This struck me as well grounded and insightful, from people who know. I heard loud and clear that caliber is (within reason I'm sure) largely irrelevant now.

Most of my defensive HG ammunition is 147 9mm. Understanding that the engineers will alter the projectile design to perform optimally in whatever weight and velocity is selected, I'm wondering what the trade offs are in a lighter projectile like 115 or 124?

Thanks, an interesting video.
Again, though, and something I’ve seen ignored in most modern discussions about handgun terminal ballistics is the physiological, and perhaps even psychological effects of the different levels of energy that are transferred to the target by projectiles having different energy. They in essence state that all that matters is tissue damage and because it doesn’t differ among “calibers” then the amount of projectile energy doesn’t matter.

They do touch on it and say the additional energy is absorbed by the elasticity of the tissues, but then that’s evidently dismissed as unimportant. The example I’ve raised for a very long time in these discussions, would the effect on someone differ whether an old guy like me punched someone in the torso or it was a powerful professional boxer who did it? If in that situation we said that because the elasticity of the tissues absorb the energy and neither one produces any permanent tissue damage, the person punched would therefore not feel any difference or react any differently because the energy of the punches differed. Does any sensible person really believe that?

Another thing that the “caliber doesn’t matter” statement ignores is that it’s in direct contradiction to what they say about “crush” damage. If the amount of tissue a bullet impacts and damages or destroys is all that matters, then a larger diameter bullet that impacts more tissue would be better for that reason alone.

They make the valid point that the ability to shoot a cartridge well is more important than projectile energy, but I’m pretty sure than people in their positions aren’t about to tell defensive handgun users anything different than what those people have already come to believe to be true. I will also repeat what I stated in another thread recently: In the vast majority of defensive situations, just being shot at by any gun or cartridge will eliminate the threat, but not because of terminal ballistics.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Thanks, an interesting video.
Again, though, and something I’ve seen ignored in most modern discussions about handgun terminal ballistics is the physiological, and perhaps even psychological effects of the different levels of energy that are transferred to the target by projectiles having different energy. They in essence state that all that matters is tissue damage and because it doesn’t differ among “calibers” then the amount of projectile energy doesn’t matter.

They do touch on it and say the additional energy is absorbed by the elasticity of the tissues, but then that’s evidently dismissed as unimportant. The example I’ve raised for a very long time in these discussions, would the effect on someone differ whether an old guy like me punched someone in the torso or it was a powerful professional boxer who did it? If in that situation we said that because the elasticity of the tissues absorb the energy and neither one produces any permanent tissue damage, the person punched would therefore not feel any difference or react any differently because the energy of the punches differed. Does any sensible person really believe that?

I think there's obviously degrees to that, which I'm sure in conversation, these seemingly reasonable men would not argue against. But I think the big steps of importance they are trying to convey is that it's far less material than the ceaseless debate would lead one to believe. And that the projectile design in combination with a well engineering modern defensive cartridge will get you largely within the same range of effectiveness regardless of 9mm vs .40, vs .45. They see the raw data, and the defensive studies and post postmortems. They work with the FBI. I'm pretty well convinced. That's not to say a .45 is wrong in any way. But for a little guy like me, a 9mm with a 147gn HST might be better that some smokin hot .40.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Another thing that the “caliber doesn’t matter” statement ignores is that it’s in direct contradiction to what they say about “crush” damage. If the amount of tissue a bullet impacts and damages or destroys is all that matters, then a larger diameter bullet that impacts more tissue would be better for that reason alone.

Same line of thinking in my mind. It's not that it has absolutely no advantage, but that it's probably not as much as I'd believed some years ago.

Here’s my opinion about firearms and self defense, a continuum:

1. Being situationally aware and taking basic protective measures will defend against many, and perhaps most threats.

2. In an uncertain, “sketchy” situation, taking obvious notice of the threat will deter many threats.

3. If despite 1 and 2, someone approaches us in a possibly threatening manner, simply acting as if we’re armed and are aware of the threat, e.g., partially blading and reaching toward our strong side hip will deter many threats.

4. If the situation escalates to the point that drawing and displaying a gun—any gun—will deter most of the remaining threats.

5. If 4 isn’t effective and the situation warrants, firing a shot from any gun will deter almost all of the remaining threats. Warning or otherwise ineffective shots should not be deliberately fired for many reasons, but at this stage simply firing a shot will suffice.

6. If 5 isn’t effective, a hit with any projectile anywhere on the target’s body will deter all but a tiny fraction of remaining threats.

7. Only if the attacker is extremely and very unusually motivated to continue an assault will the location of the projectile impact and its terminal ballistics characteristics matter to the outcome, and they will matter even less if multiple hits are scored.

A real life example of the last, though, was the 1986 Miami “shootout” between the FBI and two murderous bank robbers. The one functional killer was armed with a Ruger Mini 14 and during the fight was hit by a bullet fired by one FBI agent who was armed with an S&W model 59 (4" barrel) and firing the Winchester 115 grain 9mm Luger Silvertip load. The bullet struck the BG in the arm, traveled through his biceps and into his chest. The bullet expanded (as designed) and stopped a couple of inches from his heart. Because the bullet didn’t perforate the heart, the conclusion was that that “failure” prevented his being stopped before he was able to kill two of the agents.

A couple of years after the incident I first tested the Silvertip load fired from an HK P7M13 pistol (105mm/4.13 inch barrel), and got a five shot velocity average of 1122 feet per second. Twenty years later I tested 25 rounds of the load from a SIG P229 (100mm/3.9" barrel) and got the exact same average: 1122 fps. For a 115 grain 9mm bullet that velocity is pretty wimpy, and is less than I’ve gotten from a heavier Speer Gold Dot 124 grain +P load fired from a significantly shorter 3.1" barrel P365.

At the time the FBI concluded that the two agents were probably killed because of the ballistic performance of the Silvertip load and initially switched to pistols chambered for the 10mm Auto cartridge.

So, why did they do that? Obviously because they believed that a more powerful projectile would have neutralized the BG sooner during the fight. The 115 grain ST load produced about 321 foot-pounds of energy; the 124 grain +P Gold Dot from my P365 produces about 350 ft-lb of kinetic energy; a 125 grain Gold Dot bullet from my 357 SIG P320 Carry model (3.9") produces about 540 ft-lb of energy and the 125 grain Tactical HST produces over 500 ft-lb. If the FBI thought that more energy would have been good to have had in 1986, would even a P365 with a different load have possibly been better? Do we really believe that “They’re all the same”?

I would surmise that in 40 years, ammunition designs have evolved significantly, and that these men are well informed on the subject. And while I don't believe they are all exactly "the same", I can believe that the performance differences are not as dramatic as I'd once believed.

To be fair -- as I'm a lot older than I tend to perceive myself as, -- when I originally formed my prior position, the 1986 event was very much still present-day.

As I opined, and will stress, in stages 1 through 6 above, any gun and ammunition—and sometimes no gun at all—will be sufficient to deter the vast majority of threats. And even at stage 7, it’s most important to have a gun one has confidence in and can shoot well. But I will point out that improvements in loads and bullets that have benefited the 9mm have benefited the other big three defensive autoloading pistol cartridges as well.

Plus something else I like to point out is that if the only goal of the FBI agent’s shot had been to punch a hole through the BG’s heart in that particular situation, a 124 grain FMJ ball round would have been much better for the job.

I don't disagree with you. I agree that larger calibers have benefited as well. All other variables controlled, more = better.

With respect to the FBI agent's goal. If it had been to punch a hole in that bad guys heart, hitting it would have been the best approach! Although, mea culpa, I'd probably have missed the entire bad guy under that stress load!

From your previous post:

quote:

The example I’ve raised for a very long time in these discussions, would the effect on someone differ whether an old guy like me punched someone in the torso or it was a powerful professional boxer who did it? If in that situation we said that because the elasticity of the tissues absorb the energy and neither one produces any permanent tissue damage, the person punched would therefore not feel any difference or react any differently because the energy of the punches differed. Does any sensible person really believe that?

This is an apples to watermelons comparison. Blunt trauma vs penetrating trauma. It’s not the same and I think you know that.

quote:

If the FBI thought that more energy would have been good to have had in 1986, would even a P365 with a different load have possibly been better? Do we really believe that “They’re all the same”?

In practical, ending a gunfight terms, yes.
Coroners and surgeons don’t find much difference between this load or that. I’ve seen enough autopsies in person to see that. They do find a HUGE difference in *what* was struck by the bullet.
As stated in the video, if 100 more fps made a difference they would do it. It just doesn’t matter in street applications for their pistol bullet designs.

I know for a fact that I can shoot 9mm faster and more accurately than I can 40 or 45acp. Competitions on a timer has proved that to me for quite some time.
I’ll stick to what I shoot best and fastest and let the “angels dancing on the head of a pin” arguments fall by the wayside.
Just my 2 cents and worth what you paid for it.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
This is an apples to watermelons comparison.

No, it’s not.

My example directly refers to the claim that the energy delivered to a person by a handgun projectile doesn’t make any difference to the terminal effects of the gunshot because it supposedly doesn’t cause any permanent damage.

Despite the fact that boxers’ punches usually do not cause any permanent damage, their effects can be very obvious even to uninvolved observers and they obviously vary directly with the energy they deliver. Strong punch: strong effects; weak punch: weaker effects. No sensible person would dispute that, and yet we’re supposed to believe that variations in firearms projectile energy delivered to and absorbed by a human body don’t matter as long as the energy is below a certain level—?

I will admit that if actual trauma is involved, there is a difference between blunt and penetrating trauma. That, however, makes the “it doesn’t matter” claim even less sensible, not more valid. If I run my belly into something like the end of an exposed 2x4 while stumbling around in the dark in my workshop, what absorbs most of the energy? The muscles of my abdomen, and what is one of their primary purposes? According to Copilot AI:

“Primary Purposes of Abdominal Muscles
“Protection of Internal Organs
“The abdominal muscles form a protective wall around vital organs like the intestines, liver, and stomach, shielding them from external impact.”

And why do vital internal organs need a higher level of protection than muscles like those in the abdomen? Because they’re literally more fragile and vulnerable to damage than external muscles. Once a projectile has penetrated beyond the muscle wall, the energy it continues to transfer will have more effect on sensitive organs than an external blunt impact, not less.

So yes, there is a difference between blunt and penetrating trauma, but not that the energy associated with penetrating trauma somehow has less effect than the energy of blunt trauma.

But as I keep saying, if I am ever shot, I hope it is by someone who believes that projectile power does not matter. I should therefore tell myself to not try to change any minds in these discussions.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
In practical, ending a gunfight terms, yes.
Coroners and surgeons don’t find much difference between this load or that... They do find a HUGE difference in *what* was struck by the bullet.

...

I know for a fact that I can shoot 9mm faster and more accurately than I can 40 or 45acp.

This was essentially the same conclusion of the 2014 FBI ballistic report which lead to them (and most of the LE community) switching back to 9mm.

https://www.gunnuts.net/wp-con...white-paper-2014.pdf

One more time: The difference between observable permanent damage and other effects of gunshots on human beings.

Way back when hollow point bullets started being used in handgun cartridge loadings, it became an issue du jour for the antigun/antipolice crowds. The claim was that they caused so much more (unnecessary) damage than traditional nonexpanding bullets that they were inhumane and should be prohibited for use by law enforcement officers.

At the time there was a forensic pathologist, Vincent DiMaio, who had conducted countless autopsies of gunshot victims, and wrote books on the subject. His statement about the permanent, observable effects of hollow point handgun cartridge bullets? There were none. At autopsy it wasn’t possible to determine whether a wound was caused by a nonexpanding or expanding bullet. Is that the view among professionals today? I don’t know; I imagine gunshots with nonexpanding handgun bullets are much less common than a half a century ago, but there are limits to what post mortem examinations can reveal about the immediate effects of phenomenon like that.

But as an old boss of mine liked to say, “You pays your money and you takes your chances.”

quote:

Once a projectile has penetrated beyond the muscle wall, the energy it continues to transfer will have more effect on sensitive organs than an external blunt impact, not less.
-
So yes, there is a difference between blunt and penetrating trauma, but not that the energy associated with penetrating trauma somehow has less effect than the energy of blunt trauma.

What??
Sensitive organ damage is what we are trying to achieve.
Unless you run at a full, all out sprint into your 2x4 and unless it penetrates it’s still blunt trauma. (and you need to check your recreation choices)
Once the protective muscle wall is penetrated, the organs start receiving direct damage…and it’s no longer blunt trauma, that’s penetrating.

If your example of a 125gr 357Sig introduced in ‘94 has more energy than a 115gr ST…well no shit.
So do a boat load more calibers. Including the current Fibbie load, the 135gr+P Hornady. A round I have never fired or chronographed. I still have a stash of 135gr+P HSTs that I would bet we’re in the running for that very contract.
They are ”warm”.
This is fully into the “angels dancing on the head of a pin” argument I was hoping to avoid.
As you said, you pays your money and you takes your chances.