posted 03-15-2001 03:36            

I have read with much interest over the past months your posts regarding the ballistics of the 9mm cartridge and Magsafe/Glaser frangible bullets. From this information it's clear that your testing and research have shown that the heaviest bullet weight in any given caliber has the best chance of reaching vital organs.

Taking this topic one step further, how important is handgun caliber choice in a law enforcement/tactical and defensive encounter? Do you have a particular caliber that you would trust your life to over any other? I realise this has been the subject of much debate and that shot placement and training are the most important issues. However, I'm just interested to know if your experiences and research have made you more comfortable with one caliber over another to achieve the proper penetration that you've referred to in the past.

posted 03-16-2001 03:34            

If you wish to delve into more detail, the average LE officer is probably best served by a .40 caliber handgun, as it offers a reasonable compromise between adequate terminal bullet performance, enhanced magazine capacity to compensate for the poor average hit ratio often documented in LE lethal force encounters, and good ergonomics for smaller statured officers. Many of the .40 S&W 180 gr JHP bullets are generally well designed, offer good cross sectional density, and exhibit reasonable performance against intermediate barriers, such as glass. The California Highway Patrol was a pioneering adoptee of the .40 S&W and has documented better results in numerous officer involved shootings using their current standard issue S&W 4006 pistols with 180gr JHP’s of Winchester and Remington manufacture compared to previous results with their older .357 magnum weapons using 125 gr bullets. CHP has quite a few 4006 pistols which have fired in excess of 50,000 rounds without problems and has at least one pistol which has exceeded 100,000 documented rounds without a significant malfunction. This level of durability in a LE duty handgun is impressive.

I believe you will note that most military SOC units prefer the .45 ACP compared to 9mm weapons systems after having used them in real combat environments. JHP handgun bullets often fail to expand when passing through heavy clothing, wall board, and other intermediate barriers due to the hollow point getting plugged or collapsed--the bullet then acts like an FMJ. Because the bullet with a bigger diameter creates a larger permanent wound cavity, the .45 ACP offers an advantage in cases when the handgun bullet does not expand, for example when using FMJ ammunition or when a JHP does not deform, as the .45 ACP has a larger diameter than the other commonly used handgun calibers. I find that for tactical team use, a properly set-up 1911 is a very fine handgun with superb ergonomics and outstanding durability. At a recent course, one of my Colt’s fired 2500 rounds of 230 gr JHP’s without a single malfunction. The USMC issues the 1911 MEU-SOC pistol for CQB; if I recall correctly, several Army units, including some at Fort Bragg, are also using 1911 variants. Also note the LAPD SWAT D Platoon is using .45 ACP 1911’s, as is FBI HRT. I fully agree with the following quotes from the esteemed Tactical Forums moderator Frogman:

----“When you want a large caliber, precision hand held killing tool--get a 1911. It's state of the art--not a relic.”

----“The 1911 has the potential to be a precision instrument for tight quarters battle that a Glock can only aspire to.”

----“ I much prefer a 1911, particularly for an assault.”

----“The 1911 is definitely an operator's weapon…it is powerful, accurate, reliable, and you can beat the living snot out of someone with it if you have to.”

While .22LR probably has killed more people than any other handgun, for LE backup, a .38 sp airweight J-frame offers far superior terminal performance than any .380 ACP, .32, .25, or .22. The 147 gr +P Winchester JHP, Remington +P 158 gr LSWCHP, or a plain standard pressure wadcutter are all good choices for .38 sp.

Finally, if you have any expectation that lethal force may be unavoidably necessary, if at all possible arm yourself with a shotgun or rifle.

posted 03-17-2001 00:05            

Thank you very much for the comprehensive and considerate response to my question. We can always expect an intelligent, well researched answer from you.

I have always loved the 1911 platform and shoot my custom 1911's better than any other style handgun.

Regards,

posted 03-19-2001 06:38            

Because the bullet with a bigger diameter creates a larger permanent wound cavity, the .45 ACP offers an advantage in cases when the handgun bullet does not expand, for example when using FMJ ammunition or when a JHP does not deform, as the .45 ACP has a larger diameter than the other commonly used handgun calibers.

DocGKR,

Are you suggesting that gunshot victims who receive a .45 ACP FMJ bullet to the heart, aorta, vena cava, liver, or major arteries will lose the capacity for voluntary function--due to the resulting decrease in blood pressure--more rapidly (assumes real, empirical, non-negligible benefits, not micro- or nanoseconds) than victims shot with 9 mm FMJ?

Could the relatively modest increase in permanent wound cavity volume created by a .45 ACP FMJ missile--compared to 9 mm FMJ--make less effective, the human body's sympathetic nervous system activated survival mechanisms--i.e., vasoconstriction, clotting, and so forth?

posted 03-20-2001 01:40            

In the coroner’s office or operating room, it is difficult to clinically differentiate whether a given wound to a blood vessel is caused by a 9mm FMJ, a .45 ACP FMJ, or even a 7.62mm NATO FMJ while it is traveling point forward before yawing. The time to onset of hypovolemic shock would likely be grossly similar if any of these bullets perforated the aorta, heart, or a large artery and physiological compensatory mechanisms would function in a like manner. So a .45 ACP offers no advantage over a 9mm, right?

Perhaps there are other factors to assess. Experimentally, there are far too many variables to precisely analyze how a particular characteristic of a bullet will enhance the desired goal of rapid incapacitation, however, increasing bullet diameter does both theoretically and experimentally increase tissue destruction. As noted in the FBI “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness”, “Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified…..Even if that edge is only 1%, it is not insignificant because the guy trying to kill you could be in that 1%, and you won’t know it until it is too late.”

Do small performance differences matter? If you are running 100 meters in the Olympics, fractions of a second are the difference between a Gold Medal and losing; if you are being shot at, fractions of a second can be the difference between living and dying. It all depends on your perspective…

As Fackler states in the International Defense Review “Handgun Bullet Performance”, “Provided that the first priority of adequate penetration is met, the bullet that makes the largest hole is most likely to produce reliable good results.”.

Don’t blindly believe me or anyone else; do your own research, analyze your results, and choose what seems to make the most sense for your mission requirements.

posted 03-20-2001 07:49            

I found your comments enlightening. It is often difficult, if not impossible, for those of us who are not medical doctors to reach intelligent, meaningful conclusions from reading the professional wound ballistics literature, especially that which is full of esoteric terminology. I appreciate your efforts in making this stuff lucid and palatable for us laymen.

For those who are interested, I did a little napkin math and determined a vital organ hit probability increase of around 1-2% afforded by moving to a larger caliber (i.e., 9 mm FMJ to .45 ACP FMJ). This advantage however, comes at the price of an approximate 75% increase in free recoil energy.

posted 03-20-2001 20:22            

Could you elaborate on how you came up with those figures? Sounds interesting.

Thanks,

posted 03-21-2001 02:13            

"1) The vital tissue volume is a 5 centimeters in diameter and over 50 centimeters long
2) all bullets penetrate to the depth of the cylinder
3) the 5cm cylinder is oriented with the long axis vertical
4) a bullet touching the 5cm cylinder produces a vital wound
5) the bullet impact point distribution is a normal distribution centered on the 5cm cylinder center in both the vertical and horizontal axes, with the same standard deviation in both axes
6) the bullet impact point dispersion is independent of the cartridge used"

I, to the best of my ability, attempted to follow the above assumptions using a little ingenuity, some notebook paper, and a pencil. For the sake of brevity, I will spare you from the nuts and bolts of my exact methods and calculations, but as a substitute, will provide MacPherson's results. His methods are likely more accurate, and certainly more credible than what some stranger on the Internet posts. They are as follows:

Table 11-1
Hit Probability for Identical Accuracy of Fire
% of 9mm hits
0
5
10
25
50
70
90
99

% of 17mm hits
0.0
5.7
11.3
29.0
55.6
76.1
93.8
99.7

Seventeen mm is equivalent to .67 inches, so the analysis isn't exactly aimed at determining the advantage of the .45 ACP FMJ over the 9mm FMJ.

My calculations, however, simply substituted 11.43mm for 17mm, while still following MacPherson's basic assumptions. My sample size was small, resulting in less accurate results than if a more extensive analysis was done. Moreover, I calculated only typical combat accuracy of fire, ignoring extremes. I would expect the average figure of 1-2% to decrease, possibly significantly, if a more extensive analysis was done.

MacPherson writes, "Table 11-1 shows that a larger bullet does increase the probability of a vital wound; it also shows that this increase in probability is quite small at every accuracy of fire. This result is a consequence of the fact that the vital wound area is much larger than the bullet crosssectional area and the assumption that the severity of the vital wound does not depend on bullet parameters."

If you don't have a copy of MacPherson's book already, I strongly encourage you to borrow/purchase one. It's essential reading for anyone with a serious interest in wound ballistics.

posted 03-21-2001 12:31            

I don't think moving to a larger caliber is about hitting with an 11.43mm diameter when a 9mm diameter would miss. Instead, the advantage involves a larger "crushed" volume and a larger "cut" surface area. This goes back to incapacitating through blood loss.

Think of the wound channel as a cylinder of diameter 11.43mm (versus 9mm) and length equal to the penetration (say 10 inches for both). A .45ACP would crush 60% more tissue than a 9mm and cut 27% more surface area.

More crush and cut means quicker incapacitation due to blood loss.

Volume of a cylinder:
height * pi*r^2

Surface area of a cylinder:
height * pi*d

I say this with the disclaimer that I am not an expert and that, in my opinion, mindset and marksmanship are a whole lot more important (we are talking about a 60% gain towards what I think is 1% of the equation).

Hope this helps
James

P.S. Benjamin, be more civil than your stranger on the internet comments, I would bet even money that DocGKR and Duncan MacPherson have met or corresponded professionally on the subject of terminal ballistics. Besides, you and he are arguing the same thing--that caliber differences (if it penetrates the desired amount) are way low on the list of things to worry about.

posted 03-21-2001 12:57               

Although you are using the standard concept, my contention (in opposition to many others in the field) that this calculation is far too simplified. Unfortunately, I think the numbers will come out far lower than the 60% increase.

If we assume a round nose form (this holds for almost all expanding bullets, the classic mushroom produces a round nose form) then most of the tissue will not be crushed by the bullet, only pushed sideways. The same argument is made for the temporary cavity (and I agree with that)but few are willing to conceed that it is also likely with the bullet itself. The actual amount of crush is dependent on the bullet design and velocity (it is harder to move out of the way if the bullet is moving faster). The maximum additional stretch (assuming the full bullet width) will be .05" for .45 over 9mm. Not enough to matter. Many coroners will note that the difference in wound channel between the two is impossible to visually indetify. The actual crush cavity is much smaller than bullet diameter (for HB). The difference between diameters may be overtaken by the difference in velocity (or it may not). Certainly the bullet design can make a significant difference (which may be why many experienced shooters have preferred the SWC or WC designs which MAY improve the damage done. The cookie cutter designs have never been used much in the field, but are likely, in my mind, to show a significant improvement in damage done.

As DocGKR points out in his very well done analysis - As Fackler states in the International Defense Review “Handgun Bullet Performance”,
“Provided that the first priority of adequate penetration is met, the bullet that makes the
largest hole is most likely to produce reliable good results.” -

the question becomes what is adaquate penetration and how can we best meet the largest diameter at that depth. The first question is open to MUCH argument and often overshadow's the second. My evidence from all the data and analysis I have seen is that it matters little if we use a small fast bullet or a large slow one (or even a large fast one) and many other parts of the equation are MUCH more important (but since it is part of my interest, I keep looking at this :-). I think it is far more important to find a pistol that you shoot well and select the best round for your caliber than to worry about caliber. If you can only use HB, the importance goes up a little - but not a lot -

Shoot straight and stay safe,

posted 03-22-2001 02:02            

P.S. Benjamin, be more civil than your stranger on the internet comments, I would bet even money that DocGKR and Duncan MacPherson have met or corresponded professionally on the subject of terminal ballistics.

I apologize for my ambiguous prose. When I wrote "stranger on the Internet" I was referring to me, not DocGKR. One could not be a reader of the IWBA's journal, "Wound Ballistics Review," without being familiar with DocGKR's wound ballistics work. Finally, I wasn't aware any argument was being made. I simply attempted to quantify the hit probability percentage increase afforded by moving from the 9mm FMJ to .45 ACP FMJ. Whether the hit probability percentage increase of a larger caliber justifies the resultant increase in free recoil energy is largely a personal decision. In any best caliber analysis, "other factors" would need to be assessed as well--e.g., barrier penetration, psychological factors, the Thompson-LaGarde tests, and so forth.

posted 03-23-2001 02:59            

The calculations discussed above are probably too simplistic to be relied upon to accurately model the projectile tissue-interaction.

It is true that round nose bullets, like FMJ’s, tend to push tissue aside without efficiently cutting the tissue—this includes some JHP designs. Federal Hydroshok, for example, tends to deform with rounded edges.

Other bullet designs are more effective at cutting tissue. As an example, the old Black Talon and newer Ranger Talon bullets by Winchester generally have very sharp edges when deformed and are effective at cutting tissue, rather than just pushing it aside. As noted above, another very effective bullet for cutting tissue is a FULL wadcutter bullet designed with a very sharp leading edge. This is indeed a “cookie cutter" and is an excellent choice for defensive purposes. You may wish to review Dr. Fackler’s comments on full wadcutters in the IWBA “Wound Ballistic Review”. Fall 1999, Vol 4 #2, pg 6-7.

As noted before, terminal ballistic performance is less important than psychological motivation, proper training, and weapons system reliability. Despite all of the “controversy”, adequate penetration depth is easy to determine—just assess the depth necessary to consistently reach the aorta, heart, and other large blood vessels and organs in the torso from any angle, including through a shoulder or arm in an adult male. Statistically, this is at a minimum 10” and with more certainty 12”.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I have used many different caliber handguns while on duty. When assessing the full spectrum of performance requirements of handgun ammunition, my personal choice is to use a .38 sp for backup and either a .40 S&W or.45 ACP as a duty handgun. It is good advice to never trust a stranger’s opinion—online, in a gun magazine, at a shooting school, or wherever when your life or the life of your personnel is at stake. Please do your own research, assess your needs, and come to your own conclusions based on scientific facts and your mission requirements.

posted 03-23-2001 11:46            

FMJ that functions reliably in that particular pistol.

Aim for the eyes.

Save money to buy small titanium .38 sp revolver.

posted 03-23-2001 23:57            

I was not trying to argue that the .45ACP was n% better, just trying to explain that the rationale was a cylinder of damage, not missing or hitting because of a difference in diameters.

Benjamin, after rereading your post, I see that your follow-up interpretation of stranger was the more likely meaning...I apologize.

posted 06-01-2001 20:28               

The better loads aren't always the newest "designer/premium" bullets either. The original Win 180 JHP looked good, held it's own at 3m and 50m. Looked better than the 155/165 HS and 180 SF/GD for example. From 94, maybe the newer more expensive stuff is "better"?

I wonder if the INS/BP could do better in their new compact USPs than the 155 Rem/Fed JHP? Would the 180s be as good/better? Should be easier on the gun/shooter?

Has CHP tested the Speer 165 GD, the FBI's new duty load I hear?
------------------
Mike >>>>----->