Posted on 06/16/2004 12:35:51 PM PDT by 45Auto
No subject in the firearms industry generates more print or heat than terminal performance. In the last fifteen years this issue has even become one of considerable moment with federal agencies, the FBI particularly, leading to the decision to replace entire arsenals of sidearms. Similarly, within the commercial industry we have seen the development of numerous, and occasionally exotic, bullet designs based upon various theories of wounding behavior. Some have worked well, while others have not. But for the most part, shooters and many in the firearms community still do not understand why these things work or fail. My purpose in this study is to examine what we do know and to reconsider the theories which attempt to account for the observed performance. I intend to cover the entire field of terminal ballistics controversy as fairly as possible, but I do have some very definite conclusions of my own which I believe I can explain and defend to the satisfaction of most. Furthermore, I will offer some criticism of the popular formulas for calculating terminal performance and suggest a couple which may provide a real estimate of absolute performance on game (not just a relative comparison to other loads). Although this discussion is intended for the sportsman, I will include material and argument which is of interest to the individual using small arms for self-defense or in police or military applications.
A brief word about my background is warranted. I am a mechanical engineer by profession and employed in the defense industry as an analyst and designer of anti-armor lethal mechanisms (ie, warheads and penetrators). Terminal ballistics is both my hobby and my profession. On the job I use a computational tool known as a "hydrocode" called CTH, which was developed by Sandia National Laboratory, to perform penetration analyses, along with code that I have written for specific applications. My knowledge and studies cover the entire spectrum of penetration mechanics from small arms to high explosive shaped charges. I have extensively read the best forensic studies of bullet behavior, as well as the classic works on field performance by Whelen, Baker, Selous, Taylor, O'Connor, etc. While I freely admit that I haven't personally shot a great number of game animals, I have witnessed others being shot and examined still more post-mortem, to confirm or refute by my own experience the published observations and "pontifications" of hunters. I try not to speak dogmatically on subjects beyond my ken, but where the concensus of thought by sage and seasoned hunters tends toward a clear conclusion, I am not hesitant to assert it.
I believe in being forthright, so I will jump in with both feet and state the premise of my own theory of terminal ballistics. The title of this article is a hint. Plainly stated, I maintain that the effect of bullets upon living targets is caused by the wound track made by the bullet. Now, before you accuse me of being a wise guy, recall that most theoretical explanations of wounding are tied to the kinetic energy or momentum or some other such physical quantity of the bullet which is "transferred" or imparted to the target. My theory recognizes these characteristics, but relies upon a fundamentally different premise, which is that two physically equivalent wound tracks in a game animal will have an equivalent effect, no matter how different were the kinetic energies or other physical attributes of the bullets which caused them. There are some extremely rarely encountered exceptions to the general rule, but for most purposes the hole caused by a bullet is its only measure of terminal effectiveness.
Depends on whether you are on the giving or receiving end.
It is more blessed to give . . .
Until proved differently I will stick with the 0.45 caliber for handguns and 000 buck for shotguns.
That's my homeland defense plan
Seems rather self-evident, but most experts make their nickel convincing us the self evident is not really true.
During the Napoleanic Wars, when both sides slugged it out at about 30 paces, a British unit was reloading between volleys, while their French opponents had already brought their weapons to bear. Right before the officer in charge of the French gave the order to fire, a lone voice piped up from the rear of the British formation: "Lord, for what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful."
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Our house was one of the few houses in my neighborhood NOT looted during the riots in Detroit.
Gee, I wonder why...
This fellow didn't menition one word about the resistance to the bullet offered by the body. Or on the penetrability of the bullet being enhanced or hindered by its shape.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics a. Mechanics of Lethal Wounding b. Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics c. Mechanics of Penetration d. Mechanics of Cavitation
III. Myths, Misconceptions and Miscalculations a. "Energy Dump", "Overpenetration" and "Hydrostatic Shock" b. Momentum and "Stopping Power" c. Thresholds of Wounding Potential Based on Kinetic Energy d. Optimal Game Weight (OGW) Formula e. Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula f. Lethality Index Formula g. Knock-Out Value (KOV) Formula h. "When Good Physics Goes Bad" 1. Relationships of Force, Momentum and Energy 2. Bogus Ballistics
IV. Empirical Methods of Estimating Actual Terminal Performance
a. Performance of Non-Deforming Bullets
1. Hard Cast Handgun Bullets 2. Solid Rifle Bullets b. How Deforming Bullets Actually Perform 1. The Handloader-Sciuchetti Study 2. Medium-Bore Bullets 3. A Study of Sectional Density 4. Small-Bore Bullets 5. Too Light for Big Game? 6. Large-Bore Bullets c. A Model for Terminal Performance
V. The Politics of Terminal Ballistics
Actually, the 9mm with the right load does just as much damage as the .45 ACP. And for a home defense load in your 12 gauge #1 or #4 buckshot it better than 00 buck.
Here are a couple of good sources:
9mm Vs 45 and others.
http://greent.com/40Page/ammo/9/9mm-advoc.htm
12 Gauge rounds
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm
"In a word, stopping power is a myth."
"One of the most significant and utterly uncontrollable variables in terminal performance is the target itself; not merely the shot path or point of impact (these can be controlled), but the intrinsic constitution of the animal. I have seen deer with their heart blown quite literally away that ran 100 or even 200 yds on nothing more than the oxygen present in the blood at the instant of impact. Others spring lightly away as if unhurt when hit in an identical manner by a load which has dropped similarly sized game as if struck by a thunderbolt."
" Some will continue to graze calmly as though unaffected by the passage of the bullet through their vitals or the sound of the rifle's report (clearly in a state of shock). Some appear to be flipped or thrown by the impact while others never twitch a muscle. Some flinch or drop their hind quarters in a spasmodic contraction of agony, but nevertheless run or walk away."
" The point is this: there is never any certainty of the effect on a game animal even when all of the controllable variables are held constant. Shoot any ten deer, elk, sheep, antelope of identical size and age on a classic broadside shot through the shoulder and lungs; half of them will crumple on the spot but the remainder will exhibit most or all of the various behaviors described above. A research project by the South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources into the effects on deer shot with high powered rifles demonstrates these assertions."
I guess the main theme of this article is that IF the 9mm bullet deforms to a .50" hole, and it penetrates effectively, then it will be as good as the .45.
If I am correct, the .35 slug was in a 30-30 casing. The slug was 200 grains. It wasn't much good beyond 150 yards, but it would plow through brush and immediately drop the animal that it hit. And, they didn't move or kick. The effect was immediate.
As a side-bar, I remember reading that the Texas Rangers used them as a saddle gun in particularly brushy country.
Actually, according to one of the world's most expert big game authorities, for man-sized and somewhat larger game (he chose leopards as his example), No. 1 buckshot was better (this from an article read in an NRA magazine some years ago--and no, I don't have reference and link---just memory).
I have only one comment on the subject:
The shock wave caused by the dissipation of the bullet's energy must itself destroy a lot of tissue.
Sounds Good. I'll add the extension and alternate rounds.
http://www.ogrish.com/view_attachment.php?id=21660
The audio's in Spanish. According to a translation provided by another Freeper, it says: translation by another Freeper translated and in Spanish, and says:
"live [film of] killings has become a daily occurrence here, and this one, which happened in the neighborhood of [?], occupied by supporters of the radical cleric.."
It breaks off here, so the video appears to be one of al Sadr's boys learning that al Sadrs "Mojo" couldn't protect him.
Old Mose also said that in the John Wayne classic "The Searchers".
I disagree!!!
Location of the hole is likely MORE important than the size. A small hole between the eyes is like more effective that a large hole in the sheetrock next to the perp!
Personally, I prefer the 458 Winchester, a dangerous game caliber that will kill anything from elephants on down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.