Sun Jun 08, 2003 11:33 pm
Originally posted by Rule of Wrist
Freedom, I don't think anybody said that the 9MM round had more stopping power than the .45 round... just the opposite.
I'm sorry. You are correct. I was so blurred with frustration from the posts about yours that I read yours incorrectly. That is right, the .45 has a lot more stopping power than the faster 9mm round. But it is also a more difficult ammo to fire because of the greater kick.
I for one am a huge 1911 frame fan. Kimber is a particular favorite. In fact I'll be picking one up myself next week. Howerver, a lot has to do with your hand, the size of your palm and the length of your fingers as to what's the best gun for you. It also has a lot to do with the nature flex position in your wrist as to whether a 1911 framed gun is better or worse than a larger web indention gripped gun like the glock or HK. For the money you cannot go wrong with a Glock.
Also, for the record, I never said the 7.62 was better or worse than the 5.56. I just said the 5.56 is a great cartridge that serves its purpose well.
So you say energy is everything, hmm....
Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:01 am
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY
by M.L. Fackler, M.D.
Letterman Army Institute of Research
Division of Military Trauma Research
Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219
Institute Report No. 239
July 1987
ABSTRACT
Presumption of "Kinetic Energy Deposit" to Be a Mechanism of Wounding:
Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary, many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage. Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely. The nondeforming rifle bullet of the AK-74 causes a large temporary cavity which can cause marked disruption in some tissue (liver), but has far less effect in others (muscle, lung, bowel wall). A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16, stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.
A large slow projectile will crush (permanent cavity) a large amount of tissue, whereas a small fast missile with the same kinetic energy will stretch more tissue (temporary cavity) but crush little. If the tissue crushed by a projectile includes the wall of the aorta, far more damaging consequences are likely to result than if this same projectile "deposits" the same amount of energy beside this vessel.
Many body tissues (muscle, skin, bowel wall, lung) are soft and flexible--the physical characteristics of a good shock absorber. Drop a raw egg onto a cement floor from a height of 2 m; then drop a rubber ball of the same mass from the same height. The kinetic energy exchange in both dropped objects was the same at the moment of impact. Compare the difference in effect; the egg breaks while the ball rebounds undamaged. Most living animal soft tissue has a consistency much closer to that of the rubber ball than to that of the brittle egg shell. This simple experiment demonstrates the fallacy in the common assumption that all kinetic energy "deposited" in the body does damage.
The assumption that "kinetic energy deposit" is directly proportional to damage done to tissues also fails to recognize the components of the projectile-tissue collision that use energy but do not cause tissue disruption. They are 1) sonic pressure wave, 2) heating of the tissue, 3) heating of the projectile, 4) deformation of the projectile, and 5) motion imparted to the tissue (gelatin bloc displacement for example).
The popular format for determination of "kinetic energy deposit" uses a chronograph to determine striking velocity and another to determine exit velocity. A 15-cm thick block of tissue simulant (gelatin or soap) is the target most often used. This method has one big factor in its favor; it is simple and easy to do. As for its validity, the interested reader is referred to wound profiles. Comparing only the first 15 cm of the missile path with the entire missile path as shown on the profiles shows the severe limitation of the 15-cm block format. The assumption by weapons developers that only the first 15 cm of the penetrating projectile's path through tissue is of clinical significance may simplify their job, but fails to provide sufficient information for valid prediction of the projectile's wounding potential. The length of bullet trajectories through the human torso can be up to four times as long as those in these small blocs. Even if this method were scientifically valid, its use has been further flawed by nearly all investigators who have included the M-16 rifle bullet in those projectiles tested. This method assumes that the projectile's mass remains constant through both chronographs. The M-16 routinely loses one third of its mass in the form of fragments which may remain in the target. The part of the bullet that passes through the second chronograph screens weighs only about two-thirds as much as the intact bullet that passed through the first set of screens. No provision is made for catching and weighing the projectile to correct for bullet fragmentation when it occurs. The failure to correct for loss of bullet mass can cause large errors in "energy deposit" data.
Surgeons sometimes excise tissue from experimental missile wounds that is, in their judgment, nonviable and compare the weight of tissue excised with the "kinetic energy deposited". A surgeon's judgment and his technique of tissue excision is very subjective, who found in a comparison that "One surgeon excised less tissue at low energy transfers and rather more at high energy transfers than the other surgeon, although both surgeons used the same criteria when judging the tissues." None of these experiments included control animals to verify that tissue the surgeon had declared "nonviable" actually became necrotic if left in place. Interestingly, all studies in which animals were kept alive for objective observations of wound healing report less lasting tissue damage than estimated from observation of the wound in the first few hours after it was inflicted. In a study of over 4,000 wounded in WW II it was remarked, "It is surprising to see how much apparently nonvital tissue recovered".
Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation).
by M.L. Fackler, M.D.
Letterman Army Institute of Research
Division of Military Trauma Research
Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219
Institute Report No. 239
July 1987
ABSTRACT
Presumption of "Kinetic Energy Deposit" to Be a Mechanism of Wounding:
Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary, many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage. Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely. The nondeforming rifle bullet of the AK-74 causes a large temporary cavity which can cause marked disruption in some tissue (liver), but has far less effect in others (muscle, lung, bowel wall). A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16, stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.
A large slow projectile will crush (permanent cavity) a large amount of tissue, whereas a small fast missile with the same kinetic energy will stretch more tissue (temporary cavity) but crush little. If the tissue crushed by a projectile includes the wall of the aorta, far more damaging consequences are likely to result than if this same projectile "deposits" the same amount of energy beside this vessel.
Many body tissues (muscle, skin, bowel wall, lung) are soft and flexible--the physical characteristics of a good shock absorber. Drop a raw egg onto a cement floor from a height of 2 m; then drop a rubber ball of the same mass from the same height. The kinetic energy exchange in both dropped objects was the same at the moment of impact. Compare the difference in effect; the egg breaks while the ball rebounds undamaged. Most living animal soft tissue has a consistency much closer to that of the rubber ball than to that of the brittle egg shell. This simple experiment demonstrates the fallacy in the common assumption that all kinetic energy "deposited" in the body does damage.
The assumption that "kinetic energy deposit" is directly proportional to damage done to tissues also fails to recognize the components of the projectile-tissue collision that use energy but do not cause tissue disruption. They are 1) sonic pressure wave, 2) heating of the tissue, 3) heating of the projectile, 4) deformation of the projectile, and 5) motion imparted to the tissue (gelatin bloc displacement for example).
The popular format for determination of "kinetic energy deposit" uses a chronograph to determine striking velocity and another to determine exit velocity. A 15-cm thick block of tissue simulant (gelatin or soap) is the target most often used. This method has one big factor in its favor; it is simple and easy to do. As for its validity, the interested reader is referred to wound profiles. Comparing only the first 15 cm of the missile path with the entire missile path as shown on the profiles shows the severe limitation of the 15-cm block format. The assumption by weapons developers that only the first 15 cm of the penetrating projectile's path through tissue is of clinical significance may simplify their job, but fails to provide sufficient information for valid prediction of the projectile's wounding potential. The length of bullet trajectories through the human torso can be up to four times as long as those in these small blocs. Even if this method were scientifically valid, its use has been further flawed by nearly all investigators who have included the M-16 rifle bullet in those projectiles tested. This method assumes that the projectile's mass remains constant through both chronographs. The M-16 routinely loses one third of its mass in the form of fragments which may remain in the target. The part of the bullet that passes through the second chronograph screens weighs only about two-thirds as much as the intact bullet that passed through the first set of screens. No provision is made for catching and weighing the projectile to correct for bullet fragmentation when it occurs. The failure to correct for loss of bullet mass can cause large errors in "energy deposit" data.
Surgeons sometimes excise tissue from experimental missile wounds that is, in their judgment, nonviable and compare the weight of tissue excised with the "kinetic energy deposited". A surgeon's judgment and his technique of tissue excision is very subjective, who found in a comparison that "One surgeon excised less tissue at low energy transfers and rather more at high energy transfers than the other surgeon, although both surgeons used the same criteria when judging the tissues." None of these experiments included control animals to verify that tissue the surgeon had declared "nonviable" actually became necrotic if left in place. Interestingly, all studies in which animals were kept alive for objective observations of wound healing report less lasting tissue damage than estimated from observation of the wound in the first few hours after it was inflicted. In a study of over 4,000 wounded in WW II it was remarked, "It is surprising to see how much apparently nonvital tissue recovered".
Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation).
Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:32 am
Originally posted by Rule of Wrist
If I get a pistol, I think I'm going to go with either a beretta 9MM, a Glock .45 of some kind, or an HK .45 USP. I think I like the HK the best, but it's also the most expensive.... decisions
A lot of modern police agencies have talked about the 40 caliber gun line. I know that Glock has one that was recenlty picked up by one of the local PD's. One of my groomsman in my wedding is a cop for them, he also went and bought one for his personal use. It is an awesome gun.
Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:33 am
Shwoff and Freedom... thanks guys. Great stuff.
Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:51 am
Yeah, I know a guy who has a glock 17(I think it's a 17) and it's a really nice gun...
Just something about the styling on those things doesn't do it for me... I know, style points shouldn't count... but hey, for my money I want something I like the looks of too...
If I had UNLIMITED money, I'd like either an MP-5 (fully suppressed, of course), or an FN F2000 (suppressed with 40mm grenade launcher, of course)
Nothing like putting lots of holes in something fast to bring a smile to one's face...
Just something about the styling on those things doesn't do it for me... I know, style points shouldn't count... but hey, for my money I want something I like the looks of too...
If I had UNLIMITED money, I'd like either an MP-5 (fully suppressed, of course), or an FN F2000 (suppressed with 40mm grenade launcher, of course)
Nothing like putting lots of holes in something fast to bring a smile to one's face...
Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:02 am
Having shot a Beretta 9 and a 1911, I can say I definitely prefer the 9 over the 45 for several reasons. The Beretta is double-action, has a safety, has a smaller grip, and (if my memory serves) holds more rounds. I think, also, but can't remember for sure, that the magazine release was easier to use. Also, the 9 has less penetrating power, which is important in law enforcement to reduce the chance of bystander casualties in the next room. 9mm rounds are also cheaper. Also, despite the larger KE of the 9mm round, it felt to me like the 1911 had a bigger kick.
Of course law enforcement requirements are completely different than war. In war, the most important thing is reliability (which is why the AK is so popular). I haven't heard or read anything about which handguns are the most reliable.
I've also shot a couple sizes of Glock. Nice guns, excect for the one the put the shells into my face instead of over my head.
Of course law enforcement requirements are completely different than war. In war, the most important thing is reliability (which is why the AK is so popular). I haven't heard or read anything about which handguns are the most reliable.
I've also shot a couple sizes of Glock. Nice guns, excect for the one the put the shells into my face instead of over my head.
Mon Jun 09, 2003 2:14 am
Originally posted by Freedom
Chacal, I'm shocked to see such an obviously hasty response to my post. What else is there other than velocity and mass? Are you kidding me? You even state one very important factor later in your thread - bullet deformation characteristics. Here's more, bullet diameter and bullet design.
No no no, you read me wrong. I said "there is nothing else than energy". I'm not talking only of speed and mass. All other factors, including softness of tissue, fragmentation, bullet diameter and all, are simply factors affecting the transfer of energy into damaging effects on the target. There IS nothing else than energy. Ballistics are subject to the laws of physics, like everything else.
The computed amount of kinetic energy in the traveling bullet is the maximum amount it can possibly deliver to the target. How much it actually transfers to it depends on all those factors.
By the way, all the factors could be computed eventually, it's just simpler and cheaper to do empirical testing. And more impressive for generals.
Mon Jun 09, 2003 3:05 am
I was also one of the ones who said the .223 was a whimpy round, and that's based on personal observation. I'm a gun nut, owned many different weapons, almost all military issue. I've used just about everything actually used in Nam, the exception being the M60, those are a bit hard to get ahold of 
As for the actual effects of the rounds used in the various weapons on human flesh, which is the ONLY real factor at hand, I'll take the 7.62 AK/SKS over the 5.56 M16/4/AR15 round any day. I hunt, and I've yet to meet any hunter with any knowledge or skill who used a .223 round for anything other then messing around. I personally prefer the 8mm mauser for taking down prey, my personal choice in rifles being a somewhat odd one, the Hakim 8mm semi-auto, an Egyptian military weapon.
Power over distance is a very big factor in military weapons. The AK/SKS will put a round through 1/4" of steel at 100m without losing any real power, while an M16 round won't penetrate it. The AK/SKS round will hit a man and actually impart most of it's energy INTO the target, while an M16 round will impart only part of it's energy. This is hitting straight soft tissue, not bones, which totally alter the effects of BOTH rounds, making them pretty much the same for total damage done Odds of hitting bone is actually pretty low though, so...
As for the 9mm vs .45 debate...hehheh. A 9mm will go through the human body without much loss of energy, UNLESS you use a special round, such as hollow points or subsonic rounds. I did a lot of research and ended up using Winchester Silvertip hollowpoint subsonics in my own 9mm for home use, the same round the FBI uses for urban usage. It'll hit a man, impart 90-99% of it's energy, but most importantly, it will NOT travel through the body and exit it, nor will it penetrate the 2 layers of standard sheetrock used in modern homes in the USA. Your standard 9mm fmj ball ammo will blow right through the body AND the wall behind it and STILL keep moving. Your typical .45 round will hit the human body and stop, period, imparting all of it's energy into the target, they aren't called flying ashtrays for nothing. It'll typically blow through a wall though, with enough energy to do serious damage to any human target it impacts.
Police changed to 9mm weapons because of serious issues with .38 specials, such as the round literally bouncing off windshields, leather jackets, and the like. A useless round overall, and the .45 was considered 'inhumane' because it's a far more lethal round then the 9mm, so most switched to the 9mm, while some switched to the .40, which is a low powered round, halfassed between a 9mm and .45. The military switched over from .45 to 9mm because..well..not really sure, heard too many different stories on that myself, all from informed sources. Personally, I believe it's due to the cheap factor, 9mm's cost less all together then .45s. 9mm's don't have the stopping power of a .45, that's a fact, and they DO have a high overpenetration problem, especially with the standard fmj ball ammo military issue. They do have a better effective hitting range for the average user, and that probably factors in there as well. After all, the military is a great one for the lowest common denominator standards
As for the actual effects of the rounds used in the various weapons on human flesh, which is the ONLY real factor at hand, I'll take the 7.62 AK/SKS over the 5.56 M16/4/AR15 round any day. I hunt, and I've yet to meet any hunter with any knowledge or skill who used a .223 round for anything other then messing around. I personally prefer the 8mm mauser for taking down prey, my personal choice in rifles being a somewhat odd one, the Hakim 8mm semi-auto, an Egyptian military weapon.
Power over distance is a very big factor in military weapons. The AK/SKS will put a round through 1/4" of steel at 100m without losing any real power, while an M16 round won't penetrate it. The AK/SKS round will hit a man and actually impart most of it's energy INTO the target, while an M16 round will impart only part of it's energy. This is hitting straight soft tissue, not bones, which totally alter the effects of BOTH rounds, making them pretty much the same for total damage done
Odds of hitting bone is actually pretty low though, so...
As for the 9mm vs .45 debate...hehheh. A 9mm will go through the human body without much loss of energy, UNLESS you use a special round, such as hollow points or subsonic rounds. I did a lot of research and ended up using Winchester Silvertip hollowpoint subsonics in my own 9mm for home use, the same round the FBI uses for urban usage. It'll hit a man, impart 90-99% of it's energy, but most importantly, it will NOT travel through the body and exit it, nor will it penetrate the 2 layers of standard sheetrock used in modern homes in the USA. Your standard 9mm fmj ball ammo will blow right through the body AND the wall behind it and STILL keep moving. Your typical .45 round will hit the human body and stop, period, imparting all of it's energy into the target, they aren't called flying ashtrays for nothing. It'll typically blow through a wall though, with enough energy to do serious damage to any human target it impacts.
Police changed to 9mm weapons because of serious issues with .38 specials, such as the round literally bouncing off windshields, leather jackets, and the like. A useless round overall, and the .45 was considered 'inhumane' because it's a far more lethal round then the 9mm, so most switched to the 9mm, while some switched to the .40, which is a low powered round, halfassed between a 9mm and .45. The military switched over from .45 to 9mm because..well..not really sure, heard too many different stories on that myself, all from informed sources. Personally, I believe it's due to the cheap factor, 9mm's cost less all together then .45s. 9mm's don't have the stopping power of a .45, that's a fact, and they DO have a high overpenetration problem, especially with the standard fmj ball ammo military issue. They do have a better effective hitting range for the average user, and that probably factors in there as well. After all, the military is a great one for the lowest common denominator standards
Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:14 pm
Originally posted by Kristov
The AK/SKS round will hit a man and actually impart most of it's energy INTO the target, while an M16 round will impart only part of it's energy. This is hitting straight soft tissue, not bones, which totally alter the effects of BOTH rounds, making them pretty much the same for total damage done
Sorry kristov but that is not what the data has shown. Freedoms and Shwoff's article show that the 5.56 fragments in 4 inches of soft tissue and this creates a more complete energy transfer. I have many websites and other literature from which I have based my belief. So nothing personal, but I will use Colonel's argument that he used on me... I will trust the experts over someone that I don't know.
But everyone, this debate is an international one.. being argued by experts.
Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:26 pm
I have to say I like this thread... science, nerdiness, guns, data, experts, experience.... the only thing missing is babes and 
Mon Jun 09, 2003 8:44 pm
[i].... the only thing missing is babes and
That does tend to be a common theme....
Mon Jun 09, 2003 8:48 pm
Having experience with 9mm Para, .45 ACP, I have made the same ecperiences as Kristov refering to the stopping-power of both calibres.
The other duscussion (about AK 47, AK 74, M16 and the use of Beretta or M1911A1) lags due to the question of logistic problems. The more different calibres are used by the armed forces, the more difficult might be logistic. While starting to use HK MP5, the army may have considered to change to the same calibre for the pistol.
Also the weights are an interesting point. 9mm-ammunition is not that heavy as .45. And an american soldier can carry the duoble ammunition as the usual NATO-soldier having the same weight, because 7,65 8x8 has nearly the double weight of .223.
The other duscussion (about AK 47, AK 74, M16 and the use of Beretta or M1911A1) lags due to the question of logistic problems. The more different calibres are used by the armed forces, the more difficult might be logistic. While starting to use HK MP5, the army may have considered to change to the same calibre for the pistol.
Also the weights are an interesting point. 9mm-ammunition is not that heavy as .45. And an american soldier can carry the duoble ammunition as the usual NATO-soldier having the same weight, because 7,65 8x8 has nearly the double weight of .223.
Mon Jun 09, 2003 9:26 pm
Iudex... I will more than excuse any faults for your ues of English... I will state how dam impressd I am with any person so able to communicate in multiple languages. One of my severe weaknesses is my inability to do so.
Mon Jun 09, 2003 11:37 pm
Tests using gelatin are what all those pretty facts are based on, 15mm of gelatin, which as previously stated in one of the comments on this very thread, is less then the wound track in the human body typically. And those very tests don't even track well, as they only show the results they WANT to show to prove their point. There's multiple reasons the DoD didn't want to switch to the AR15 originally, and wound ballistics was one of the biggies. The .223 round simply doesn't do as much damage to the human body as the .30 the M14 uses does. There ARE times when the .223 will fragment, and there are times it will tumble and do massive damage, true enough, but those are NOT the norm, those are the exceptions. 7.62 rounds, from the 7.62x25mm used in the Tokarev T38 pistol to the 7.62x54mm used in the SVD, all have constant wound tracks and do massive damage, as well as having the ability to penetrate light armor and STILL be deadly at range. Larger slugs simply do more damage, at any speed, to the human body, that's a fact that can't be disputed.
If you don't use firearms, then facts and stats are quite misleading. I've used everything from .22 pistols to .50 Brownings, from single shot to full auto, even black powder rifles and pistols. I've hunted fowl, small and large game, and practical experience has taught me firsthand, for a large target(that is, anything over 50lbs of mass), the larger the slug, the more effective it will be with a single shot.
Someone mentioned the HK G11 and it's 4mm caseless ammo at one point, and I'd like to touch on that. I remember when that weapon was first made public knowledge, and how impressive the mechanics were. I also would like to point out that the weapon and it's ammo were never used by anyone, as HK dropped it during development when it was discovered how useless the 4mm caseless ammo actually was in real world usage
If you don't use firearms, then facts and stats are quite misleading. I've used everything from .22 pistols to .50 Brownings, from single shot to full auto, even black powder rifles and pistols. I've hunted fowl, small and large game, and practical experience has taught me firsthand, for a large target(that is, anything over 50lbs of mass), the larger the slug, the more effective it will be with a single shot.
Someone mentioned the HK G11 and it's 4mm caseless ammo at one point, and I'd like to touch on that. I remember when that weapon was first made public knowledge, and how impressive the mechanics were. I also would like to point out that the weapon and it's ammo were never used by anyone, as HK dropped it during development when it was discovered how useless the 4mm caseless ammo actually was in real world usage
Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:42 am
I don't know, my experience in human targets is... hmm, maybe I shouldn't mention that. Nevermind.
Weight is probably a big factor in final selection. I am just speculating, but realizing that a wound from any weapon is usually bad, if you can carry more ammo, you can put more holes in people before having to be resupplied. Also while an AK may have more killing power, the soldiers carrying an M-16 could last longer in an extended firefight, assuming similar rates of fire and weight carried. (Especially since the majority of rounds fired are for suppression, not actual kills.)
Weight is probably a big factor in final selection. I am just speculating, but realizing that a wound from any weapon is usually bad, if you can carry more ammo, you can put more holes in people before having to be resupplied. Also while an AK may have more killing power, the soldiers carrying an M-16 could last longer in an extended firefight, assuming similar rates of fire and weight carried. (Especially since the majority of rounds fired are for suppression, not actual kills.)