Wednesday, April 30, 2008
More Gun Stuff
This time it's from a users, or maybe use-es perspective. Deadmeat2 works in a morgue, and has some extensive commentary here regarding what he's seen. Executive summary: bigger is better. Shot placement helps, and can make a mouse gun work as well as Dirty Harrys .44, but in a gunfight, you don't always have the time for this. Practice, practice, practice. 15 holes in the landscape behind the thug may frighten him away, but if he notices you're going click, click, click, and he has no damage, things could get dicey.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"I absolutely despise a 9mm for defensive situations...The .357 is gloriously effective."
I'm calling B.S. on this. The 9mm is .355", and the .357 Magnum is .358". The extra .003" is supposed to make a glorious difference?
The "energy dump" mumbo-jumbo didn't help the credibility of this anonymous internet source, either.
For a more scientific view on wound ballistics, see http://firearmstactical.com/wound.htm
See also "Deadly Effects: What Bullets Do To Bodies"
I just laid out a spread sheet based on data from Hogden powder reloading data, and the results were interesting. Based on light, medium and heavy bullets, and the spread of muzzle velocities you can get, the kinetic energy (.5*M*V^2)of the 9mm was only slightly less than that of the .45.
The .357s, Mag and SIG were noticeably better, due to the higher muzzle velocities.
It is when you look at inertia, (M*V) then the differences noted by Deadmeat2 begin to make more sense, with the heavier .45 developing nearly 50% more than the lighter, but faster 9mm. The .357s looked even better due to significantly higher velocities, than either of the other two.
Like most people say: carry what suits you, and practice, practice, practice.
Zak Smith has created a web page listing ballistic data for various calibers and loads.
His table can be sorted by (1) kinetic energy, (2) momentum, (3) penetration - bare gelatin, (4) wound volume - bare gelatin, (5) penetration - clothed gelatin, (6) wound volume - clothed gelatin, and (7) average wound volume. Just click on the appropriate link near the top of his page. None of the sorts results in a list that's ordered by caliber.
When the FBI was deciding criteria for handgun ammunition in the 1980s, it was determined that the most important factor was a minimum of 12" of penetration. There are many 9mm loads which meet that criteria. Things like kinetic energy and "energy dump" were discarded as irrelevant.
Despite all the fascination with kinetic energy, it's never been explained to me how that translates into effectiveness in a handgun round. What's the mechanism which translates kinetic energy into wounding effectiveness (or "stopping power," if you prefer)?
Unlike Deadmeat2's screed, the FBI tests are reproducible, which meets the definition of scientific. Somebody's anecdotal, and for all I know biased and selective memory, does not.
Also, Deadmeat2 does a great disservice to the gun culture by trying to convince shooters that they must not use the 9mm, and that only rounds which may be unpleasant to shoot are acceptable. Forcing a certain handgun/caliber onto a new shooter may work for regimented organizations like the military and police. But in the civilian world, could do more to discourage new shooters than anything Sarah Brady and company will ever do.
"15 holes in the landscape behind the thug may frighten him away"
Conversely, a few well placed holes with 9mm is going to be much more effective than a miss(es) from the "glorious" .357 or .4x. Yes, some bullets are more effective than others (although how much is questionable). But if all somebody can accurately shoot is a .380, or even a .22, then I'm not going to belittle them for their choice. If they can eventually move onto something (marginally?) better, great.
"Like most people say: carry what suits you, and practice, practice, practice."
I absolutely agree, but that's not what the source of this post says. Some say that a "glorious" round is more important than "what suits you." As for practice, that's getting harder and harder as the number of places to actually practice shooting dwindle to a handful; and none of them conveniently located. But that's another topic.
I went to the page, and looked at the data. Also the comments. While the results are certainly reproduceable, there seems to be some question as to what they translate to in real life. As has been pointed out, even if you're shooting a mouse gun, there's no substitute for putting the bullets in the target, preferably COM. I'm not endorsing either of the sources as the last word in defensive gunniness, they both have something to add.
What I'm seeing here is that:
1. bigger seems to be better but..
2. only hits count. An unmanageable hand-cannon is pretty useless.
3. Hollow points are not a panacea.
At the end of the day, I get visions of Lewellyn and the rest of the boys, right after the battle of Agincourt, debating the relative merits of bodkins vs broadheads against French infantry.
Having 9mm pistols secure your self from bad guys.
Post a Comment