Slushee question for June-July: Velocity v. Weight

[dcloudy777]

Hello esteemed TN gun owners, I'd like to start a new monthly discussion topic, to promote well, discussion, and get all of us thinking and expressing and bouncing information off of one another so we all get smarter. Massad Ayoob refererred to such debates as "Rolling Rock Topics", that is, he would gladly discuss them after whichever class he was teaching was over, and over a Rolling Rock beer. Well, I don't drink beer, but I do enjoy a cherry slushee now and again, so that's what I'll call my little contribution. This one's handgun related, but they may pop up in other forums if applicable. June is almost over, so I'll go ahead and make this one for June and July:

Which makes for a more effective defensive handgun load, slow heavy bullets or light fast ones?

I'm a pretty heavy, pretty fast fan myself, but that's cheating. Everybody knows that the 10mm ended this argument, but for the sake of discussion, we'll pretend like it didn't. What do you think??

[Donnie]

As you know, I'm not a real big fan of heavy bullets. I opt for the medium weight or light weight bullets for the particular gun that I'm getting bullets for. I feel like a light bullet will put the energy into an aggressor without overpenetration. It will also shoot flatter. I also believe that the faster speed might make the hollowpoint work better in a light bullet. Lighter bullets generally have less recoil as well. I have carried 200 grain +P .45 ACP, 155 grain .40, and 124 grain 9mm in the past year. The biggest thing is to put as many holes in as fast as you can in the right places until the threat stops.

Was that a Sonic Cherry Slush???

[molonlabetn]

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say that the projectiles compared must be measured to carry 500ft-lb of energy, at the muzzle... regardless of how this is accomplished.

Would a bowling ball thrown from a car going 38mph, or dropped from a 2-story building kill somebody?

You betcha!

will a 100gr projectile whizzing along at 1500fps do some serious damage?

Of course!

In practice, the construction and sectional density of the projectile itself will play a more significant role in its effectiveness than the combination of speed & weight used to achieve a specific energy level.

A 230gr .45 slug has nearly identical sectional density as 115gr 9mm... so it falls to reason that given similar velocity, they will achieve results proportional to their size. Since a 230gr .45 slug generally carries notably less velocity than a comperable 115gr 9mm slug in common chamberings, the results will tend to even out, with regard to the total amount of the target medium displaced.

[Donnie]

But what do you like??

Fast and light, or slow and heavy. With your fondness to .357 Sig, I would put you in the prior instead of the latter. Correct??

[molonlabetn]

But what do you like??

Fast and light, or slow and heavy. With your fondness to .357 Sig, I would put you in the prior instead of the latter. Correct??

I got so wrapped up in my little calculation that I forgot to interject that...

That's about right... I believe that soft-metal projectiles tend to expand more efficiently at higher velocities than at lower velocities, there are also advantages in terms of recoil and exponential kinetic energy bias towards faster projectiles.

But, I have no particular affinity for small projectiles, just as long as it is large enough to carry sufficient momentum into the target far enough to produce an effect... I guess I'm in the big and fast crowd...

But, for instance, if the FN Five-seveN's cartridge the 5.7x28, carried 500+ ft-lb of energy (instead of barely 300)... I would consider it a far more viable cartridge.

[dcloudy777]

Okay, no math in the August question..

[Donnie]

to get 500ft/lbs, a baseball would have to be thrown at approx. 205 mph.

So, a good major league pitcher flinging 100mph fastballs could do as much damage to you as a .32 ACP.

[molonlabetn]

to get 500ft/lbs, a baseball would have to be thrown at approx. 205 mph.

So, a good major league pitcher flinging 100mph fastballs could do as much damage to you as a .32 ACP.

Yep... now, imagine that instead of a baseball, he is throwing a .32" steel rod at 100mph, to compare using the same frontal area...

If I had to choose, I'd stand in front of the .32acp!

[Guest Len]

In practice, the construction and sectional density of the projectile itself will play a more significant role in its effectiveness than the combination of speed & weight used to achieve a specific energy level.

True. This is #2 reason why I don't lose much sleep carrying "only" a 9mm. Carry the proper ammo and it will do the job effectively. (#1 reason is that shot placement is more important still.)

[BimmerFreak]

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say that the projectiles compared must be measured to carry 500ft-lb of energy, at the muzzle... regardless of how this is accomplished.

Would a bowling ball thrown from a car going 38mph, or dropped from a 2-story building kill somebody?

You betcha!

will a 100gr projectile whizzing along at 1500fps do some serious damage?

Of course!

In practice, the construction and sectional density of the projectile itself will play a more significant role in its effectiveness than the combination of speed & weight used to achieve a specific energy level.

A 230gr .45 slug has nearly identical sectional density as 115gr 9mm... so it falls to reason that given similar velocity, they will achieve results proportional to their size. Since a 230gr .45 slug generally carries notably less velocity than a comperable 115gr 9mm slug in common chamberings, the results will tend to even out, with regard to the total amount of the target medium displaced.

I got so wrapped up in my little calculation that I forgot to interject that...

That's about right... I believe that soft-metal projectiles tend to expand more efficiently at higher velocities than at lower velocities, there are also advantages in terms of recoil and exponential kinetic energy bias towards faster projectiles.

But, I have no particular affinity for small projectiles, just as long as it is large enough to carry sufficient momentum into the target far enough to produce an effect... I guess I'm in the big and fast crowd...

But, for instance, if the FN Five-seveN's cartridge the 5.7x28, carried 500+ ft-lb of energy (instead of barely 300)... I would consider it a far more viable cartridge.

"Look at the big brain on Brad....!!!" (Pulp Fiction)

There goes Eddie breaking out the complex math on us (me) dumb grunts

Im a fan of BIG AND SLOW.

Why? Well, I guess its because im big and slow.

I may not be the first guy to the fight, but jesus, are you going to be in a bunch of pain once I get there!

[Donnie]

I hear ya Joe. I like things that I'm not.

I'm not light or fast.

[molonlabetn]

Ok, now for the ultimate test...

If you fired a 10lb bowling ball at 38mph, directly at a hot 9mm coming from the opposite direction, so that they intercepted one another head-on with equal energy... which one would 'win'?

What happens when a 350# linebacker hits a 200# running-back?

food for thought...

[Donnie]

I'm shooting the next person that I see carrying around a bowling ball.

[Guest Len]

First, I'd want to know where you got your aiming system so I could sell it to the missle defense people...

Ok, now for the ultimate test...

If you fired a 10lb bowling ball at 38mph, directly at a hot 9mm coming from the opposite direction, so that they intercepted one another head-on with equal energy... which one would 'win'?

What happens when a 350# linebacker hits a 200# running-back?

food for thought...

[molonlabetn]

First, I'd want to know where you got your aiming system so I could sell it to the missle defense people...

It's a secret...

[The Rabbi]

Oh no, it's "9mm vs .45" all over again! Die, thread, die!

[molonlabetn]

I dunno that it's so much about comparing the cartridges themselves, as it is a comparison of what the best mass/velocity combination might be... It's pretty academic that projectiles with similar combinations of kinetic energy and momentum will destroy similar amounts of tissue, albeit with different wound-track profiles which are determined by the variable frontal area (equalized by using expanding projectiles).

Once accepting that, it makes sense to conclude that from simply a terminal performance standpoint, a cartridge which is capable of producing more kinetic energy, more momentum, and launches a projectile with a larger surface area (assuming it still has sufficient sectional density to overcome the elasticity of the medium which it strikes), will produce a greater effect, given the same shot placement in relation to critical structures.

In terms of the cartridges given, the .45acp does do all of those things. The main advantage given by 9mm, and other smaller cartridges, is the ability of the platform used to avail a higher quantity of successive shots which may or may not be necessary depending of the effectiveness of the initial shot, and the precision of its placement by the user.

[dcloudy777]

Oh no, it's "9mm vs .45" all over again! Die, thread, die!

Yeah, I can see how this whole "discussion" thing could really ruin a good discussion forum. If you don't like it, don't read it... and certainly don't waste your precious time replying.

[molonlabetn]

I like orange cream-slushies...

[BimmerFreak]

I like orange cream-slushies...

Those ARE really good...put me down for one!

[The Rabbi]

This was a discussion at least as old as WW1. The result then was that the Thompson Sub was chambered in .45acp rather than 9mm. Col Fairbairn had some interesting things to say about .454 Webley and 7.63 Mauser. That was in the 1920s.

I really dont think a lot has changed. And the result is the same:

-Shot placement counts for far more than bullet weight or speed.

-Compatibility between the shooter and his caliber is more important than caliber itself.

-No one cartridge is a "death ray" guaranteed one stop shot.

Can anyone really add anything that isnt addressed substantively by these statements?

[dcloudy777]

Obviously people can... have you bothered to read some of the posts?

[molonlabetn]

This was a discussion at least as old as WW1. The result then was that the Thompson Sub was chambered in .45acp rather than 9mm. Col Fairbairn had some interesting things to say about .454 Webley and 7.63 Mauser. That was in the 1920s.

I really dont think a lot has changed. And the result is the same:

-Shot placement counts for far more than bullet weight or speed.

-Compatibility between the shooter and his caliber is more important than caliber itself.

-No one cartridge is a "death ray" guaranteed one stop shot.

Can anyone really add anything that isnt addressed substantively by these statements?

1: -"Shot placement counts for far more than bullet weight or speed."

This is true, however, many people take this ideology to the extreme... because, if we follow that logic to its ultimate conclusion, we'd all be carrying match-grade .22s. Precision is important, but once accomplished, these other issues of effectiveness are just as important, in order to stop the BG as quickly as possible.

2: -"Compatibility between the shooter and his caliber is more important than caliber itself."

This is also true, but that does not necessarily mean that a smaller, weaker gun/caliber will fit better than a larger, more powerful one...

3: -"No one cartridge is a "death ray" guaranteed one stop shot."

Of course! We're not arguing in absolutes here... effectiveness is a matter of degree. Some cartridges produce effects which come closer to 100% 'one-shot-stop' than others... (the 120mm main gun on an Abrams comes to mind)

On a much smaller scale, we are attempting to rank which qualities are likely to be most effective, from cartridges which are reasonable to launch from a hand-held platform... fully realizing that the 'death-ray' is still several years from coming to the civilian market.

I don't think we entirely disagree, but it is good to be open-minded about perceived superiority based on what some believe to be insignificant ballistic differences, all other variables not considered (since marksmanship is not uniform or predictable).

[dcloudy777]

The point is not to answer the question, or even to sway others toward your side of the argument. The object of the exercise is to promote discussion, get some thoughts and ideas moving back and forth, so we all get smarter. If you want tactical doctrine and weapon technology to stay stuck in the WWI era, belittling those who want to talk about it is a pretty good method.

DanO

[BimmerFreak]

I think what Dan is trying to do here is promote thought, discussion, and education.

He has commited to starting and moderating a monthly discussion on a gun related topic

Is that so bad?

We have members here with all different levels of experience and knowledge. These discussions will be a benifit to all that participate.

My suggestion to you;

If you know all the answers, feel free to share them.

If you want to sh*t all over an attempt at making this a better place; Click that little X in the upper right hand corner of your computer and spare all of us your crappy attitude.