that load:

http://rewebster.org/pics/Virgel_MSH_30_40_1600.png

I'm curious just what you find of "dubious value" and "next to useless" in that information?

[44MAG#1]

Your unwillingness to describe a practical test to quantify permanent cavity volume suggests that you probably don't have a clue about the likely permanent cavity wound mass from 5.7x28 ammo. That's OK. I didn't either. But VIRGEL does!

Here's a youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJR_DDgcaY)that shows a 40 grain 5.7 Gold Dot fired from a pistol at about 1600 ft/s through "heavy clothing" and expanding uniformly to about 0.300" in Clear Ballistic Gel. Here's VIRGEL's take on that load:

http://rewebster.org/pics/Virgel_MSH_30_40_1600.png

I'm curious just what you find of "dubious value" and "next to useless" in that information?

VIRGEL is it. It has changed the way we look at defensive calibers and ammo
My hat is off to it.

[Stacts]

Your unwillingness to describe a practical test to quantify permanent cavity volume suggests that you probably don't have a clue about the likely permanent cavity wound mass from 5.7x28 ammo. That's OK. I didn't either. But VIRGEL does!

Here's a youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJR_DDgcaY)that shows a 40 grain 5.7 Gold Dot fired from a pistol at about 1600 ft/s through "heavy clothing" and expanding uniformly to about 0.300" in Clear Ballistic Gel. Here's VIRGEL's take on that load:

http://rewebster.org/pics/Virgel_MSH_30_40_1600.png

I'm curious just what you find of "dubious value" and "next to useless" in that information?

Note the bottom sentence:
312693
"For example, VIRGEL can't predict bullet expansion or deal with tumbling, fragmenting, or very high velocity bullets."

For virgel to make its 'defense wound mass' calculation, a real bullet had to be shot at real gel so that the expansion could be measured. If no round had been fired, the virgel calculation would have to have been made with EITHER the starting diameter (5.7mm) or a WAG at what the expansion MIGHT BE. I will also point out that virgel routinely underestimates penetration of hollow points. Your virgel calculation shows 19" of penetration when the measured penetration was 21". Does it matter here? Not much. But what about a different cartridge like .38 spcl? What about Federal's 130 gr HST JHP Micro +P? Lucky Gunner tested the ammo and found 13" of penetration but virgel calculates 6".

312692
312691

That is quite the discrepancy.

Regarding the video you linked, I have watched several of his videos and appreciate his work, but am frequently disappointed by the low number of rounds he fires into gel. The specific video you linked shows only a single round of 5.7x28 being fired into gel. Would the results have been different if he grabbed a different round out of the box? Maybe. Would the results have been different if he had fired five 5.7x28 rounds? Maybe. Trying to draw conclusions from a single round of a single box of a single lot from a single handgun on a single day is foolhardy.

Virgel is, at best, a good starting point for these discussions. It is a horrible ending point though.


... and expanding uniformly to about 0.300"
I wonder how you can call the expansion 'uniform' when only a single round was fired.

[Bigslug]

I'm curious just what you find of "dubious value" and "next to useless" in that information?

I think what Stacts is getting at is we don't have a software package that can output the characteristics of military rounds that are designed to obey the letter of the Hague Convention, while totally ignoring the spirit of it.

The 5.56x45 and the 5.7x28 both have mil-spec FMJ rounds that are designed to tumble on impact. They also have soft point commercial rounds intended to do as soft points do.

The Vietnam-era / still in widespread use today 55 grain M193 projectile can be a bit of a mind-bending doozy. It is designed to tumble on impact, and if the impact velocity remains high enough, it will come apart at the cannelure and fragment.

I helped run a gelatin test in which we shot M193 in several common AR-15 barrel lengths ranging from a 24" commercial varmint gun all the way down to one of the 10 or 11 inch Colt Commando SMG-sized packages. As the velocities decreased with the shorter barrels, penetration actually increased when the velocity "fragmentation threshold" was not met, and we saw at least one example where the bullet just rotated 180 degrees and appeared to travel onwards, boattail-first - like a round nosed FMJ.

In a nutshell, this bullet may be a non-expanding .22 at mid-2000 fps or less, a roughly half-inch x .22 cylinder giving variable presentation to the axis of advance at those same speeds, or a high velocity grenade. High-speed hydrostatic effects will either be VERY apparent, or not a all. This is some pretty squirrely behavior that's going to be hard to input in terms of a simple starting/ending diameter.

Perhaps more down to the level of this thread, within the last couple years I confirmed that the .38/200 Webley MKI bullet can indeed tumble sideways on impact and do more damage to a row of sacrificial milk jugs than one would expect of a non-expanding projectile at a mere 600 fps. That said, I've also fired what you'd think is the nearly identical Lyman 195 grain RN into "official" FBI gel at about the same speed and had it pencil through in a perfectly straight line.

So while I think you might be able to get software models to reliably compute what a bullet will do IF it does a specific thing, one needs to confirm that the bullet will indeed actually do that specific thing. Part of the beauty of two extremes - the modern duty handgun round and cast LFN/WFN designs - is that the former will very predictably do it's thing in the depth of a human torso and either stop on the far side or have very little gas left when it exits when used at common social distances; and that the former will very predictably penetrate like a madman in a straight line either at the muzzle or a couple hundred yards downrange. We do, however, have those goofy rounds that aren't so scrupulous in their behavior. Or things like the various "talon" or X-shaped expanders with special effects that may not fit a simple diameter-based model.

[Stacts]

I think what Stacts is getting at is we don't have a software package that can output the characteristics of military rounds that are designed to obey the letter of the Hague Convention, while totally ignoring the spirit of it.

The 5.56x45 and the 5.7x28 both have mil-spec FMJ rounds that are designed to tumble on impact. They also have soft point commercial rounds intended to do as soft points do.

So while I think you might be able to get software models to reliably compute what a bullet will do IF it does a specific thing, one needs to confirm that the bullet will indeed actually do that specific thing.

Yes. Thank you. Well said.

[pettypace]

Note the bottom sentence:
312693
"For example, VIRGEL can't predict bullet expansion or deal with tumbling, fragmenting, or very high velocity bullets."

For virgel to make its 'defense wound mass' calculation, a real bullet had to be shot at real gel so that the expansion could be measured. If no round had been fired, the virgel calculation would have to have been made with EITHER the starting diameter (5.7mm) or a WAG at what the expansion MIGHT BE. I will also point out that virgel routinely underestimates penetration of hollow points. Your virgel calculation shows 19" of penetration when the measured penetration was 21". Does it matter here? Not much. But what about a different cartridge like .38 spcl? What about Federal's 130 gr HST JHP Micro +P? Lucky Gunner tested the ammo and found 13" of penetration but virgel calculates 6".

312692
312691

That is quite the discrepancy.

Regarding the video you linked, I have watched several of his videos and appreciate his work, but am frequently disappointed by the low number of rounds he fires into gel. The specific video you linked shows only a single round of 5.7x28 being fired into gel. Would the results have been different if he grabbed a different round out of the box? Maybe. Would the results have been different if he had fired five 5.7x28 rounds? Maybe. Trying to draw conclusions from a single round of a single box of a single lot from a single handgun on a single day is foolhardy.

Virgel is, at best, a good starting point for these discussions. It is a horrible ending point though.


I wonder how you can call the expansion 'uniform' when only a single round was fired.

Stacts:

I'm sorry that you're so unhappy with VIRGEL. But rest assured that I intend to fully honor VIRGEL's life time, no questions asked, money back guarantee. However, before you send me that self-addressed stamped envelop (with a crisp $5 bill to cover my handling fees), please consider the following responses to your concerns:

1) On VIRGEL's limitations and the importance of real gel testing: The name VIRGEL was originally chosen as a recursive acronym for Virgel Isn't Really GELatin. The intent, perhaps expressed too subtly, was to convey to the user that VIRGEL was in no way designed to replace real testing with real gelatin. That intent was reinforced with VIRGEL's clear statement of its limitations that you quoted above. Given that, it seems silly to press VIRGEL beyond its stated limits and then criticize its results as "dubious" and "next to useless."

2) On using VIRGEL without prior gel testing: The fact that VIRGEL cannot predict bullet expansion is not as serious a deficiency as you may think. For example, with a 40 grain, .22 caliber Gold Dot at 1600 ft/s, it's no great stretch to assume a mushroom shape and some expansion up to maybe twice the initial diameter. With expansion to .44 caliber, VIRGEL predicts only 9" of penetration, 12 grams of "Defense Wound Mass" and 19 grams of "Big Game Wound Mass."

It's easy enough to then slide the diameter down to, say, .25 caliber at which VIRGEL predicts 27" of penetration, 10 grams of "Defense Wound Mass" and 19 grams of "Big Game Wound Mass."

OK... You can say that these choices of bullet diameters were just WAGs. But they didn't cost me any time or effort and I learned something. Note that the "Big Game Wound Mass" did not change. That's because bullet penetration is inversely proportional to the square of the bullet diameter and the permanent cavity volume is directly proportional to the square of the bullet diameter. Bullet diameter cancels out. So, even with a WAG for the bullet diameter, I learn that the maximum permanent cavity wound mass I'm likely to get from a 40 grain mushroomed bullet at 1600 ft/s, regardless of expanded diameter, will be around 19 grams. The "Defense Wound Mass" must be less. That's more information than we had before.

You could also slide the diameter until VIRGEL shows just 18" of penetration (which algorithmically maximizes the "Defense Wound Mass") and learn that the most effective diameter for a mushroomed 5.7x28 bullet from a handgun is likely to be at a diameter of 0.31" and that the maximum "Defense Wound Mass" is about 16 grams (or about the same as 9mm hardball). Again, useful information without gel testing or much time or effort.

3) On your claim that VIRGEL routinely under-estimates penetration: Given your concern for statistically significant sample sizes, (not to mention the vagaries of comparing penetration in real 10% gelatin and Clear Ballistic Gel), I'm surprised that you would even mention the single shot from the video penetrating 21" as contradicting VIRGEL's prediction of 19" of penetration.

But the .38 Special 130 grain HST in the Lucky Gunner testing is worth considering. VIRGEL predicts 6" of penetration for that round only if you use the maximum diameter of the "petals" for the bullet diameter. But in gel testing, the recovered diameter should be calculated by averaging the largest and smallest "diameters" measured at the leading edge of the deformed bullet. With a quick on-screen measurement of one of the Lucky Gunner bullets, this method gives a recovered diameter of about 0.58" with which VIRGEL predicts 10" of penetration. That's still significantly short of the penetrations actually measured in Lucky Gunner's testing. But, here too, the difference between real 10% ordnance gelatin and Clear Ballistic Gel complicates matters. In my own (admittedly limited) testing with Clear Ballistic Gel, I found that bullets pretty consistently penetrated about 20% deeper than predictions from MacPherson's Bullet Penetration book. If that ratio holds for the batch of Lucky Gunner's Clear Ballistic Gel, then VIRGEL's penetration prediction for the 130 grain HST comes very close to the penetrations measured in Lucky Gunner's testing.

4) On the use of "uniform" in reference to a single object: "Uniform" can refer to both singular and plural objects. For example, in benchrest shooting it's not uncommon to outside turn the necks of rifle cartridges. This makes the neck wall thickness uniform for a single case and neck wall thickness uniform from case to case.

[Stacts]

Stacts:

I'm sorry that you're so unhappy with VIRGEL. But rest assured that I intend to fully honor VIRGEL's life time, no questions asked, money back guarantee. However, before you send me that self-addressed stamped envelop (with a crisp $5 bill to cover my handling fees), please consider the following responses to your concerns:

1) On VIRGEL's limitations and the importance of real gel testing: The name VIRGEL was originally chosen as a recursive acronym for Virgel Isn't Really GELatin. The intent, perhaps expressed too subtly, was to convey to the user that VIRGEL was in no way designed to replace real testing with real gelatin. That intent was reinforced with VIRGEL's clear statement of its limitations that you quoted above. Given that, it seems silly to press VIRGEL beyond its stated limits and then criticize its results as "dubious" and "next to useless."

2) On using VIRGEL without prior gel testing: The fact that VIRGEL cannot predict bullet expansion is not as serious a deficiency as you may think. For example, with a 40 grain, .22 caliber Gold Dot at 1600 ft/s, it's no great stretch to assume a mushroom shape and some expansion up to maybe twice the initial diameter. With expansion to .44 caliber, VIRGEL predicts only 9" of penetration, 12 grams of "Defense Wound Mass" and 19 grams of "Big Game Wound Mass."

It's easy enough to then slide the diameter down to, say, .25 caliber at which VIRGEL predicts 27" of penetration, 10 grams of "Defense Wound Mass" and 19 grams of "Big Game Wound Mass."

OK... You can say that these choices of bullet diameters were just WAGs. But they didn't cost me any time or effort and I learned something. Note that the "Big Game Wound Mass" did not change. That's because bullet penetration is inversely proportional to the square of the bullet diameter and the permanent cavity volume is directly proportional to the square of the bullet diameter. Bullet diameter cancels out. So, even with a WAG for the bullet diameter, I learn that the maximum permanent cavity wound mass I'm likely to get from a 40 grain mushroomed bullet at 1600 ft/s, regardless of expanded diameter, will be around 19 grams. The "Defense Wound Mass" must be less. That's more information than we had before.

You could also slide the diameter until VIRGEL shows just 18" of penetration (which algorithmically maximizes the "Defense Wound Mass") and learn that the most effective diameter for a mushroomed 5.7x28 bullet from a handgun is likely to be at a diameter of 0.31" and that the maximum "Defense Wound Mass" is about 16 grams (or about the same as 9mm hardball). Again, useful information without gel testing or much time or effort.

3) On your claim that VIRGEL routinely under-estimates penetration: Given your concern for statistically significant sample sizes, (not to mention the vagaries of comparing penetration in real 10% gelatin and Clear Ballistic Gel), I'm surprised that you would even mention the single shot from the video penetrating 21" as contradicting VIRGEL's prediction of 19" of penetration.

But the .38 Special 130 grain HST in the Lucky Gunner testing is worth considering. VIRGEL predicts 6" of penetration for that round only if you use the maximum diameter of the "petals" for the bullet diameter. But in gel testing, the recovered diameter should be calculated by averaging the largest and smallest "diameters" measured at the leading edge of the deformed bullet. With a quick on-screen measurement of one of the Lucky Gunner bullets, this method gives a recovered diameter of about 0.58" with which VIRGEL predicts 10" of penetration. That's still significantly short of the penetrations actually measured in Lucky Gunner's testing. But, here too, the difference between real 10% ordnance gelatin and Clear Ballistic Gel complicates matters. In my own (admittedly limited) testing with Clear Ballistic Gel, I found that bullets pretty consistently penetrated about 20% deeper than predictions from MacPherson's Bullet Penetration book. If that ratio holds for the batch of Lucky Gunner's Clear Ballistic Gel, then VIRGEL's penetration prediction for the 130 grain HST comes very close to the penetrations measured in Lucky Gunner's testing.

4) On the use of "uniform" in reference to a single object: "Uniform" can refer to both singular and plural objects. For example, in benchrest shooting it's not uncommon to outside turn the necks of rifle cartridges. This makes the neck wall thickness uniform for a single case and neck wall thickness uniform from case to case.

It's clear you are a fan of this calculator. I am not.

That's fine, we don't have to agree. You can call that single round 'uniform' all you want, it looked rather square and lonely to me.

[pettypace]

It's clear you are a fan of this calculator. I am not.

That's fine, we don't have to agree. You can call that single round 'uniform' all you want, it looked rather square and lonely to me.

Fair enough.

[charlie b]

Virgel does just what it intended to do. Provide a calculator for some of us to use.

No, it does not predict bullet expansion.
No, it does not predict tumbling (which is also not a consistent metric).
No, it does not predict penetration after going through a tough hide or heavy clothing.

It does well with some of the bullets 'we' use for self defense and hunting, eg the SWC or LFN style bullets. If you have expansion data it can work with HP bullets (with a bit of fudging).

It is simply another tool that can be used to compare SOME cartridges.

Used in conjuction with tests such as LuckGunner or Fackler or others, it can provide useful data.

[Stacts]

Virgel does just what it intended to do. Provide a calculator for some of us to use.

No, it does not predict bullet expansion.
No, it does not predict tumbling (which is also not a consistent metric).
No, it does not predict penetration after going through a tough hide or heavy clothing.

It does well with some of the bullets 'we' use for self defense and hunting, eg the SWC or LFN style bullets. If you have expansion data it can work with HP bullets (with a bit of fudging).

It is simply another tool that can be used to compare SOME cartridges.

Used in conjuction with tests such as LuckGunner or Fackler or others, it can provide useful data.

Now that I agree with.

[pettypace]

Perhaps more down to the level of this thread, within the last couple years I confirmed that the .38/200 Webley MKI bullet can indeed tumble sideways on impact and do more damage to a row of sacrificial milk jugs than one would expect of a non-expanding projectile at a mere 600 fps. That said, I've also fired what you'd think is the nearly identical Lyman 195 grain RN into "official" FBI gel at about the same speed and had it pencil through in a perfectly straight line



Yes... Fired from a .38 snubby at about 625 ft/s, I found that Lyman 358430 with its hemispherical nose would "pencil" straight through 2 feet of C-B gel while most of the long ogive 200 grain .35 caliber "rifle" bullets I tried would swap ends and curve to a stop in half that distance.

That 180 degree flip is not altogether uncommon: Fackler's wound profiles show that the .22 LR solid and the .38 Special LRN are both reliable "flippers." And a careful look at Lucky Gunner's testing shows that .38 Special LSWCHP bullets that fail to expand will usually flip.

But how much does the 180 degree flip add to the effectiveness of the bullet? Is that "tumbling" .38/200 Webley MKI bullet really just as effective as the 455 conical? Or were the Brits just blowing smoke? I think it's not too hard to "show" that they're just about equal.

[Bigslug]

Yes... Fired from a .38 snubby at about 625 ft/s, I found that Lyman 358430 with its hemispherical nose would "pencil" straight through 2 feet of C-B gel while most of the long ogive 200 grain .35 caliber "rifle" bullets I tried would swap ends and curve to a stop in half that distance.

That 180 degree flip is not altogether uncommon: Fackler's wound profiles show that the .22 LR solid and the .38 Special LRN are both reliable "flippers." And a careful look at Lucky Gunner's testing shows that .38 Special LSWCHP bullets that fail to expand will usually flip.

But how much does the 180 degree flip add to the effectiveness of the bullet? Is that "tumbling" .38/200 Webley MKI bullet really just as effective as the 455 conical? Or were the Brits just blowing smoke? I think it's not too hard to "show" that they're just about equal.

We've got considerable pages discussing this very thing on the stickied .38 S&W thread. The .455 MKII bullet seems, IME, to be a pencil-through round. With the hollow base, it's a weight-forward design not unlike a Foster slug. Basically a softer, slower version of GI hardball. Never seen any sign of one swapping ends.

[44MAG#1]

VIRGEL is a great tool. It tells us what we need to know which is good for shooters like me.
I have never been accused of being intelligent so all the help I can get is to my advantage

[Kosh75287]

Right, but the .455 Webley round did not really depend on tumbling for its fight-stopping effect, just as the .45 ACP does not. A heavy, large-caliber bullet at a moderate velocity exerts its effect almost DESPITE its "pencil-through" terminal behaviour.
The "tail-heavy" 200 gr. projectile in the .380 MkII(?) round had a better reputation for tumbling but, like you, I never heard this attribute assigned to the larger Webley rounds, except by persons confused on the issue.

[pettypace]

But how much does the 180 degree flip add to the effectiveness of the bullet? Is that "tumbling" .38/200 Webley MKI bullet really just as effective as the 455 conical? Or were the Brits just blowing smoke? I think it's not too hard to "show" that they're just about equal.

Step 1: Adopt an Operational Definition:

We can't compare the flipping Webley MKI bullet to the .455 conical without first adopting a definition of bullet "effectiveness." I've adopted MacPherson's definition of "effective wound mass." Physically, that represents the mass of the tissue crushed by the bullet in the first 15" of penetration with the caveat that the final 3" of penetration is ignored because the bullet will be going too slow to do much damage.

This is calculated as the volume of a cylinder representing the permanent wound cavity, times the density of tissue, times a nose shape factor for the "crushing" efficiency of the bullet nose. This factor ranges from 1.00, for a sharp-edged wadcutter, to about 0.82 for a "mushroom" shape, to about 0.66 for most other shapes.

The graph below shows how a variety of common cartridges stack up according to this definition of effectiveness:

http://rewebster.org/pics/MacPherson_wound_mass.png

NOTE: The red bar in the graph represents the .44 caliber wadcutter at "target" velocity of the OP.

[Bigslug]

But how much does the 180 degree flip add to the effectiveness of the bullet? Is that "tumbling" .38/200 Webley MKI bullet really just as effective as the 455 conical? Or were the Brits just blowing smoke? I think it's not too hard to "show" that they're just about equal.

We also discussed that at length in the .38/200 thread. Having shot both period-correct bullets out of both period-correct guns, I came away rather indifferent to the notion of one round having any kind of practical advantage over the other - recoil being a complete non-issue in either case.

But both are revolvers with the same six shots and the .455 MKVI is a big honkin' heavy hog leg that takes a fair bit of skill to shoot well despite the mild cartridge. Possibility of tumbling .38's or not, I'm expecting indistinguishable pinhole penetrations with either round and would choose the .38 in the military service context on the notion that a sucking chest wound is a sucking chest wound and a lucky hit to the head or spine is a lucky hit to the head or spine. If I was really serious about stopping a determined military age male with only cardiovascular damage at short range, I'd be looking for something that can actually deliver it in a worthwhile quantity - like one of those Yankee '97 Winchester pump guns. Anything less than that, you'll have incidents of studs that can fight through it - for at least the few seconds it takes them to render you a grill-ready kabob.

I forget who's study of one-shot stops it was back in the 1990's or early 2000's, but the theme I took from it was that given equal quality projectiles, the .40 S&W and .45 ACP were running in the low 90's percent range and the 9mm was in the very high 80's percent range.

You could look at that and conclude that the "starts with a 4" cartridges are moderately more effective, but having seen deer stay on their feet for up to ten seconds with considerable cardiovascular destruction from fairly potent rifle rounds, I started to consider THIS possibility: what if the wound channels of duty-rated 9mm, .40, and .45 projectiles are medically indistinguishable (this is what the coroners seem to be saying), and the only reason the 9mm isn't scoring as many one-shot stops in the study is because its lower recoil enables the officer to pump a second (or third) round into the evil-doer before he hits the ground? The REAL result may be that the recipient got a second equally effective - and happily redundant - hit from a 9mm that the guys with the harder kicking pistols weren't physically able to deliver in the time allotted.

Also worthy of consideration is that one of those studies from the same period rated .45 ACP hardball as roughly equal in effectiveness to the .32 ACP (62% is the number sticking in my brain)

Taken together, I end up with two general performance categories - non-expanding projectiles between .31 and .45 caliber that probably penetrate enough and then some, and expanding projectiles that end up between about .60 and .85 caliber that penetrate enough so long as you construct them correctly. In that former category, you might get some boost in blood loss from a wider meplat, but effectively. . .we've got that study saying that pinholes are pinholes and that .32 equals .45. All other things being equal, the device that allows the rapid creation of more pinholes will be better. In the latter category, we have 9mm's making holes that are statistically about equal in effectiveness to those made by the bigger rounds, and they can make more of those holes in a shorter period of time.

And of course we'll have rounds that blur the lines between those two categories. So when we get to the topic of the O.P. - an expanding .38 that penetrates adequately vs. a non- or slightly-expanding large meplat .44 out of light-kicking revolvers of equal capacity - I find myself inspired to quote Hillary Clinton: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Until we're discussing 12 gauge levels of destruction, we're really just picking nits.

[pettypace]

Also worthy of consideration is that one of those studies from the same period rated .45 ACP hardball as roughly equal in effectiveness to the .32 ACP (62% is the number sticking in my brain).


Probably the Ellifritz study. Here's a link: An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power (https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power).

Ellifritz's conclusion: "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. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s."

I don't buy it!

But at least it shows the importance of adopting an operational definition of "stopping power." On one hand we have the MacPherson "effective wound mass" definition (which gives the chart below)

http://rewebster.org/pics/MacPherson_wound_mass.png

And on the other hand, the Ellifritz "10 year study" definition (which concludes that "most work adequately...even the lowly .22s").

I'm sticking with MacPherson.

[HWooldridge]

I certainly don’t buy the “all defensive handgun rounds are the same” line - but I’ve seen many animals killed dead as hell with one shot from a .22, and the practical differences between a .32, a .380 and a 9mm are functionally quite small. One eventually gets to a caliber size where the organism can’t survive even one round, which may start around .50 BMG and go up from there - but even then, I’m sure we could devise a scenario where death isn’t certain (leg or arm is blown off but bleeding is stopped, etc.). Soldiers have had extremities removed by really large projectiles or shell fragments and survived. Conversely, a person can die from simply being punched, or striking their head on the ground in a fall.

The bottom line is that the organism ceases to live when the nervous system or the heart stops functioning, whether it be a dove or a man or an elephant. Poking a few massive or a bunch of little holes in the critter can serve either or both purposes (and don’t forget knife wounds - zero kinetic shock but potentially huge amounts of blood loss). This may seem self-evident but sometimes we can get lost in the minutiae of discussing calibers when shot placement is the most important variable. That factor tends to favor smaller calibers for ease of use by the average person. There are always exceptions but the old 80/20 rule generally applies in most situations.

I’ll provide a real life example: Our family physician experienced a home invasion a few years ago. A junkie carrying a 9mm came into their house from an open garage door and wandered down the hallway. The doctor came out with a .357 and told the perp to leave. They were six feet apart when both men shot simultaneously and hit each other. The perp ran outside and collapsed, while the doctor went down inside the house. EMS arrived and took both to the hospital. The doctor was hit in the liver and died in transit; the junkie was hit in the left shoulder and survived. He was convicted and sentenced to life, but that didn’t bring our doctor back. It was very traumatic for all of us and we still miss Clay to this day - but in the end, he died because of where he was struck by the bullet.

[pettypace]

Of course shot placement is critical. But... (and, anticipating the reaction, I hesitate to say this) ...irrelevant. How can shot placement be both "critical" and "irrelevant?" Because shot placement cancels out in the "all other things being equal" disclaimer.

The story of the unfortunate doctor murdered by a junkie speaks volumes about the importance of shot placement, but says nothing at all about the relative "stopping power" of 9mm vs .357. Had the good doctor and his attacker each had the other's weapon, the results would likely have been the same. Were the junkie armed with a .22 instead of the 9mm, the doctor might have survived.

[HWooldridge]

Of course shot placement is critical. But... (and, anticipating the reaction, I hesitate to say this) ...irrelevant. How can shot placement be both "critical" and "irrelevant?" Because shot placement cancels out in the "all other things being equal" disclaimer.

The story of the unfortunate doctor murdered by a junkie speaks volumes about the importance of shot placement, but says nothing at all about the relative "stopping power" of 9mm vs .357. Had the good doctor and his attacker each had the other's weapon, the results would likely have been the same. Were the junkie armed with a .22 instead of the 9mm, the doctor might have survived.

Shot placement is certainly irrelevant for the wound calculation formula - but wound calculation is irrelevant if you don’t hit the target. Clay was an excellent shot and some of us speculate he shot the perp in the shoulder because he didn’t want to kill him; we will never know.

He was awake and talking when the EMT’s put him in the ambulance; they told him he was gonna make it, but he died anyway. Like many experiences in life, we can’t run a lab experiment and test whether a .22 would have killed him.

I guess my point, if there is one, is that people should spend more time practicing their marksmanship in realistic circumstances and less time worrying about whether they’re carrying a .38 or a 9mm or a .45. Carry what you’re comfortable with and shoot a lot.

[pettypace]

I guess my point, if there is one, is that people should spend more time practicing their marksmanship in realistic circumstances and less time worrying about whether they’re carrying a .38 or a 9mm or a .45. Carry what you’re comfortable with and shoot a lot.

Yes!

[44MAG#1]

Karamojo used a 7X57 for Elephants.
So a person should be able to use a 22 Rimfire for something as small as a person.

[Bigslug]

Probably the Ellifritz study. Here's a link: An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power (https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power).

Ellifritz's conclusion: "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. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s."

I don't buy it!

I totally buy it.

The two things known to do the job for a certainty are significant nerve damage and blood loss, and it's the latter that concerns us here.

The circulatory system is a closed loop and its pump has an upper limit to how much blood it can move. There's also an upper limit to how much the pipes in that system can carry. IIRC, the biggest of those - the aorta - isn't going to be much over 3/4" inch in diameter in the largest human example.

You could replicate this with an electric drain pump sucking water out of a gallon bucket with its inlet hose and putting it right back in with its outlet hose. I water my garden with a similar system and even with slight failures to tighten hose junctures, it's pretty obvious there's a flow problem. Poking a .22 caliber hole in the above closed loop will end the party pretty quickly; and any of the penetrations made in that 3/4" hose by the passage of a half to .85" inch expanded duty round will be so close to severing it completely as to make little difference. Shooting the pump itself will leave the hoses pressurized for a time, but the movement of blood is what keeps the brain going; so while that won't likely be as quick a stop as the completely severed artery with the heart still beating, it's still a pretty quick process.

If we could somehow replicate the circulatory system more exactly so our water leaves the bucket from a 3/4" hose (aorta), travels through a bunch of smaller tubes, which then re-join at another 3/4" hose (vena cava). . .the key thing to remember would be that the whole system is carrying that water at the flow limit of the pump through the capacity of a 3/4" hose. Any of our common diameter handgun rounds are capable of draining that system in a hurry, whether they're hitting one of the big pipes or several of the smaller ones.

The FBI's prioritization is basically "shot placement first, penetration second, and so long as we keep those, I guess we'll take more diameter". A key element of this is that practically, we're painted into the internal ballistic box of about .22 to .45 caliber for diameter; about 600 to 1200 feet per second for velocity; and about 40 to 270 grains for payload. It really is a pretty small box - more like the difference in vehicle collisions of a VW Beetle and a Toyota Tacoma than the Beetle and a freight train (that would be shotguns). Thus we get Ellifritz's "most work adequately". In any case, the Klingon disruptor is a long way off and not likely to be realized within that box.

[deltaenterprizes]

I have shot a fair number of animals with the 38 and a few with the 44 special WFN. I would have no problem carrying a 44 snubbie IF someone would make a decent one and NOT that Charter Arms garbage!
S&W 696 if you can find one!

[deltaenterprizes]

I was taught long ago that shot placement is the key!

[44MAG#1]

I was taught long ago that shot placement is the key!

That kinda TRUMPS everything doesn't it. Even in the caliber, bullet weight, bullet type, velocity levels too.
As I said Karamojo used a 7X57 on Elephants.
Like a 22 to the brain is better than a 44 Mag to the foot or some such saying.
But a 44 Mag to the brain would be better than a 22 to the foot.
Or a 9MM to the brain is better than a 45 Auto to the foot or vice versa.
Could go on and on but won't.

[black mamba]

The point is maybe that a 45 to the shoulder, or hip, or thigh or some other non-lethal body part would be more effective at incapacitating the offender and rendering him harmless.

[44MAG#1]

The point is maybe that a 45 to the shoulder, or hip, or thigh or some other non-lethal body part would be more effective at incapacitating the offender and rendering him harmless.

Would the shoulder, hip or thigh hit (shot) render the thug harmless fast enough to keep him from laying down a line of fire with his 9MM ?
What if the thug was on drugs and didn't feel pain like we would not being on drugs?

[black mamba]

More likely that the 45 would than something half as big.

[44MAG#1]

More likely that the 45 would than something have as big.

What if the person with the 45 Auto had it loaded with 230 FMJRN ammo and the 9MM guy had HP ammo?

[HWooldridge]

:popcorn:

[44MAG#1]

:popcorn:

Don't forget the soft drinks.

[HWooldridge]

Don't forget the soft drinks.

:drinks:

[black mamba]

Why compare apples to oranges? If I can afford high quality 9 mm defensive rounds, why not high quality 45 caliber defensive rounds?

[44MAG#1]

Why compare apples to oranges? If I can afford high quality 9 mm defensive rounds, why not high quality 45 caliber defensive rounds?

That requires getting into the mind of the other person. That is hard to do as I am sure you know.
I know a guy that carried 9MM 115 grain FMJ. Now he carries a 45 Auto loaded with 230 FMJRN.
When you figure it out let me know.

[Bill*B]

Most of us employ repeating pistols, but still worry about getting “one shot stops”.

Tennessee Earnie Ford described fist fighting in “Sixteen Tons” as: “If the right one don’t get you, then the left one will.” This came to mind as I read the Greg Ellifritz study (referenced in post #93). Keep swinging if you’re fist fighting – keep shooting if you’re gun fighting.

[TNsailorman]

I had an old time peace office with some actual shooting experience tell me that if he knew he was going into a possible shooting situation, he always reached for the 12 gauge he carried in his cruiser. He also added that you continue shooting until the perp stops moving. I don't know how that advice would play out today in todays criminal friendly court system. Our world is getting more deadly all the time and it is not the guns that are the problem, it is the so called "justice" system that refuses to remove those who murder from society. My advice would be to use the largest handgun you can handle accurately and quickly. And practice, practice, practice and then practice some more. my take anway, james