A writer needs some firearms info
- Thread starter evil tendencies
- Start date
luckycharms
Member
Stopping Power
What I think Einion means by stopping power myth is what most people think happens when a bullet strikes a target in the movies and the target flys ten meters away do to the bullet impact. That does not happen with convential rifle or handgun munitions. Physics dictates for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. If you have a hand gun that fires a hand gun round capable of delivering enough kinetic (stopping power??) energy to a stationary 200 pound man sized target five feet, an equal amount of energy, felt as recoil, will be tranmitted back into the shooter will equal results. Remember conventional rifle and hand gun bullets are wieghed in grains, not pounds or kilos.
Comparing the kinetic energy generated from meteors or meteorites falling from space for purposes of "stopping power" to conventional hand gun or rifle cartridges is like comparing Swedish fish to gasoline pumps, won't work.
I've taught firearms for 23 years and fired pretty much from a 22LR to 105 mm so no huhummmmsss here.
What I think Einion means by stopping power myth is what most people think happens when a bullet strikes a target in the movies and the target flys ten meters away do to the bullet impact. That does not happen with convential rifle or handgun munitions. Physics dictates for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. If you have a hand gun that fires a hand gun round capable of delivering enough kinetic (stopping power??) energy to a stationary 200 pound man sized target five feet, an equal amount of energy, felt as recoil, will be tranmitted back into the shooter will equal results. Remember conventional rifle and hand gun bullets are wieghed in grains, not pounds or kilos.
Comparing the kinetic energy generated from meteors or meteorites falling from space for purposes of "stopping power" to conventional hand gun or rifle cartridges is like comparing Swedish fish to gasoline pumps, won't work.
I've taught firearms for 23 years and fired pretty much from a 22LR to 105 mm so no huhummmmsss here.
cassar
BALLSCRATCHER
im in total agreement with you no argument from me, the movies have a lot to answer for lol if the target shot back 10 metres so would the shooter. i shall try harder with my discriptive metaphores in future:tremble!: .
i was just attemting to describe the different kinetic energy transference from a small high vel projectile as opposed to a high mass high vel projectile. i will mind my p's n q's in future lol.
i was just attemting to describe the different kinetic energy transference from a small high vel projectile as opposed to a high mass high vel projectile. i will mind my p's n q's in future lol.
And still the comparison is kind of accurate. The only difference between the two is that the bullet has more 'stopping power' against it's target than the meteorite. Can't say the meteorite stops the Earth dead in it's tracks.
DannyBoy2k
New member
Seeing as how this is meant to be a concealed carry, I think the revolvers are out. Not that they're bad weapons, but an auto is flatter, and thus makes less of a bulge, as it were. Now, of the autos listed, the Taurus PT-22 is an excellent gun, if one were to look at it. Small, flat, still holds 8+1. Excellent. BUT, it has a reputation for fouling up and jamming. NOT something you'd really want when you go for it. Last ditch, I'm in deep shit, go for gun that says a emphatic 'CLICK!'? Errr, no. So, that leaves us with two very nice handguns.
First, the Walther P22, and then the SIG Mosquito. This is, more or less, a toss-up. Polymer framed, 10-round magazine, can get it with a threaded barrel...nice guns, both.
And, as fr the discussion of larger rounds...why? I mean, in a combat situation, sure, I'd probably want something bigger...but when it comes to a concealed carry, and as I understood it a HIGHLY skilled shooter....well, lethal or not, if I can put a round in your EYE...you're not going to be too interested in ME anymore, even if it doesn't kill you.
First, the Walther P22, and then the SIG Mosquito. This is, more or less, a toss-up. Polymer framed, 10-round magazine, can get it with a threaded barrel...nice guns, both.
And, as fr the discussion of larger rounds...why? I mean, in a combat situation, sure, I'd probably want something bigger...but when it comes to a concealed carry, and as I understood it a HIGHLY skilled shooter....well, lethal or not, if I can put a round in your EYE...you're not going to be too interested in ME anymore, even if it doesn't kill you.
Reading all the updates on this thread made me start doing some research on the good old .22LR and that made me start thinking.
Muzzle velocity and Energy of the .22 are much lower than the 9mm, in fact in some cases Half the energy of a 9mm.
(Dependant upon Projectile weight/ propellant ratios).
Standard.22LR
Projectile Weight 40 gr (2.6 g) Solid Muzzle velocity 1,080 ft/s (330 m/s) Energy at Muzzle 104 ft·lbf (141 J)
Copper Plated .22LR
Projectile Weight 32 gr (2.1 g) Copper-Plated HP Muzzle velocity 1,640 ft/s (500 m/s) Energy at Muzzle 191 ft·lbf (259 J)
Now the .22 does have some advantages because of its smaller size and energy transfer, less noise.
(For an urban environment and discression that could be an important factor, for example if the character is an assassin).
In fact I found out the the US Navy Seals use a noise suppressed Ruger in .22 as a covert weapon.
But the one thing that struck me, and to be honest I hadn't considered it, is the oxidization problem of unfired Lead bullets.
When I shot .22LR we had such a turnaround that it never came into consideration.
So unless the Character is replenishing/replacing the rounds at a considerable rate he's going to be relying on a Copper plated bullets for longevity, which increases muzzle velocity and energy transfer.
Now this could lead to another aspect of the character being a "Hand Loader" tailoring his own powder to bullet ratios.
>Edit< Don't forget that .22 Lead does tend to have a greater amount of barrel fouling than a jacketed bullet which means greater maintenance requirements and potential for reduced barrel life. I do remember the issues we had with cleaning after a particular batch of rounds, which seemed to be really dirty in comparison to the Ely's we normally used.
Just some more things to take into account.
Muzzle velocity and Energy of the .22 are much lower than the 9mm, in fact in some cases Half the energy of a 9mm.
(Dependant upon Projectile weight/ propellant ratios).
Standard.22LR
Projectile Weight 40 gr (2.6 g) Solid Muzzle velocity 1,080 ft/s (330 m/s) Energy at Muzzle 104 ft·lbf (141 J)
Copper Plated .22LR
Projectile Weight 32 gr (2.1 g) Copper-Plated HP Muzzle velocity 1,640 ft/s (500 m/s) Energy at Muzzle 191 ft·lbf (259 J)
Now the .22 does have some advantages because of its smaller size and energy transfer, less noise.
(For an urban environment and discression that could be an important factor, for example if the character is an assassin).
In fact I found out the the US Navy Seals use a noise suppressed Ruger in .22 as a covert weapon.
But the one thing that struck me, and to be honest I hadn't considered it, is the oxidization problem of unfired Lead bullets.
When I shot .22LR we had such a turnaround that it never came into consideration.
So unless the Character is replenishing/replacing the rounds at a considerable rate he's going to be relying on a Copper plated bullets for longevity, which increases muzzle velocity and energy transfer.
Now this could lead to another aspect of the character being a "Hand Loader" tailoring his own powder to bullet ratios.
>Edit< Don't forget that .22 Lead does tend to have a greater amount of barrel fouling than a jacketed bullet which means greater maintenance requirements and potential for reduced barrel life. I do remember the issues we had with cleaning after a particular batch of rounds, which seemed to be really dirty in comparison to the Ely's we normally used.
Just some more things to take into account.
Last edited:
Einion
New member
:talktohand: You're going to look pretty foolish in a few seconds for saying that.
What I said was, stopping power, as it's commonly defined, is a myth. And despite what you might think, nothing you've written does anything to disprove that statement, or to prove anything at all. In fact there isn't a shred of proof in your post, and on top of that it's misleading and inaccurate, as I'll now show.
No, sadly it's not simple. Here's a quote from a paper on ballistics:
"Our results agree with the opinion often expressed in the literature that many terminal ballistic phenomena remain largely unexplained despite the recent technological advances..."
:eyeroll:
Yeah, and?
In case this reference is related to a claim for temporary cavitation being a major factor, let me save us all some time:
"The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first, or crush mechanism is the hole the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second, or stretch mechanism is the temporary cavity formed by the tissues being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism, the result of penetration and permanent cavity, is the only handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure."
Further:"Of the remaining factors, temporary cavity is frequently, and grossly, overrated as a wounding factor when analyzing wounds. Nevertheless, historically it has been used in some cases as the primary means of assessing the wounding effectiveness of bullets."
Oh does it? Achem, where's the primary shockwave in the following Schlieren photographs, 1 or 2?
Energy transfer, good one. This is from the man on the subject:
"Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury.
...
It is difficult to be optimistic for the future when... weapons developers still use the scientifically discredited "kinetic energy deposit" method to estimate wounding effects."
...
It is difficult to be optimistic for the future when... weapons developers still use the scientifically discredited "kinetic energy deposit" method to estimate wounding effects."
This is not to say that high-velocity rounds (2,000 ft/sec and above) wound less than slower rounds of the same mass, but the means by which they do this is not transfer of kinetic energy.
Nervous system effects, brilliant, another classic:
[about neurogenic shock]
The absurd claims... regarding the ability of a bullet to remotely stress and shock the central nervous system (CNS) are grossly inaccurate and completely unsupported by any accepted scientific evidence according to Dr. Case. This pseudoscientific speculation is presented as verified scientific fact, yet allusion to Göransson’s discredited data is the only scientific reference the authors cite to support their unjustified claims. Dr. Helling remarks that this material: "...relates to anecdotal experience and pure hypothesis," while Dr. Van Way states that it: "...would seem not only to be without supporting evidence, but to contradict common sense."
A thorough review of the scientific literature relating to wound ballistics has failed to identify any valid research papers which demonstrate that projectiles can exert a remote effect on the CNS.
The absurd claims... regarding the ability of a bullet to remotely stress and shock the central nervous system (CNS) are grossly inaccurate and completely unsupported by any accepted scientific evidence according to Dr. Case. This pseudoscientific speculation is presented as verified scientific fact, yet allusion to Göransson’s discredited data is the only scientific reference the authors cite to support their unjustified claims. Dr. Helling remarks that this material: "...relates to anecdotal experience and pure hypothesis," while Dr. Van Way states that it: "...would seem not only to be without supporting evidence, but to contradict common sense."
A thorough review of the scientific literature relating to wound ballistics has failed to identify any valid research papers which demonstrate that projectiles can exert a remote effect on the CNS.
So now, who's talking out of their whatsit?
Einion
Einion
New member
The stopping power myths
Many old claims about the basis for stopping power, if taken at face value, can be used to 'prove' beyond a doubt that .22 LR has none. And yet .22s - fired from handguns no less, not even through the long barrel of a rifle - can stop people, which is surely the best definition of stopping power if one insists on using the term. This kind of thing should immediately ring alarms bells regarding many of the conventional ideas of 'stopping power' - or worse still, 'knockdown power' - go but, again and again, it doesn't.
The term, like any, is meaningless unless defined and agreed upon; because it includes the word power it is inherently misleading, because it's not to do with power (or energy) alone, mostly or primarily.
So what does stop a human target? Essentially one thing, incapacitation. Rapid or instantaneous involuntary incapacitation (sometimes referred to as physiological incapacitation*) is the means to reliably stop an individual from advancing or committing a violent act.
And this is achieved primarily by shot placement, just as it is in hunting. Hunters don't shoot a deer in the gut and expect it to fall over - or sillier still, be knocked over - because of the energy of the round, the momentum transferred, hydrostatic shock or any of that, even with a 200-grain soft-nosed bullet travelling at well over twice the speed of an average handgun projectile, that expands to many times its original frontal area inside the target.
Bullet performance is important, as a round has to penetrate deeply enough into tissue to cause disruption that leads directly to involuntary incapacitation. But shot placement is more important, since a low-power round can kill if the shot goes in the right spot, while a high-power round in the wrong spot might do nothing. As one author put it:
Einion
*To be contrasted strongly with psychological incapacitation, which can be achieved in some cases without wounding the target!
Many old claims about the basis for stopping power, if taken at face value, can be used to 'prove' beyond a doubt that .22 LR has none. And yet .22s - fired from handguns no less, not even through the long barrel of a rifle - can stop people, which is surely the best definition of stopping power if one insists on using the term. This kind of thing should immediately ring alarms bells regarding many of the conventional ideas of 'stopping power' - or worse still, 'knockdown power' - go but, again and again, it doesn't.
The term, like any, is meaningless unless defined and agreed upon; because it includes the word power it is inherently misleading, because it's not to do with power (or energy) alone, mostly or primarily.
So what does stop a human target? Essentially one thing, incapacitation. Rapid or instantaneous involuntary incapacitation (sometimes referred to as physiological incapacitation*) is the means to reliably stop an individual from advancing or committing a violent act.
And this is achieved primarily by shot placement, just as it is in hunting. Hunters don't shoot a deer in the gut and expect it to fall over - or sillier still, be knocked over - because of the energy of the round, the momentum transferred, hydrostatic shock or any of that, even with a 200-grain soft-nosed bullet travelling at well over twice the speed of an average handgun projectile, that expands to many times its original frontal area inside the target.
Bullet performance is important, as a round has to penetrate deeply enough into tissue to cause disruption that leads directly to involuntary incapacitation. But shot placement is more important, since a low-power round can kill if the shot goes in the right spot, while a high-power round in the wrong spot might do nothing. As one author put it:
"Normally you get much better results with a jacketed expanding bullet, but shot placement is critical with anything. A knife in the heart is more effective than 10,000 ft/lbs in the ass."
Einion
*To be contrasted strongly with psychological incapacitation, which can be achieved in some cases without wounding the target!
DannyBoy2k
New member
Actually, no it's not. Difficult, to the point of nearly impossible, to correctly quantify, due to many variables, yes. A myth, no. Unless of course you have a different common definition than I do?
Errr...not entirely correct, as I can give at least one well-published case where temporary cavity caused notable damage.
It should also be noted that we don't KNOW how indirect tissue damage, i.e. temporary cavity, works in a human. Ballistic gel and soap does NOT have the same tear coefficiency as animal, or human, tissue. And animal does not have the same as human. So unless and until we start major, scientic, laboratory studies on how a living human body reacts to being shot...
Energy transfer, good one. This is from the man on the subject:
"Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury.[/QUOTE]
And this 'The Man' is? Not that I'm disagreeing, quite the opposite, but refering to a nebulous authority is NOT a proper argument.
Ummm...you ever been punched in the arm as a kid? Or jam your 'funny bone'(Why is it called that? Nothing remotely funny about it)? Remember that numb feeling?
Now, system-wide shock? Highly unlikely, unless I 'punch' your spine. But will your nervous system react even if I DON'T hit a nexus? Oh, yes.
Now, these above comments nonwithstanding, I have to say that I mostly agree with you, Einion. And, I REALL have to ask Cassar what he meant about the meteorites? Are you suggesting that if I fire small-calibre rounds, they'll disappear?! Also, while it has NO bearing on anything said here, no-one knows what Tunguska was. There are theories, some more...entertaining...than others. But no-one knows.
And this 'The Man' is? Not that I'm disagreeing, quite the opposite, but refering to a nebulous authority is NOT a proper argument.
Ummm...you ever been punched in the arm as a kid? Or jam your 'funny bone'(Why is it called that? Nothing remotely funny about it)? Remember that numb feeling?
Now, system-wide shock? Highly unlikely, unless I 'punch' your spine. But will your nervous system react even if I DON'T hit a nexus? Oh, yes.
Now, these above comments nonwithstanding, I have to say that I mostly agree with you, Einion. And, I REALL have to ask Cassar what he meant about the meteorites? Are you suggesting that if I fire small-calibre rounds, they'll disappear?! Also, while it has NO bearing on anything said here, no-one knows what Tunguska was. There are theories, some more...entertaining...than others. But no-one knows.
cassar
BALLSCRATCHER
dannyboy2k im not suggesting that at at all im simply trying to make the point that a larger mass travelling at high speed conveys more kinetic energy to the target than a smaller one.
as for the nervous shock issue if you are struck hard say by a night stick on the upper thigh in the area you would normally punch someone for the dead leg effect the resultant shock to the brain overloads the nervouse systems control over both legs and you will fall down in a big groaning painful way..fact an irrifutable fact in fact, there is another nerve ganglion in the neck which has the same effect if struck correctly..they can both cause unconciousness too "knock out from being hit on the leg?" yes indeed.
the nervous shock effect is one of the reasons your tought to aim for central body mass as even if you dont hit anything important the resultant shock cause's the body's nervouse system to shut down and once again you fall down in a big twitching heap.
enion dont get your knickers in a twist it s just a debate not personnal,, the crush effect and cavitation you mentioned as nonsense hmmm whats that caused by oh yes the shock wave travelling in front of the or behind the round...think i did say something about that. look up blast trauma in your big book of facts. nothing but the blast wave hits you, no shrapnel (the same as the shock wave you get from a bullit) it can rip a body to pieces powder bone and generally ruin your day.
p.s cheers chrome at least you get it
here endeth the lesson for today
as for the nervous shock issue if you are struck hard say by a night stick on the upper thigh in the area you would normally punch someone for the dead leg effect the resultant shock to the brain overloads the nervouse systems control over both legs and you will fall down in a big groaning painful way..fact an irrifutable fact in fact, there is another nerve ganglion in the neck which has the same effect if struck correctly..they can both cause unconciousness too "knock out from being hit on the leg?" yes indeed.
the nervous shock effect is one of the reasons your tought to aim for central body mass as even if you dont hit anything important the resultant shock cause's the body's nervouse system to shut down and once again you fall down in a big twitching heap.
enion dont get your knickers in a twist it s just a debate not personnal,, the crush effect and cavitation you mentioned as nonsense hmmm whats that caused by oh yes the shock wave travelling in front of the or behind the round...think i did say something about that. look up blast trauma in your big book of facts. nothing but the blast wave hits you, no shrapnel (the same as the shock wave you get from a bullit) it can rip a body to pieces powder bone and generally ruin your day.
p.s cheers chrome at least you get it
here endeth the lesson for today
Last edited:
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Stopping power?
Let me make some assumptions (you know what happens...)
You're talking about one-shot stop....
Very possible, but not assured by any normal handgun caliber.
FBI research shows that bullets temporary cavity has very little short term affect on stopping power. What stops is damage. This is the reason that most law enforcement and SD rounds are hollow point. They expand to 150% to 200% of their initial size, maximizing damage. FBI research also recommends 10" of penetration. This is to assure that major organs are reached. This research came about after the FBI pumped round after round into two guys down around Miami and they simply refused to go down.
Google FBI Miami Shoot.
Damage to the heart will either cause it to bleed out or to go into arrest do to trauma. Spinal damage will cause the opponent to go down. Other damage can lead to system wide shock and body shutdown, but this may or may not be immediate. Head shots may cause immediate stoppage if the correct portion of the brain is damaged. Even this is not guaranteed. Look at the number of attempted suicides that survive.
Rifle rounds do a lot more damage do to the velocities that they enter the body at. They are capable of producing damage around the wound channel along the temporary wound channel - hydrostatic shock. (battle rifle calibers fall somewhere in between handgun and rifle)
Shot placement is the key. If you cannot hit major organs or cause enough trauma to shut down the bad guy, you are in trouble. As to 'shooting the guy in the eye.' - this requires someone be extremely skilled and extremely calm - both very hard to do if you are getting an adrenaline dump due to being shot at. Your fine motor skills go out the door. This is why most self-defence courses teach you to shoot "center mass." Largest target with the most probability of doing enough damage to stop the other guy. The head gets to be a very small target when it and your are moving. Miss a bit and the skull does it's job and you get a glancing blow.
Let me make some assumptions (you know what happens...)
You're talking about one-shot stop....
Very possible, but not assured by any normal handgun caliber.
FBI research shows that bullets temporary cavity has very little short term affect on stopping power. What stops is damage. This is the reason that most law enforcement and SD rounds are hollow point. They expand to 150% to 200% of their initial size, maximizing damage. FBI research also recommends 10" of penetration. This is to assure that major organs are reached. This research came about after the FBI pumped round after round into two guys down around Miami and they simply refused to go down.
Google FBI Miami Shoot.
Damage to the heart will either cause it to bleed out or to go into arrest do to trauma. Spinal damage will cause the opponent to go down. Other damage can lead to system wide shock and body shutdown, but this may or may not be immediate. Head shots may cause immediate stoppage if the correct portion of the brain is damaged. Even this is not guaranteed. Look at the number of attempted suicides that survive.
Rifle rounds do a lot more damage do to the velocities that they enter the body at. They are capable of producing damage around the wound channel along the temporary wound channel - hydrostatic shock. (battle rifle calibers fall somewhere in between handgun and rifle)
Shot placement is the key. If you cannot hit major organs or cause enough trauma to shut down the bad guy, you are in trouble. As to 'shooting the guy in the eye.' - this requires someone be extremely skilled and extremely calm - both very hard to do if you are getting an adrenaline dump due to being shot at. Your fine motor skills go out the door. This is why most self-defence courses teach you to shoot "center mass." Largest target with the most probability of doing enough damage to stop the other guy. The head gets to be a very small target when it and your are moving. Miss a bit and the skull does it's job and you get a glancing blow.
Last edited:
cassar
BALLSCRATCHER
airhead congratulations i voice of reason in a crazy world..
eviltendencies i must apologise for my contribution in hi jacking your your thread give us a nudge in the original direction, maybe some fluff on your character, is it a hit man type, james bond or something like wanted i know im interested in hearing more.:starving:
eviltendencies i must apologise for my contribution in hi jacking your your thread give us a nudge in the original direction, maybe some fluff on your character, is it a hit man type, james bond or something like wanted i know im interested in hearing more.:starving:
All the discussion around the T's and V's (kinetic/potential energy) got me thinking about this particular experiment.
I think we can probably all agree, if I shoot a board with a .22 and then shoot it with a .45, there's a reasonably predictable outcome of the differences, provided I have all the constants of the experiment (projectile weight, velocity, distance from target, etc.) under my control. And in this controlled system, the law of conservation of energy stands fairly strong, and we can rely on the basic F=ma to determine the amount of force that reaches the target. And I think we can mostly agree the .45 will do more damage to the board than the .22.
Change the board to the human body. What I've done is effectively increase the entropy, for lack of a better term, in the system. Basically, those unpredictable and uncontrollable variables that affect the outcome.
If I were able to shoot this body with the .22 and the .45, controlling every variable I possibly could (i.e. "all things being equal"), then the outcome again is reasonably predictable (the .45 will hit with more force), because I've basically controlled the entropy to an acceptable level by managing the controllable variables. If I shoot the same human body, at precisely the same spot, with precisely the same trajectory, etc., I would get a reasonably predictable result. And again, the .45 will most likely be the "winner".
However, the more variables you add to the "experiment", the more the entropy becomes a factor and the less predictable the outcome. If I give a gun to my target; he's ducking, dodging, and moving; my own nervousness and inaccuracy, etc--even a grain of dirt sitting in the wrong place on the projectile. All of these factors increase the chance of an unpredictable outcome. Having two different targets with slightly different masses; the frictional components being slightly different, the percentage water in the human body at the time of impact, etc....all these things, again, affect the predictability of the outcome, as they are variables we cannot control, chaos so to speak, and those variables have the opportunity to adversely affect the outcome in potentially dramatic ways.
However, the base experiment still remains the same---a .45 will be the more powerful hit. The question is will it do more damage when it hits? I can further my chances of stopping the target by controlling the chaos. I practice. I'm accurate. I keep my gun clean. I use "experimental" ammo, etc. The more of the variables I control, the more I reduce the affect of the chaos/entropy on the outcome, and thus the outcome becomes more predictable.
But the fact remains, under the same conditions, the .45 still has more potential to do more damage more reliably than the .22. The chaos (even at a microscopic level) is what can't be controlled and has the capacity to drastically affect the outcome. Control the chaos, and you control the outcome.
If you want to ensure your success, there's a pretty simple formula. You use the largest weapon that you're comfortable with that is designed for the situation at hand. You learn to use that weapon under the extreme conditions you expect to experience. You then put more lead down-range to target and on-target than is needed to do the desired job. Two center-mass, one in the 'noggin, for example. The one-hit-stop just doesn't exist in a predictable way with any weapon because of the plethora of uncontrollable factors. You simply must work to control everything you possibly can, to the point of effectively reducing the potential impact of unpredictable variables.
Variations in weapon design are there for the reason of ensuring a predictable outcome given the set of controllable conditions for which the weapon was designed. You give the same weapon to two different men--one trained and one not, and put them in a circumstance for which the weapon was designed. Well...my bet is going to the trained man when I make my attempt to predict the outcome.
You give the same sniper a 300mag and a .38 snub nose and tell him to shoot a target at 1000m, then I can predict, with some degree of certainty, which weapon he will choose to accomplish the job. If you put him in a 2'x2' closet and tell him to shoot the target on the wall--well, again, I bet I can predict which weapon he'll pick.
So yea, there is some degree of unpredictability in outcomes due to the uncontrollable factors. But, all things being equal, the projectile that hits with more force will more often have the potential to result in the more predictable, reliable, and desired outcome. Provided, of course, the desire is to incapacitate a target.
K.
I think we can probably all agree, if I shoot a board with a .22 and then shoot it with a .45, there's a reasonably predictable outcome of the differences, provided I have all the constants of the experiment (projectile weight, velocity, distance from target, etc.) under my control. And in this controlled system, the law of conservation of energy stands fairly strong, and we can rely on the basic F=ma to determine the amount of force that reaches the target. And I think we can mostly agree the .45 will do more damage to the board than the .22.
Change the board to the human body. What I've done is effectively increase the entropy, for lack of a better term, in the system. Basically, those unpredictable and uncontrollable variables that affect the outcome.
If I were able to shoot this body with the .22 and the .45, controlling every variable I possibly could (i.e. "all things being equal"), then the outcome again is reasonably predictable (the .45 will hit with more force), because I've basically controlled the entropy to an acceptable level by managing the controllable variables. If I shoot the same human body, at precisely the same spot, with precisely the same trajectory, etc., I would get a reasonably predictable result. And again, the .45 will most likely be the "winner".
However, the more variables you add to the "experiment", the more the entropy becomes a factor and the less predictable the outcome. If I give a gun to my target; he's ducking, dodging, and moving; my own nervousness and inaccuracy, etc--even a grain of dirt sitting in the wrong place on the projectile. All of these factors increase the chance of an unpredictable outcome. Having two different targets with slightly different masses; the frictional components being slightly different, the percentage water in the human body at the time of impact, etc....all these things, again, affect the predictability of the outcome, as they are variables we cannot control, chaos so to speak, and those variables have the opportunity to adversely affect the outcome in potentially dramatic ways.
However, the base experiment still remains the same---a .45 will be the more powerful hit. The question is will it do more damage when it hits? I can further my chances of stopping the target by controlling the chaos. I practice. I'm accurate. I keep my gun clean. I use "experimental" ammo, etc. The more of the variables I control, the more I reduce the affect of the chaos/entropy on the outcome, and thus the outcome becomes more predictable.
But the fact remains, under the same conditions, the .45 still has more potential to do more damage more reliably than the .22. The chaos (even at a microscopic level) is what can't be controlled and has the capacity to drastically affect the outcome. Control the chaos, and you control the outcome.
If you want to ensure your success, there's a pretty simple formula. You use the largest weapon that you're comfortable with that is designed for the situation at hand. You learn to use that weapon under the extreme conditions you expect to experience. You then put more lead down-range to target and on-target than is needed to do the desired job. Two center-mass, one in the 'noggin, for example. The one-hit-stop just doesn't exist in a predictable way with any weapon because of the plethora of uncontrollable factors. You simply must work to control everything you possibly can, to the point of effectively reducing the potential impact of unpredictable variables.
Variations in weapon design are there for the reason of ensuring a predictable outcome given the set of controllable conditions for which the weapon was designed. You give the same weapon to two different men--one trained and one not, and put them in a circumstance for which the weapon was designed. Well...my bet is going to the trained man when I make my attempt to predict the outcome.
You give the same sniper a 300mag and a .38 snub nose and tell him to shoot a target at 1000m, then I can predict, with some degree of certainty, which weapon he will choose to accomplish the job. If you put him in a 2'x2' closet and tell him to shoot the target on the wall--well, again, I bet I can predict which weapon he'll pick.
So yea, there is some degree of unpredictability in outcomes due to the uncontrollable factors. But, all things being equal, the projectile that hits with more force will more often have the potential to result in the more predictable, reliable, and desired outcome. Provided, of course, the desire is to incapacitate a target.
K.
Einion
New member
Don't be obtuse, you're the one who took it to a personal level by implying someone was talking out of their ass.
And this is for practical purposes irrelevant:
"Kinetic energy does not wound."
For everyone else: the energy of the bullet is of course a factor, because together with projective shape and material composition it directly affects penetration. But the amount of kinetic energy transmitted to the target is irrelevant - for those unaware of the numbers, it's often a surprise how very small it is:"Goddard amply proves the fallacy of 'knock-down power' by calculating the heights (and resultant velocities) from which a one pound weight and a ten pound weight must be dropped to equal the momentum of 9mm and .45ACP projectiles at muzzle velocities, respectively. The results are revealing. In order to equal the impact of a 9mm bullet at its muzzle velocity, a one pound weight must be dropped from a height of 5.96 feet, achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps. To equal the impact of a .45ACP bullet, the one pound weight needs a velocity of 27.1 fps and must be dropped from a height of 11.4 feet. A ten pound weight equals the impact of a 9mm bullet when dropped from a height of 0.72 inches (velocity attained is 1.96 fps), and equals the impact of a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches (achieving a velocity of 2.71 fps).
A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years. The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball."
A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years. The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball."
Let's look back at the original mention and not this irrelevant sideline:
The quotes I provided are evidence that energy transfer is not a cause of trauma (there is an abundance of further proof of this for anyone who cares to look it up) and such trauma is not a source of effects on the nervous system - to be clear here, this was taken to be a CNS reference, not direct effect upon a nerve.
Cough:
"The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable..."
The reason that shooters are taught, or at least should be, to shoot for the centre of the chest is because that's where the heart and upper spine are - direct damage to either is the goal, "because of the impracticality of training for head shots"."The only method of reliably stopping a human with a handgun is to decrease the functioning capability of the central nervous system (CNS) and specifically, the brain and cervical spinal cord. There are two ways to accomplish this goal: 1) direct trauma to the CNS tissue resulting in tissue destruction and 2) lack of oxygen to the brain caused by bleeding and loss of blood pressure."
I didn't say they were nonsense, read what I posted. And more importantly, read the quote, which is very specifically on-topic.
"Temporary cavity does not wound."
More on this (warning for anyone a bit squeamish):"Probably the most exaggerated account of temporary cavity effect in the literature appears in High Velocity Missile Wounds by Owen-Smith. His Fig 2.20 on page 35 shows a lesion in a pig's colon caused by a "standard bullet fired at 770 m/s (2500 ft/s)." Concerning this wound, he states "there are microscopic changes of cell death extending 20 cm from the edge of the hole in the colon; this is why such an area must be resected if it has been damaged by a rifle bullet." Perusal of the source document of this picture, however, reveals that a deforming soft-point hunting bullet was used for this shot. In describing the effect of this shot, the source document states, "...haemorrhage extended macroscopically to a diameter (my emphasis) of 20 cm." When the 8-cm hole diameter is subtracted, a 6-cm distance (rather than the 20 cm reported by Owen-Smith) from the edge of the hole on each side adds up to the "diameter of 20 cm" reported by Scott in the source document. Furthermore, photographs of bowel defects caused by bullets must be viewed with caution. Folding back the bowel wall around the edges of the hole can make tissue defects appear larger. If colon tissue at a distance of 20 cm from the bullet hole is killed, as asserted by Owen-Smith, what happens to the loops of small bowel and other organs that are within 20 cm of the bullet hole? Are they killed too? If so, this would equate to destruction of most of the abdominal contents by every penetrating "high-velocity" bullet. Clearly, this conclusion is inconsistent with well established available facts. A study done in our laboratory, for example, showed damage to a pig colon caused by a nondeforming military bullet traveling at 911 m/s (2989 ft/s) that was only slightly larger than the dimensions of the bullet that had caused it.
It should be noted, however, that stretch from temporary cavity tissue displacement can disrupt blood vessels or break bones at some distance from the projectile path, just as they can be disrupted by blunt trauma. We can produce this in the laboratory by careful choice of projectile and projectile trajectory in tissue, but in practice this happens only very rarely. Data from the Vietnam conflict show that the great majority of torso and extremity wounds were attributable to the damage due to the permanent cavity alone."
It should be noted, however, that stretch from temporary cavity tissue displacement can disrupt blood vessels or break bones at some distance from the projectile path, just as they can be disrupted by blunt trauma. We can produce this in the laboratory by careful choice of projectile and projectile trajectory in tissue, but in practice this happens only very rarely. Data from the Vietnam conflict show that the great majority of torso and extremity wounds were attributable to the damage due to the permanent cavity alone."
Oh I'm so glad you said that too:
"The sonic boom experienced after passage of a supersonic airplane is an example of a sonic pressure wave. This pressure wave travels at the speed of sound in the medium through which it passes, and sound travels four times as fast through tissue as it does through air. Thus the sonic wave precedes the projectile in tissue. Contrary to popular opinion, this wave does not move or injure tissue. Harvey's exhaustive experiments during WW II showed clearly the benignity of the sonic pressure wave. The lithotripter, a recent invention that uses this sonic pressure wave to break up kidney stones, generates a wave five times the amplitude of the one from a penetrating small arms projectile. Up to 2,000 of these waves are used in a single treatment session, with no damage to soft tissue surrounding the stone. It would be difficult to imagine more convincing confirmation of Harvey's conclusions."
For those interested in doing further reading, the quotes above in blue are from What's Wrong With The Wound Ballistics Literature, And Why by Martin L. Fackler, MD. That'll give you a good start if you want to know more - Fackler is America's foremost expert on wound ballistics. The quotes in purple are from Handgun Wounding Factors And Effectiveness, written for the FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit.:foot-in-mouth:
Einion
Last edited:
DannyBoy2k
New member
Which is also the case I was referring to, above.
Actually, no. A battle rifle uses the same calibre as a rifle. A battle rifle is a military weapon which fires rifle ammunition, and, more often than not, is capable of automatic or selective fire. The M14, for instance, or the Mosin Nagant.
An assault rifle, by and large, however, fires a smaller calibre rifle-type round, such as the 5.56/.223 or the russian 5.45. Or, even, the russian 7.62x39. There is, however, quite a bit of overlap here. There are a few weapons generally seen as assault rifles which fires the 7.62x51, which is normally seen as a battle rifle round. *picking nits*
Well, that depends a bit. I guarantee that if I put a .50 BMG in someones leg, he's going to get VERY VERY stopped. Of course, that sort of round isn't something you fire out of anything that is shorter than a meter and a half, and is fired from a prone or at least crouching position. Over all, though, you're quite correct. I personally 'like'(like isn't something you should do when it comes to shooting at other people, but what better word?) the 'snipers triangle'. From the bridge of the nose to, more or less, the nipples. If you put your round in that area, you're more or less certain that he's going to reconsider priorities. Other than that, 2 controlled shots in the chest, followed(if needed) by a third in the head is something of a standard.
DannyBoy2k
New member
While I do agree with you, in most cases, and certainly out of a purely...medical/mechanical? point of view, this isn't entirely a true statement. We DO know that knock-down happens. Cops see it all the time. But we need to consider so very many other factors that it's impossible to calculate from case to case. A guy that's never seen a gun before gets one in his hand, the cops yell, he freaks, DOESN'T drop the gun due to sensory overload making him plain not hear them...they shoot him. A guy on PCP comes tearing down the street, waving a bloody axe. The shoot him. A gy is 7 feet tall, weighs 200 pounds. For whatever reason, they shoot him. Another is FIVE feet tall, and weighs the same as the last. They shoot him. Using the exact same gun, loaded out of the same batch of 50 rounds....not one is going to react the same as the others. So, knock-down do exist, and cops know that the larger the calibre, for some reason, the larger the chance.
That said, pure energy transfer=collapse on the ground is silliness.
Well...depends on how you mean, really. I think we're on the same wavelength, in that your brain won't shut down, or anything similar. But missing a nerve cluster can and will effect that set of nerves all the same. But then, I think that's what you were referring to further down
And, we've certainly come a LONG way from the .22LR discussion, haven't we?
cassar
BALLSCRATCHER
einioinion
temporary cavity does not wound emm, so the larger exit wound from a ballistic injury isnt really an injury glad you could clear that one up, ask someone who's been shot instead of reading it out of a bookthe answer probably wont interest you. supersonic flight has no comparison to the rapid concusive force generated by an explosion. ask anyone who's been too close to a blast and had a bit more life experience than book experience. thermobaric bombs arent they something to do with pressure? some one better tell the americans they dont work apparently.
really if you want to continue this thread you should create one yourself as this one 's supposed to be about a book character not the contents of your book collection.
temporary cavity does not wound emm, so the larger exit wound from a ballistic injury isnt really an injury glad you could clear that one up, ask someone who's been shot instead of reading it out of a bookthe answer probably wont interest you. supersonic flight has no comparison to the rapid concusive force generated by an explosion. ask anyone who's been too close to a blast and had a bit more life experience than book experience. thermobaric bombs arent they something to do with pressure? some one better tell the americans they dont work apparently.
really if you want to continue this thread you should create one yourself as this one 's supposed to be about a book character not the contents of your book collection.
