Should I pay attention to muzzle energy? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Should I pay attention to muzzle energy?


KenB22
12-19-2009, 09:54
I think I know the 5 most important things about any encounter with a BG are placement, placement, expansion, placement and expansion. That is assuming you use a caliber you can shoot well and practice, practice, practice. What I am wondering if muzzle energy is something I should consider assuming I use a round that meets or exceeds the FBI protocol. My thinking is that if I were in a fistfight with Mike Tyson, a blow to my head may well kill me. However, if he tapped me on the shoulder I'd be OK for a short while before I cried like a baby. If he really hit me on the shoulder, it may not kill me but it sure would make it hard for me to keep going in the short term. Is this analogous to muzzle energy. IF I ever had to draw, I'm interested in having my non-CNS hits be more like a punch, not a tap from Tyson. For example only, the muzzle energy for a 165 grain .40 round is greater than a 185 grain round. If I were to miss the CNS and hit someone with a 165 grain round, would that have more "punch" at the receiving end or are there just too many variables to make this a consideration. I am normally a fan of the heaviest round for a caliber but this has me possibly rethinking things if ME is a factor

ajstrider
12-19-2009, 10:08
If you start thinking about energy, there is a lot more you need to consider than just the numbers. How much of that energy is going to be transferred and how fast will be transferred are two other great questions. A over penetrating bullet that passes through a target won't transfer all of its energy because of course, it is still flying out the other side with some energy! The faster the bullet travels, the faster it should transfer energy, also, the larger the frontal section of the bullet, the faster it should deliver energy.

It is one great big balance game and the choice of loads is a personal one.

KenB22
12-19-2009, 10:35
Thanks. I think with modern JPH from reputable manufacturers like speer, federal etc. , I'm not worried about overpenetration. I am assuming all of the energy is deposited in the target and not passed through. I was wondering if the difference in ME from different rounds and different calibers could be felt by the BG when hit with a non-CNS strike. I know adrenaline does strange things too and that may also be a reason why this is unknowable. I am questioning myself if I should shoot the lightest bullet I can for each caliber assuming the round passes the FBI tests. I know there are many light and fast rounds that have enormous ME but they are off the table because many of them don't pass the FBI protocol. Should I just shoot the heaviest rounds I can and practice and quit this mental gymnastics over ME?

JimBianchi
12-19-2009, 10:55
If you look at the 12 to 14 inch FBI recommend penetration standard, and do the math on the individual rounds that meet the standard, you will see many 350-400FPE round do very well.

BUT.... the all time one-stop champ (according to statistics) is still the 357MAG round doing 600-700FPE. I recently read the reason it was so effective has more to do with the fact for 10yrs there was no competition. Literally 90% departments in the US carried it for 10 or more years. As compared to now there are half a dozen great calibers, with the 40 leading the LE charge. Basically for ten years most bad guys were being killed with only one caliber. Those kind of numbers can skew the tally a bit. Also, Crime was at a near all time high when the 357 was carried extensively, as compared to now violent crime is at a near per capita low. (But the 24hr news cycle makes it seem worse than ever) Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)is a link with an accurate graph.

So energy is important, but as you know, shot placement is more important. Use one of the majors, with a modern bullet and practice practice practice.

(I carry HST 147 in my Kahr MK9 and my G26. My G30 is loaded with 13rds of WIN ranger 230grn. When (rarely) carry my Ruger Vaquero 357MAG, it is WIN SilverTips. Just because I have a few boxes from back in the day...)

vanilla_gorilla
12-23-2009, 04:19
To quote a wise man, "Penetration is king, expansion is queen, and everything else is angels dancing on the heads of pins."

beforeobamabans
12-23-2009, 05:29
Welcome to GT. There is an awful lot of water over this dam here at GT. I know because I've read many and participated in a few of the threads. The real vets here with interesting and informed positions have already aired their experience and thinking on this subject so many times that they tire of the fight. So, try the search function--you'll find more interesting and entertaining reading than you can stand.

IndyGunFreak
12-23-2009, 06:04
I think I know the 5 most important things about any encounter with a BG are placement, placement, expansion, placement and expansion. That is assuming you use a caliber you can shoot well and practice, practice, practice. What I am wondering if muzzle energy is something I should consider assuming I use a round that meets or exceeds the FBI protocol. My thinking is that if I were in a fistfight with Mike Tyson, a blow to my head may well kill me. However, if he tapped me on the shoulder I'd be OK for a short while before I cried like a baby. If he really hit me on the shoulder, it may not kill me but it sure would make it hard for me to keep going in the short term. Is this analogous to muzzle energy. IF I ever had to draw, I'm interested in having my non-CNS hits be more like a punch, not a tap from Tyson. For example only, the muzzle energy for a 165 grain .40 round is greater than a 185 grain round. If I were to miss the CNS and hit someone with a 165 grain round, would that have more "punch" at the receiving end or are there just too many variables to make this a consideration. I am normally a fan of the heaviest round for a caliber but this has me possibly rethinking things if ME is a factor

In my opinion, ME is pretty close to the most irrelevant figure there is for Self Defense ammo...

Reason? Most of the really high muzzle energy producers, do not penetrate as well, due to the rapid energy dump. There are exceptions of course, the .357mag and the 10mm among them... however these rounds have a fair bit of thump to them. Using the 9mm as an example, a lot of the rounds with really high energy numbers, are the 115's. These bullets do not penetrate as well as the 124/147's, and in some cases have shown to fragment badly...

Its all about what you value... Personally, I value Placement and Penetration over all other factors. If I can put the round where I want it, and it penetrates reasonably well, I don't care about ME, or to a lesser extent, expansion. The nice thing about a round that expands well, is there's a pretty good chance it is not going to over penetrate on the intended target and hit an innocent bystander.

IGF

Brucev
12-23-2009, 07:29
To quote a wise man, "Penetration is king, expansion is queen, and everything else is angels dancing on the heads of pins."

100% agree!

MSgt Dotson
12-23-2009, 07:58
ME will be higher with higher velocities (significantly so, do the (velocity x velocity) component in computing ME), but, this will not necessarily be significant in a personal defense round unless said energy/velocity results in increased expansion/penetration. Beyond a certain point, (approx 400-500 ft lbs), odds are that increasing the velocity even further merely results in an 'shoot thru'.

Most 180 gr JHp rounds are preferred over 165 gr rounds for the .40, IMO...

KenB22
12-23-2009, 15:22
Thanks to all. I'll stick to heavy for caliber for penetration assuming the round passses FBI recommendations.

481
12-23-2009, 15:44
Thanks to all. I'll stick to heavy for caliber for penetration assuming the round passses FBI recommendations.

I would encourage you to obtain and read, "Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma" by Duncan MacPherson. It is hard to find, but well worth the effort to locate and will provide the insight necessary for making an informed decision on which ammunition to chose and to carry. MacPherson performed all of his own research, analyzed and interpreted the results and came up some authoritative mathematical models that redefine how bullet performance should be considered.

It is a bit "heavy" on math (the Calculus) for those not so inclined, but it is also written so that you can "read through" those sections that are more than what you wanna deal with in the way of math and still get a good grasp of what MacPherson has to say on the matter.

fredj338
12-23-2009, 16:32
IF I ever had to draw, I'm interested in having my non-CNS hits be more like a punch, not a tap from Tyson. For example only, the muzzle energy for a 165 grain .40 round is greater than a 185 grain round. If I were to miss the CNS and hit someone with a 165 grain round, would that have more "punch" at the receiving end or are there just too many
The diff between the ME of either is less than what the variation from round to round would be in a box of given ammo. When you start doubleing energy, like 41mags, 44mags etc. w/ the right bullet selection, then ME starts to show up on your target.

bfg1971
12-23-2009, 16:47
If the ammo already meets FBI specs then the only reason to consider muzzle energy would be if you were going to put your finger in front of the muzzle. :supergrin:

My preferred round expands more than 2x original and penetrates about 16 inches. The muzzle energy was the last thing I looked at when deciding on my loading.

PghJim
12-23-2009, 17:44
I will tell you this, with in the limitations of the settlement agreement. I was accidentaly shot with a 40 S&W 135 gr factory round rated at over 1300 fps. I think that carrys some energy, and according to charts is a pretty good stopper. When the gun went off, the bullet enter the left breast pocket of my sports jacket, and hit an expensive Parker pen in the inside pocket. The bullet bent the steel refill cartridge and angled down and enter my body just below my left lung. It damaged my large intestine and exited out the back with an exit wound the size of a quarter. Hear is the strange thing. I remember seeing and hearing the gun go off and thinking to myself how lucky I was that I was not hit. I did not feel a thing and it was not until I looked down at my shirt that I noticed blood. I felt no pain until I was in the Life Flight Helocopter.

If there is one lessen I learned, is that shot placement is the most important thing

JohnKSa
12-23-2009, 19:17
When comparing two generally similar loadings you can think of energy as being a measure of the potential of a particular loading to cause damage. Just keep in mind that there are a myriad of circumstances that can result in a round not living up to its potential. Poor placement and insufficient penetration are the two main flies in the ointment.

Getting wrapped up in numerical attempts to quantify the overall performance of various loadings is unproductive if your motives are primarily practical. If you just want results, buy several types of premium self-defense loadings in a caliber that will reliably expand and penetrate at least 12". Then test them to see which one works best in your gun, is the most accurate and that you can shoot the best.

Then find a practice round that duplicates the "feel" of your self-defense round and practice a lot.

On the other hand, if you just like discussing the intricacies of projectile performance then that's a different story. :supergrin:

KenB22
12-23-2009, 19:56
Thanks. Not into overthinking things if I can help it. I'll get McPherson's book and read it to educate myself. Then I'll pick a round my gun shoots well and practice to improve placement.

MTS532
01-18-2010, 14:10
"Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma" by Duncan MacPherson. It is hard to find, but well worth the effort to locate and will provide the insight necessary for making an informed decision on which ammunition to chose and to carry. MacPherson performed all of his own research, analyzed and interpreted the results and came up some authoritative mathematical models that redefine how bullet performance should be considered.


It's not hard to find here:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm

Snowman92D
01-18-2010, 15:51
To quote a wise man, "Penetration is king, expansion is queen, and everything else is angels dancing on the heads of pins."

Which "wise man" said that?

mitchshrader
01-18-2010, 16:13
I don't have a clue what your research will illuminate, but I'll agree that heavy for caliber bullets make deeper holes. I want that result and intend to continue using said heavy bullets.

I happen to believe they are usually more accurate as well, and I can't offer proof of that either.

uz2bUSMC
01-18-2010, 18:21
If you look at the 12 to 14 inch FBI recommend penetration standard, and do the math on the individual rounds that meet the standard, you will see many 350-400FPE round do very well.

BUT.... the all time one-stop champ (according to statistics) is still the 357MAG round doing 600-700FPE. reason it was so effective has more to do with the fact for 10yrs there wI recently read the as no competition. Literally 90% departments in the US carried it for 10 or more years. As compared to now there are half a dozen great calibers, with the 40 leading the LE charge. Basically for ten years most bad guys were being killed with only one caliber. Those kind of numbers can skew the tally a bit. Also, Crime was at a near all time high when the 357 was carried extensively, as compared to now violent crime is at a near per capita low. (But the 24hr news cycle makes it seem worse than ever) Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)is a link with an accurate graph.

So energy is important, but as you know, shot placement is more important. Use one of the majors, with a modern bullet and practice practice practice.

(I carry HST 147 in my Kahr MK9 and my G26. My G30 is loaded with 13rds of WIN ranger 230grn. When (rarely) carry my Ruger Vaquero 357MAG, it is WIN SilverTips. Just because I have a few boxes from back in the day...)

A one shot stop is a one shot stop.

. reason it was so effective has more to do with the fact for 10yrs there wI recently read the as no competition. Literally 90% departments in the US carried it for 10 or more years. As compared to now there are half a dozen great calibers, with the 40 leading the LE charge. Basically for ten years most bad guys were being killed with only one caliber. Those kind of numbers can skew the tally a bit

More shoots won't skew the numbers, it will give a more accurate representation of what the cartridge will do routinely. Being a great man stopper back then is the same as being a great manstopper today.

uz2bUSMC
01-18-2010, 18:23
I think I know the 5 most important things about any encounter with a BG are placement, placement, expansion, placement and expansion. That is assuming you use a caliber you can shoot well and practice, practice, practice. What I am wondering if muzzle energy is something I should consider assuming I use a round that meets or exceeds the FBI protocol. My thinking is that if I were in a fistfight with Mike Tyson, a blow to my head may well kill me. However, if he tapped me on the shoulder I'd be OK for a short while before I cried like a baby. If he really hit me on the shoulder, it may not kill me but it sure would make it hard for me to keep going in the short term. Is this analogous to muzzle energy. IF I ever had to draw, I'm interested in having my non-CNS hits be more like a punch, not a tap from Tyson. For example only, the muzzle energy for a 165 grain .40 round is greater than a 185 grain round. If I were to miss the CNS and hit someone with a 165 grain round, would that have more "punch" at the receiving end or are there just too many variables to make this a consideration. I am normally a fan of the heaviest round for a caliber but this has me possibly rethinking things if ME is a factor

Your analogy is one I have used here many times. Why hittem' soft when you can hittem' hard?!. If you have all the neccessary requirements down for cartridge selection, get the one dishin' out more umph.

uz2bUSMC
01-18-2010, 18:32
Its all about what you value... Personally, I value Placement and Penetration over all other factors. If I can put the round where I want it, and it penetrates reasonably well, I don't care about ME, or to a lesser extent, expansion.

Take what you said here and add energy as a free-bee. Energy doesn't have to be the primary quality of a cartridge. Penetration, expansion, bullet performance in a given media and thru hard barriers based on your own personal risk assessment is first... then energy. Why not have the added beni?

Glolt20-91
01-18-2010, 18:57
Duncan MacPherson's research;

As a result, the fallacies associated with the attempts to analyze WTI (wound trauma incapacitation) using energy relationships are openly discussed throughout the text. The assumption that bullet energy is of primary importance in WTI seems so natural that it is widely believed, and sometimes seems to assume the status of self evident truth. . . . The assumption that bullet energy is of primary importance in WTI creation by handgun bullet penetration is unequivocally wrong; those individuals who are willing to put aside their prejudices can understand why this is wrong.

For those who like to do backyard testing (steel plates/water bottles as an example) and handload, 9mm upper 1200s comparison between the 124gr Gold Dot and 125gr (357SIG) Gold Dot loaded with equal amounts of powder, will yield significantly different terminal results even though they share the same energy.

Bullet design/construction/application is typically more important than ME, based upon research.

Bob :cowboy:

Berto
01-18-2010, 19:14
Of the five things typically considered in a S/D round, ME ranks last.

Penetration
Expansion
Momentum
Bullet construction
Energy

481
01-18-2010, 20:08
For those who like to do backyard testing (steel plates/water bottles as an example) and handload, 9mm upper 1200s comparison between the 124gr Gold Dot and 125gr (357SIG) Gold Dot loaded with equal amounts of powder, will yield significantly different terminal results even though they share the same energy.

Bullet design/construction/application is typically more important than ME, based upon research.

Bob :cowboy:

Yep. Spot on.

MacPherson's research suggests conclusively, the use of the partial derivative of momentum, MV<SUP>0.600</SUP> , as the most congruent mathematical expression for modeling terminal performance.

K.E. and simple momentum based (first and second order models) expressions are out the door as neither represent terminal performance appropriately.

uz2bUSMC
01-18-2010, 20:55
Yep. Spot on.

MacPherson's research suggests conclusively, the use of the partial derivative of momentum, MV<SUP>0.600</SUP> , as the most congruent mathematical expression for modeling terminal performance.

K.E. and simple momentum based (first and second order models) expressions are out the door as neither represent terminal performance appropriately.

momentum is penetration, that's it. nothing special.

c5367
01-18-2010, 21:00
momentum is penetration, that's it. nothing special.

not really.

Momentum is only one factor in penetration, sectional density is another, bullet construction and shape are other factors as well. Momentum is only a part of the penetration equation.

uz2bUSMC
01-18-2010, 21:02
not really.

Momentum is only one factor in penetration, sectional density is another, bullet construction and shape are other factors as well. Momentum is only a part of the penetration equation.

Jeez, yea, no kidding. Sectional densiy is your caliber specific potential momentum, but thanks for the lecture.

c5367
01-18-2010, 21:08
Jeez, yea, no kidding. Sectional densiy is your caliber specific potential momentum, but thanks for the lecture.

You're welcome ;)

JohnKSa
01-18-2010, 21:20
Sectional densiy is your caliber specific potential momentumCould you explain this? I've never seen anything that equates sectional density to "potential momentum".

Momentum is a property of a moving object that is proportional to the product of the mass of the moving object and its velocity. It relates to how much force will be required to stop the moving object in a given amount of time.

Sectional density is a property of an object calculated by dividing the weight of the object by the diameter of the object. It relates to how "good" a projectile a given object will be without getting into the intricacies of form factor.

Momentum and sectional density are both individual factors in determining the penetration potential of a projectile but they are not equivalent in any sense.

uz2bUSMC
01-18-2010, 21:36
Could you explain this? I've never seen anything that equates sectional density to "potential momentum".

Momentum is a property of a moving object that is proportional to the product of the mass of the moving object and its velocity. It relates to how much force will be required to stop the moving object in a given amount of time.

Sectional density is a property of an object calculated by dividing the weight of the object by the diameter of the object. It relates to how "good" a projectile a given object will be without getting into the intricacies of form factor.

Momentum and sectional density are both individual factors in determining the penetration potential of a projectile but they are not equivalent in any sense.

Look at what you wrote... it's basically the same thing. If samantics is what your bothered over than, yes, they're different. I'll leave you with this... heavy bullets (for caliber) have good momentum, heavy bullets (for caliber) have high sectional density... hard barriers excluded (for the most part) penetration is dependant upon sectional density or "momentum". One's a fatass movin' thru media and one has a specific profile (sectional density) relative to weight- for size.

JohnKSa
01-18-2010, 23:13
It's true that they both relate to penetration potential, but they're not at all the same thing....heavy bullets (for caliber) have good momentum...A heavy for caliber bullet may or may not have "good" momentum. Momentum depends on velocity and if there's not much velocity the projectile won't have much momentum either....penetration is dependant upon sectional density...No, potential penetration is dependent on sectional density AND momentum (and other things). Or, I suppose you could say sectional density and velocity.

Sectional density has nothing to do with velocity but you won't get any penetration at all without velocity.

What you're saying is that because they both contribute to better penetration they're "basically the same thing". If that's true then "harder bullet material" is basically the same as "sectional density" and "momentum" since all else being equal a bullet with "harder bullet material" will deform less and provide better penetration.

The hardness of the bullet material used, bullet momentum and bullet sectional density are all factors (some of the factors) in determining penetration but that doesn't make them all "basically the same thing".

uz2bUSMC
01-19-2010, 19:34
It's true that they both relate to penetration potential, but they're not at all the same thing.A heavy for caliber bullet may or may not have "good" momentum. Momentum depends on velocity and if there's not much velocity the projectile won't have much momentum either.No, potential penetration is dependent on sectional density AND momentum (and other things). Or, I suppose you could say sectional density and velocity.

Sectional density has nothing to do with velocity but you won't get any penetration at all without velocity.

What you're saying is that because they both contribute to better penetration they're "basically the same thing". If that's true then "harder bullet material" is basically the same as "sectional density" and "momentum" since all else being equal a bullet with "harder bullet material" will deform less and provide better penetration.

The hardness of the bullet material used, bullet momentum and bullet sectional density are all factors (some of the factors) in determining penetration but that doesn't make them all "basically the same thing".

Damnit man, you're going to make me work, I guess. Well I'm not gonna tonight, but I will say that your not allowed to cheat with "bullet material" being the same as "sectional density". Sectional density is math, hardness is proven dynamically.

481
01-19-2010, 19:45
MacPherson's research suggests conclusively, the use of the partial derivative of momentum, MV<SUP>0.600</SUP> , as the most congruent mathematical expression for modeling terminal performance.

K.E. and simple momentum based (first and second order models) expressions are out the door as neither represent terminal performance appropriately.

momentum is penetration, that's it. nothing special.

Of course it is, but that was not what was being conveyed above.

If you don't understand the mathematical modeling and its implications, that's cool.

uz2bUSMC
01-19-2010, 20:20
Of course it is, but that was not what was being conveyed above.


If you don't understand enlish, that's cool.

uz2bUSMC
01-19-2010, 20:21
My bad... I forgor to add " and it's implications"

CanyonMan
01-19-2010, 20:33
The diff between the ME of either is less than what the variation from round to round would be in a box of given ammo. When you start doubleing energy, like 41mags, 44mags etc. w/ the right bullet selection, then ME starts to show up on your target.



Hey Fred, Mi Amigo.... Right on from a guy out there shooting them and doing it. I agree..


God bless ya Man
Drop me a line when ya can.




CanyonMan

JohnKSa
01-19-2010, 21:41
...I will say that your not allowed to cheat with "bullet material" being the same as "sectional density". Sectional density is math, hardness is proven dynamically.I don't know what distinction you're trying to make between "math" and "proven dynamically", but all of the quantities discussed require both math and also must be proven dynamically.

Momentum is proven dynamically in that you can't calculate momentum without measuring velocity and that must be done dynamically. Once you have the two quantities you can use math to calculate the momentum.

Sectional density is calculated with math, but it's measured just like momentum is. You weigh the object (just as you weigh the object to determine momentum) and then you measure the diameter just as you measure the velocity to determine momentum.

Hardness is measured via deforming the object in a controlled fashion with a special tool and the result is provided via a calculation incorporated into the hardness measuring tool.

There are a lot of factors that figure into determining penetration but that doesn't mean that they're all "basically the same". They all tell you slightly different things about the projectile and allow you to make comparisons to other projectiles or even, if you know all the factors and how they relate, to estimate the penetration of a given projectile vs. just comparing it to other projectiles.

Sectional density tells you about the projectile's ratio of weight to frontal area. That tells you that given the same velocity and two similar projectiles, the projectile with the higher sectional density will penetrate more since it will use its momentum more effectively by not having to push as much material out of the way. Without knowing momentum (or velocity) and the hardness of the bullet you can't say much about the actual penetration, you can only compare the likely penetration of two very similar projectiles.

Momentum tells you how much force will be required to stop a moving projectile in a given amount of time. You can't simply compare momentum to determine penetration unless you know about the sectional density and the hardness of the two projectiles being compared. For example, a very soft bullet won't penetrate very well even with a lot of momentum while a very hard bullet might penetrate extremely well even with relatively small amount of momentum.

Bullet hardness gives you a feel for how much of the bullet's momentum will be used in penetration instead of being used to deform the bullet. It also lets you know if the sectional density of the bullet will remain relatively constant as it penetrates. Without knowing the momentum and sectional density you can't use bullet hardness to determine actual penetration depths, you can only compare projectiles with very similar sectional densities and momentums to get a rough idea of which one will penetrate deepest.

cyriaque
01-19-2010, 22:03
Anecdotal from a nurse i work with who used to work in the ER in the charity hospital in Baton Rouge...one of the most damaging rounds was the .22. For what it's worth...

481
01-19-2010, 22:05
If you don't understand enlish, that's cool.

enlish? Do you mean English?

My bad... I forgor to add " and it's implications"

Now that's just pathetic. :shame:

If you wish for such commentary to be taken seriously, perhaps you should make the effort to spell correctly the words that you use to make that commentary.

Mrs_Esterhouse
01-19-2010, 22:28
enlish? Do you mean English?



Now that's just pathetic. :shame:

If you wish for such commentary to be taken seriously, perhaps you should make the effort to spell correctly the words that you use to make that commentary.

:rofl::uglylol:

481
01-19-2010, 22:34
:rofl::uglylol:

:)


BTW, excellent avatar! Always makes me smile when I see it.

easyg
01-20-2010, 09:08
Should I pay attention to muzzle energy?

YES!

While muzzle energy certainly isn't the only factor to consider, it clearly cannot be discounted.

After all, consider this:

A squib round has virtually no muzzle energy, and so it cannot even get out of the barrel.
And squib rounds make lousy self defense rounds regardless of all other factors (handgun choice, caliber, bullet design, bullet weight, target composition, etc...)

Glolt20-91
01-20-2010, 13:08
YES!

While muzzle energy certainly isn't the only factor to consider, it clearly cannot be discounted.

After all, consider this:

A squib round has virtually no muzzle energy, and so it cannot even get out of the barrel.
And squib rounds make lousy self defense rounds regardless of all other factors (handgun choice, caliber, bullet design, bullet weight, target composition, etc...)

Another first, are you writing about squib load velocities in which the bullet exits or gets stuck in the barrel?

Bob :cowboy:

easyg
01-20-2010, 13:23
Another first, are you writing about squib load velocities in which the bullet exits or gets stuck in the barrel?

Bob :cowboy:
When it comes to bullets, no energy = no velocity.

There's just no getting around it....energy matters.

uz2bUSMC
01-20-2010, 18:09
enlish? Do you mean English?



Now that's just pathetic. :shame:

If you wish for such commentary to be taken seriously, perhaps you should make the effort to spell correctly the words that you use to make that commentary.

Nah, I don't really care about my responses to you enough to spell check.

481
01-20-2010, 18:38
Nah, I don't really care about my responses to you enough to spell check.

Well, imagine that. We've finally discovered something that you and I can agree upon.

Neither of us care very much about your responses. :cool:

Danzig
01-22-2010, 08:16
:wavey:

TwinFourFives
01-23-2010, 13:05
Shot placement, penetration, repeat until you quit shooting. Expansion means nothing if the bullet can't get deep in there. I don't know the theory behind dumping energy in the target, sounds quite silly. You might as well just sock them with your fist if you want to dump energy. That won't stop a fight. A little 9mm or 45 wont be able to throw anyone back by dumping all their energy in the torso. If the hit hurts bad enough they may fall down in pain.

You know what packs alot more energy than a handgun? A volvo going 2 mph. :tongueout:

uz2bUSMC
01-24-2010, 09:19
I don't know what distinction you're trying to make between "math" and "proven dynamically", but all of the quantities discussed require both math and also must be proven dynamically. Bullet hardness was what I was reffering to in regards to dynamic. You can figure sectional density while a bullet is lying still, how the bullet will hold up in various medias is a bit different.

Momentum is proven dynamically in that you can't calculate momentum without measuring velocity and that must be done dynamically. Once you have the two quantities you can use math to calculate the momentum.

Sectional density is calculated with math, but it's measured just like momentum is. You weigh the object (just as you weigh the object to determine momentum) and then you measure the diameter just as you measure the velocity to determine momentum.

Hardness is measured via deforming the object in a controlled fashion with a special tool and the result is provided via a calculation incorporated into the hardness measuring tool.

There are a lot of factors that figure into determining penetration but that doesn't mean that they're all "basically the same". They all tell you slightly different things about the projectile and allow you to make comparisons to other projectiles or even, if you know all the factors and how they relate, to estimate the penetration of a given projectile vs. just comparing it to other projectiles. Didn't say all factors were basically the same thing

Sectional density tells you about the projectile's ratio of weight to frontal area. That tells you that given the same velocity and two similar projectiles, the projectile with the higher sectional density will penetrate more since it will use its momentum more effectively by not having to push as much material out of the way. Without knowing momentum (or velocity) and the hardness of the bullet you can't say much about the actual penetration, you can only compare the likely penetration of two very similar projectiles.

Momentum tells you how much force will be required to stop a moving projectile in a given amount of time. You can't simply compare momentum to determine penetration unless you know about the sectional density and the hardness of the two projectiles being compared. For example, a very soft bullet won't penetrate very well even with a lot of momentum while a very hard bullet might penetrate extremely well even with relatively small amount of momentum.

Bullet hardness gives you a feel for how much of the bullet's momentum will be used in penetration instead of being used to deform the bullet. It also lets you know if the sectional density of the bullet will remain relatively constant as it penetrates. Without knowing the momentum and sectional density you can't use bullet hardness to determine actual penetration depths, you can only compare projectiles with very similar sectional densities and momentums to get a rough idea of which one will penetrate deepest.I'm trying to figure your point for this last paragraph, not to be rude, but I don't know why you've put this here. It's true, yes, but :headscratch:

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, been busy. Mybe you can get me back on track with our particular debate and it's direction.

beforeobamabans
01-24-2010, 09:57
Well, I'll admit I don't have the math background to even participate in this discussion but allow me to interject a common sense question.

A human body is only so thick. Yes, it has a miraculous variety of materials within that will obviously have differing and entirely unpredictable effects on any bullet's path and penetration. Some here are so concerned about penetration that they will forego all the great expansion technology in today's premium JHPs and simply load FMJs. Like many on this forum, I love the looks of the Ranger-T and HST when they expand. Common sense tells you that the larger diameter and irregular shape of these hollow points will create much more damage than an aerodynamic FMJ zipping through everything. So, the issue for me is: Do the modern JHPs have adequate penetration? If the answer is "yes", then all the LEs and civvys who carry these rounds are smart to use the latest technology to their advantage. If the answer is "no", then we've all been duped by the ammo manufacturers and most of us are in big trouble if we ever need to use our weapons.

So, the bottom line (at least for me) is: Has anyone proven that HST and Ranger-T do not adequately penetrate? 'Adequately penetrate' (for me) is defined as penetrate deep enough to destroy any organ in its path. Let's see some authoritative examples. Please, if I'm carrying ineffective rounds, I want to know.

DocKWL
01-24-2010, 12:05
Well, I'll admit I don't have the math background to even participate in this discussion but allow me to interject a common sense question.

A human body is only so thick. Yes, it has a miraculous variety of materials within that will obviously have differing and entirely unpredictable effects on any bullet's path and penetration. Some here are so concerned about penetration that they will forego all the great expansion technology in today's premium JHPs and simply load FMJs. Like many on this forum, I love the looks of the Ranger-T and HST when they expand. Common sense tells you that the larger diameter and irregular shape of these hollow points will create much more damage than an aerodynamic FMJ zipping through everything. So, the issue for me is: Do the modern JHPs have adequate penetration? If the answer is "yes", then all the LEs and civvys who carry these rounds are smart to use the latest technology to their advantage. If the answer is "no", then we've all been duped by the ammo manufacturers and most of us are in big trouble if we ever need to use our weapons.

So, the bottom line (at least for me) is: Has anyone proven that HST and Ranger-T do not adequately penetrate? 'Adequately penetrate' (for me) is defined as penetrate deep enough to destroy any organ in its path. Let's see some authoritative examples. Please, if I'm carrying ineffective rounds, I want to know.

You are overlooking one fundamental principle; you can not predict the situation you will find yourself in when you need your weapon. Yes, with an unobstructed and full frontal shot, an HP bullet will (on average) have adequete penetration. Will that shot always be available?

JohnKSa
01-24-2010, 21:26
uz2bUSMC,

Sectional density, momentum and projectile hardness are all factors that relate to penetration. The point of the last paragraph (the last three paragraphs actually) was relating those three factors to penetration but showing how each one differs from the others and why you need to know all three factors (and really others too) in order to really begin to be able to predict penetration.

You made the comment that momentum and sectional density are basically the same thing.

The point is that while sectional density, momentum and projectile hardness are all factors that relate to penetration none of the factors are "basically the same" as any of the other factors.

beforeobamabans
01-25-2010, 09:31
You are overlooking one fundamental principle; you can not predict the situation you will find yourself in when you need your weapon. Yes, with an unobstructed and full frontal shot, an HP bullet will (on average) have adequete penetration. Will that shot always be available?

Are you saying that HPs will only penetrate adequately with a full frontal shot? In other words, HPs are ineffective for most shots? What do you base this belief on?

Ak.Hiker
01-25-2010, 10:05
Hornady has an interesting formula to help with the selection of handgun and rifle ammo called a HITS calculator. Most of their loads have a number rating you can use to help with your selection. It does favor big bore heavy weight bullets. I noticed that the 230 grain 45 acp +P xtp load has a higher number rating than their 357 Magnum loads. It is higher than the light weight 180 grain 44 Magnum load as well. Howerver the 300 grain 44 Magnum XTP load has a rating that is more than double the 45 acp. The 200 grain 10 mm XTP has a higher rating than the 155 and 180 grain even though the lighter bullet loads produce more energy. It is pretty obvious that their formula gives a higher number rating for deep penetration and bullet size vs. energy numbers.

481
01-25-2010, 12:23
Hornady has an interesting formula to help with the selection of handgun and rifle ammo called a HITS calculator. Most of their loads have a number rating you can use to help with your selection. It does favor big bore heavy weight bullets. I noticed that the 230 grain 45 acp +P xtp load has a higher number rating than their 357 Magnum loads. It is higher than the light weight 180 grain 44 Magnum load as well. Howerver the 300 grain 44 Magnum XTP load has a rating that is more than double the 45 acp. The 200 grain 10 mm XTP has a higher rating than the 155 and 180 grain even though the lighter bullet loads produce more energy. It is pretty obvious that their formula gives a higher number rating for deep penetration and bullet size vs. energy numbers.

Hiker-

I've seen and experimented quite a bit with the Hornady HITS calculator and have come away largely unimpressed with it simply for the fact that the "points" used are apparently an arbitrary value system.

Hornady's HITS calculator harkens to the attempt made by Ed Matunas in the 1990s to quantify a similar concept with an equation that he named the "Optimum Game Weight" formula. His suggested formula had the merit of at least producing its numeric result, not in arbitrary "points", but in actual pounds of game weight applicable to the cartridge/bullet weight being considered.

Not knowing what "math" the folks at Hornady used other than the fact that the results seem to favor momentum, I cannot say that I would give much creedence to the numbers that it spits out and question its value in the role proposed.

While I am a "heavy for caliber" guy, any favorable impression I might have fades quickly when I consider the arbitrary "points" system used by the HITS calculator.

Thoughts?

Ak.Hiker
01-26-2010, 00:33
I am not sure how relative the HITS formula is when it comes to SD ammo. It does look like it may be useful for picking a hunting load. It really does favor heavy bullets with a larger diameter over the light high velocity loads. An example is the 125 grain XTP in 357 Magnum has a lower rating than the 357 Magnum loaded with the 158 grain XTP. For hunting game like deer I would go with the higher rated 158 grain load. Not so sure when picking a SD load. In most cases I do favor heavy bullets but not 100% of the time. Bullet construction would alter the numbers as well. At some point the load becomes to much for use as a SD load and really is a pure hunting load. I sure would not pick the high rated 300 grain 44 Magnum XTP for SD but it makes a good field load.

uz2bUSMC
01-26-2010, 20:43
uz2bUSMC,

Sectional density, momentum and projectile hardness are all factors that relate to penetration. The point of the last paragraph (the last three paragraphs actually) was relating those three factors to penetration but showing how each one differs from the others and why you need to know all three factors (and really others too) in order to really begin to be able to predict penetration.

You made the comment that momentum and sectional density are basically the same thing.

The point is that while sectional density, momentum and projectile hardness are all factors that relate to penetration none of the factors are "basically the same" as any of the other factors.

Alright, to be done with this. I never added "hardness" into my comment (in refference to "basically) and I'm aware of how this affects penetration. But, either way, the key point would be the key word "basically" not to be substituted for "exactly". Now when your specific about it, you're correct... they are not the same thing. I can see, however, that you view basically and exactly the same. And basically there are not really the same, either... but I'm not hellbent on making ultra specific comments... some things are just easier to say as generalized statements, ignore semantic difficulties, and move on.

JohnKSa
01-26-2010, 22:40
No, I know the difference between "basically the same" and "exactly the same".

Momentum and sectional density, while they both relate to penetration, are not basically the same thing. They are, in no way, shape or form the same.

Non-moving objects do not have momentum. They can NOT have momentum because momentum is a property of a moving object. On the other hand, a solid object has a sectional density whether it is moving or not.

Momentum does not depend on the shape of an object. It is dependent only on the mass and velocity of the object. Sectional density depends on the shape (frontal area) of an object and on the weight of the object.

A moving object in zero gravity still has momentum because momentum is dependent on mass, not weight. The sectional density of object in zero gravity is not defined because sectional density is defined in terms of weight, not mass.

The two things are not the same. Not basically the same, not exactly the same, not practically the same, they are not similar, they are not the same by any stretch, not sort of of the same, not close to the same, not at all the same.

They are both (along with other factors) factors related to penetration but that does not make them basically the same.

uz2bUSMC
01-26-2010, 23:10
No, I know the difference between "basically the same" and "exactly the same".

Momentum and sectional density, while they both relate to penetration, are not basically the same thing. They are, in no way, shape or form the same.

Non-moving objects do not have momentum. They can NOT have momentum because momentum is a property of a moving object. On the other hand, a solid object has a sectional density whether it is moving or not.

Momentum does not depend on the shape of an object. It is dependent only on the mass and velocity of the object. Sectional density depends on the shape (frontal area) of an object and on the weight of the object.

A moving object in zero gravity still has momentum because momentum is dependent on mass, not weight. The sectional density of object in zero gravity is not defined because sectional density is defined in terms of weight, not mass.

The two things are not the same. Not basically the same, not exactly the same, not practically the same, they are not similar, they are not the same by any stretch, not sort of of the same, not close to the same, not at all the same.

They are both (along with other factors) factors related to penetration but that does not make them basically the same.

Bro, just nevermind. My point is lost on you. Sorry, I don't really jive well with matter of fackly dudes like you. Nuff said.

Glolt20-91
01-26-2010, 23:52
No, I know the difference between "basically the same" and "exactly the same".

Momentum and sectional density, while they both relate to penetration, are not basically the same thing. They are, in no way, shape or form the same.

Non-moving objects do not have momentum. They can NOT have momentum because momentum is a property of a moving object. On the other hand, a solid object has a sectional density whether it is moving or not.

Momentum does not depend on the shape of an object. It is dependent only on the mass and velocity of the object. Sectional density depends on the shape (frontal area) of an object and on the weight of the object.

A moving object in zero gravity still has momentum because momentum is dependent on mass, not weight. The sectional density of object in zero gravity is not defined because sectional density is defined in terms of weight, not mass.

The two things are not the same. Not basically the same, not exactly the same, not practically the same, they are not similar, they are not the same by any stretch, not sort of of the same, not close to the same, not at all the same.

They are both (along with other factors) factors related to penetration but that does not make them basically the same.

Does this mean potential energy isn't derived from sectional density??? :rofl:

Bob :cowboy: :supergrin:

PghJim
01-27-2010, 06:05
I should not have stayed away from this thread for so long. It is a good physics lesson, but I am not really sure it answers the question about the importance of muzzle energy. People have been trying to mathamatically calculate the best bullet for self defense for many years, with limited success. Even real world test such as the FBI protocol falls a little short, in that a round like the 125gr. 357 magnum does not fair that well in these tests, but I would not hesitate to carry it. The point is that muzzel energy can make a difference, particularly when you get over 1300 fpe. At PD handgun velocity it is only a factor. Bullets like the Federal 230 gr 45 Hydra Shock (sp) do not have that great of muzzel energy but a 96% one shot stop effectiveness when fire out of a long enough barrel. I carry the CorBon 125 gr JHP in 357 sig. it has high ME, which also mean for a 125 bullet, high velocity, but limited penatration. I do not think it would pass the EPA protocol. However, it is the only thing I have found below big magnum calibers that has real effectiveness on things I have shot. There is little street data on it, but I feel good with it. The Border Patrol, who gets into armed conflict probably more than other agencies believe that 10" of penatration is enough. The bottom line, as you have been saying is that there are many variables that will effect a bullets effectiveness and your selection of a round will depend on the situations you will find yourself in. After all is not that why us geeks hang around caliber corner.

uz2bUSMC
01-27-2010, 07:18
PghJIM wrote:

The point is that muzzel energy can make a difference, particularly when you get over 1300 fpe.

Bullet construction matters more. 1300 means little if the bullet just zips right through the body.

PghJim
01-27-2010, 11:08
Bullet construction matters more. 1300 means little if the bullet just zips right through the body.

That is the muzzle energy of a 55gr 5.56 FMJ.

uz2bUSMC
01-27-2010, 11:31
That is the muzzle energy of a 55gr 5.56 FMJ.

I know. But none the less, it matters more about the construct of the bullet. It's here nor there one what calibers have 1300fpe of energy if they cannot impart that upon there target.

Eagle22
01-27-2010, 12:16
I know. But none the less, it matters more about the construct of the bullet. It's here nor there one what calibers have 1300fpe of energy if they cannot impart that upon there target.

Is this where the bullet will enter as a nice small hole, and blow a big hole and body chunks out the other side, AND KEEP ON going.

vs a HP that will enter a body, expand and transfer energy and stop. Not hitting some one on the other side of the BG ?

bfg1971
01-27-2010, 15:06
Is this where the bullet will enter as a nice small hole, and blow a big hole and body chunks out the other side, AND KEEP ON going.

vs a HP that will enter a body, expand and transfer energy and stop. Not hitting some one on the other side of the BG ?

50BMG in FMJ will do the former.

50BMG frangible will do the later.

50BMG HEAPI Will do all the above and then some.

uz2bUSMC
01-27-2010, 15:20
Is this where the bullet will enter as a nice small hole, and blow a big hole and body chunks out the other side, AND KEEP ON going.

vs a HP that will enter a body, expand and transfer energy and stop. Not hitting some one on the other side of the BG ?

Or just keep on going without blowing big holes and body chucks out the other side.

vs a hollow point that may or may not exit, but hopefully have very little gas left if it does.

481
01-27-2010, 15:30
50BMG in FMJ will do the former.

50BMG frangible will do the later.

50BMG HEAPI Will do all the above and then some.

:)

Now try to conceal a firearm that is chambered for and will fire that ammunition. :animlol:

Then, and only then, will I be impressed