If you want to start an argument about terminal ballistics, ask people whether 9mm or .45 is the better caliber. If they’re really nerdy, then you’ll start hearing all about 40 S&W, 10mm, 357 Sig, and all manner of wildcats you’ve never heard of.
This article isn’t really about the debate between these calibers, but rather the science that supports people’s arguments. I’ll touch a bit on the caliber wars, but mostly to connect the science to what you see on the market. Today we’re starting the conversation about ballistics.
So why are we hitting this subject? Part of marksmanship is knowing not only how to aim and fire the rifle from a stable position, but what the bullet does during flight and on impact. This is especially important for hunters and anyone carrying a weapon for self defense.
Terminal ballistics is the study of how a projectile behaves when it hits its target and transfers its kinetic energy to the target. The bullet’s design, as well as its impact velocity, plays a huge role in how the energy is transferred.
Why This Matters
Target shooters don’t usually care about terminal ballistics. Once the bullet punches a hole in paper or rings the gong, what happens next is immaterial. For that reason, they focus much more on what the bullet does in flight, otherwise known as external ballistics. Target shooters, especially at long range, favor designs that sacrifice terminal performance in favor of improved external ballistics.
However, if you need that bullet to not only hit the target but also cause enough tissue damage to “put the target down.” Then you care very much about terminal ballistics and should choose bullets that have favorable characteristics.
How Bullets [Don’t] Wound and Kill
This is a complicated topic and knowledge of how bullets wound targets evolved over the years. The ideas we operate under today are vastly different than what we thought 100+ years ago, even though the technology hasn’t changed all that much.
I’ll get to the history of terminal ballistics in a second, but let’s just get something out of the way first. A bullet kills via two methods, and only two methods:
- Destroy something vital in the central nervous system (brain or spinal cord) so that electrical impulses are no longer generated or carried
- Drain enough blood from the body (via holes) so that oxygen cannot effectively circulate to vital organs, especially the brain
The trick is in how we get to one of these two outcomes. So let’s talk history.
A Brief History of Wound Research
Let’s start in the 1870s with the work of Theodor Kocher. Born in Switzerland in 1841, Theodor Kocher rose to the rank of Colonel in the Swiss Militia. By 1872, he earned a position as a professor of surgery in Bern.
Kocher was particularly interested in the evolution of terminal ballistics as small arms transitioned from spherical musket balls to the more devastating Minié ball used during the American Civil War and other conflicts around the world. Keep in mind that even the best infantry rifles of the time had a maximum velocity of around 1000-1200 FPS.
He formalized several theories that would have lasting impacts. According to Dr. Kocher, the primary wounding channels were:
- Cavitation
- Deformation of the bullet which transferred more kinetic energy to the target
- Bullets dragging surface contaminants into the wound
Let’s talk about each of these a little more, since they become very important later on.
Cavitation
Dr. Kocher was the first to formally test the hydraulic pressure theory. He demonstrated its merit by shooting sealed boxes filled with water. An article from the American College of Surgeons has a nice writeup on Kocher’s experiments.
A prevailing theory was that the increased tissue destruction from a conical Minié bullet came from the centrifugal force created by a twisted, or corkscrewed, path through tissue. Another explanation was that the bullet created a hydraulic pressure wave that violently tore tissue as it pushed aside, like the wake on a boat.
In short, Dr. Kocher believed that this pressure wave stretching and destroying tissue was a significant driver of rifle wounds in the body. As it would turn out, he was right about the shockwave, but not as much about its effects.
Bullet Deformation and Kinetic Energy
Another theory was that the elongated shape of the Minié ball led to bending and deforming as it impacted. This deformation led to a greater kinetic energy transfer from the bullet in flight to the target.
Dr. Kocher worked with Colonel Eduard Rubin of the Swiss Federal Ammunition Factory and created the first full-metal-jacket (FMJ) bullet. Dr. Kocher’s reasons stemmed from a desire to inflict less damage to the target by limiting the amount of bullet deformation. Colonel Rubin saw that these FMJ bullets had higher velocity and accuracy while coming at a lower weight.
It appeared to be a win/win.
This was actually the basis for the Hague Conventions, which enforced the use of FMJ bullets rather than expanding or soft-pointed bullets. The Americans and the British were the only two nations to vote against the measure.
The Americans had fought against the new style FMJ bullets during the Spanish-American War, and respected the increased velocity and accuracy- but not the tendency to pass through a target. The British, on the other hand, were frustrated by the lack of performance they perceived with the FMJ bullets while fighting in India.
The soft-point “dum dum” type of bullet they came to favor originated from that conflict, where they snipped the tips off of FMJ bullets to expose the soft lead core and improved deformation.
Wound Contamination
This is less relevant to our discussion today since infection is something that causes problems later on and doesn’t immediately stop a threat.
Dr. Kocher proved that bullets, especially wider flatter ones, could drag harmful bacteria into a wound with them. This bacteria could come from anywhere, such as the skin or clothing, but that’s not why this was an important discovery.
At the time, most of the world assumed that the temperature of the bullet in flight was high enough to sterilize the surface of the projectile.
Wound contamination is not something we’re concerned with because it’s effects are not immediate. Sure, contamination can kill someone from infection, but it’s going to take a few days or weeks to happen. That’s less helpful when you need to stop a threat right now.
Moving on.
The Le Garde-Thompson Tests
At the turn of the 20th Century, the US was involved in the Philippine–American War (1899-1902) and later the Moro Rebellion (1902-1913). Frustrated by the lack of performance from the issued 38 Long Colt revolvers, many officers requested revolvers chambered in the more powerful 45 Long Colt cartridge. This supposedly had a big impact on stopping the Moros Juramentados (that and a 12 gauge shotgun load).
In 1904, the US Army undertook a study in handgun ballistics. They assigned the project to infantry Colonel John T. Thompson and Major Louis Anatole LaGarde of the Medical Corps. To execute the tests, they shot several cadavers and livestock animals with handguns in a variety of calibers. Some of these included the 9mm Luger, .30 Luger, .38 Long Colt, John Browning’s recently-developed .38 ACP, and the .455 Webley. They watched how the body reacted to the hits, and then dissected the target to estimate the effectiveness of the cartridge.
Their conclusions were pretty straight forward:
The board was of the opinion that a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45. … None of the full-jacketed or metal-patch bullets (all of which were less than cal. . 45) showed the necessary shock effect or stopping power for a service weapon….
We are not acquainted with any bullet fired from a hand weapon that will stop a determined enemy when the projectile traverses soft parts alone. The requirements of such a bullet would need to have a sectional area like that of a 3-inch solid shot the recoil from which when used in hand weapons would be prohibitive. …
Finally the Board reached the conclusion that the only safeguard at close encounters is a well-directed rapid fire from nothing less than a .45-caliber weapon. With this end in view soldiers should be drilled to fire at moving targets until they have attained proficiency as marksmen.
Pay attention to the “shock effect” and “stopping power” statements. These are important later on.
The big takeaway from this experiment, according to a doctoral thesis by Nicholas Maiden for The University of Adelaide in Australia, was that the most important element of ballistic wounding was the permanent cavity. This is the tissue actually cut, crushed, and destroyed as the bullet passes through.
Some Caveats
Something to note about this whole episode is that there’s a high probability that the observed issues with the 38 Long Colt during the conflict might not have been an issue with a 38 LC cartridge by itself. After all. If it was just about the .38 caliber, then .357 Magnum wouldn’t have the solid reputation than it does. 38 LC, 357 Magnum, 9mm Luger, and 357 Sig all effectively use the same diameter bullet (0.355 in to 0.357 in), but with varying powder charges beneath them.
Some reports later claimed that the issued 38 LC ammunition had a velocity far below the contracted specification for the cartridge, which means they were robbed of penetration power. Also, I’ve seen some discussion (unconfirmed) of terrible trigger pull weights and feels in the issued double action revolvers, which could have contributed to poor marksmanship overall.
On top of that, the hollow cavity heeled-bullet design of the 38 LC was also not very accurate to begin with.
Note the tests evaluated “shock” as how much movement/vibration they observed in other parts of the body when the bullet impacted. In all, this isn’t a very scientific test, but it’s better than nothing.
1930: The Work of R.H. Kent
Robert Kent of the Aberdeen’s Ballistic Research Laboratory published a little-known report in 1930. I’ve covered this particular report in before, so I won’t go into the gritty details gain.
The big take away is that everyone believed that kinetic energy transfer was a primary terminal ballistics wounding mechanism for rifles. Kent theorized that a smaller and faster projectile could transfer an equivalent amount of kinetic energy to a target as a larger slower projectile at close distances.
If this was true, he surmised, then soldiers could carry more ammunition, lighter rifles, and be more effective on the battlefield than using traditional full-sized battle rifles.
If you’ve read my series on the Small Caliber High-Velocity program, then you know that this theory ultimately prevailed and resulted in the US Military adopting the M16 rifle chambered in a lightweight 55gr projectile known as M193.
But it all hinged on the kinetic energy transfer theory, which turns out to be incorrect.
Where Kinetic Energy Goes Wrong
From at least the late 1800s through the Vietnam War, everyone assumed the kinetic energy transfer model was correct. The “shock” of getting hit by a fast-moving projectile and absorbing its kinetic energy contributed to “stopping power” and made rifles more effective. That’s what Le Garde and Thompson were evaluating during their tests, as well.
When most of your ballistic history is made up muskets that max out at 1200 FPS and revolvers in the 600-800 FPS range, this makes sense. Things start to change as you reach modern rifle velocities.
Even today, it’s easy to observe the difference in hitting something like a brick or cinder block with a 9mm versus 308 Win. The problem is that that the human body is mostly made of water and elastic tissues. It doesn’t react to blunt kinetic energy the same way as a brick wall. We didn’t consider it back then, however, and all we had were observations.
Early reports of experimental AR-15s from Vietnam talked about “devastating” damage and wounds. Dramatic photos publicized by the Swiss government showed graphic wounds created by the M16. They claimed it was inhumane to use in warfare since it did more damage than the 7.62 NATO cartridge that complied with the Swiss-derived Hague Conventions.
But where was the proof?
Enter Martin Fackler
Dr. Fackler served as a surgeon and a Colonel in the US Army Medical Corps. He worked as a field surgeon in Da Nang during Vietnam, and saw his fair share of bullet wounds. During this time, he noticed a disconnect between what was being said about rifle ballistics, particularly the 5.56, and what he actually observed in the field.
Dr. Fackler used a combination of logic and calibrated ballistic gel to explore out the real wounding mechanisms of rifle bullets. In a 1987 paper titled What’s Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why he dispels several of the commonly held beliefs and myths surrounding bullet wounds.
In 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked in to my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4 mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet’s temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly.
The wound profile of the M193 bullet (page 29 of the Emergency War Surgery—NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, D.C., 1988) shows that most often the bullet travels about five inches through flesh before beginning significant yaw. But about 15% of the time, it travels much farther than that before yawing—in which case it causes even milder wounds, if it missed bones, guts, lung, and major blood vessels. In my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that it produced unacceptably minimal, rather than “massive”, wounds. After viewing the wound profile, recall that the Vietnamese were small people, and generally very slim. Many M16 bullets passed through their torsos traveling mostly point forward, and caused minimal damage. Most shots piercing an extremity, even in the heavier-built Americans, unless they hit bone, caused no more damage than a 22 caliber rimfire bullet.
Terminal Ballistics Myths
To start, Dr. Fackler emphasizes that there are only two mechanisms for wounding:
- Temporary cavitation: tissue stretched and temporarily displaced (as proposed by Theodor Koch)
- Permanent wound channel: tissue cut and crushed as the bullet passes
According to Dr. Fackler’s work, the theory of kinetic energy transfer is wrong. At worst it is totally irrelevant, at best it is an inconsistent wounding method and should not be relied upon.
Another myth surrounds the supersonic shockwave as the bullet penetrates. Many people assumed this was another wounding mechanic of SCHV projectiles. Fackler points out the logical fallacy here:
The lithotripter, a recent invention that uses this sonic pressure wave to break up kidney stones, generates a wave five times the amplitude of the one from a penetrating small arms projectile. Up to 2,000 of these waves are used in a single treatment session, with no damage to soft tissue surrounding the stone.
The “devastating” wounds documented by early AR-15s? There was nothing scientific about the reports. Nobody actually compared it to a the results of a full-powered rifle cartridge.
The “inhumane” findings of the Swiss government? They were intentionally misleading, using undersized pigs to show relative damage and selectively choosing the worst damage.
It was a politically-motivated stunt.
How Bullets Wound and Kill
This brings us to the modern age, where we know a lot more than we did when Dr. Kocher started his experiments in the late 1800s.
A bullet, any bullet, wounds effectively in only one of two ways:
Permanent Wound Channel
The permanent wound channel is the tissue cut, crushed, and displaced as the bullet passes. If this wound channel passes through some vital organ or tissue, like the brain or heart, then death occurs very quickly. The problem is that these vital areas are relatively small and hard to hit.
Alternatively, poking enough holes in other tissue allows blood to flow out of the circulatory system. If you hit a major blood vessel, like the aorta or femoral artery, then this blood loss occurs very quickly in as little as a single shot. But, it usually takes more than one hit to poke holes in all of these places.
That’s the reason for aiming at center mass. There’s a higher probability of hitting areas with a lot of blood flow. This is also why firing only a single shot is a bad idea in a life or death situation.
You fire until the threat stops.
If it’s good enough for one, it’s good enough for several. If you’re going to shoot, you might as well give it “P” for plenty.
Temporary Cavitation
Temporary cavitation, as theorized by Dr. Koch, is a real phenomenon. However, the effect is slightly overstated.
Imagine throwing a rock into a pond. The inertia of the rock penetrating the water causes a wave that ripples out. The same thing happens to live tissue as a bullet penetrates it. The inertia of the bullet temporarily moves tissue out of the way.
Since tissue is elastic, and mostly made of water, it quickly rebounds to its original position. Dr. Fackler points out that you really shouldn’t think of this as any more than blunt trauma. Most tissues in the body are stretchy and aren’t dramatically affected by this temporary cavity. But others, such as the liver and kidneys, are more susceptible. Damaging the liver and kidneys, however, doesn’t stop a threat right now.
A caveat here is that with sufficient energy, this displacement can become dramatic enough that the tissues reaches the limits of elasticity and begins to tear. The FBI places this point around an impact velocity of 2200 FPS.
Fragmentation
This is the area of terminal ballistics that Dr. Fackler is best known for. He demonstrated that the worst wounds come from the fragmentation of the bullet.
If you recall my article on rifle twist rates, I talked about the aerodynamic forces working on a projectile in flight. The shape of a modern rifle bullet puts the center of pressure in front of the center of mass. That means that a bullet insufficiently stabilized is prone to tumbling.
When a rifle bullet impacts soft tissue, dramatically reducing its velocity and spin rate, the bullet becomes unstable and begins tumbling. If the jacket is thin enough and there’s still enough energy on impact, the drag forces of traveling through tissue sideways tend to break the bullet apart. When this happens, pieces of the jacket and lead core fly off in various directions.
This is fragmentation.
This tumbling and fragmentation effect takes place some distance after the initial impact. With a human combatant, that means that fragmentation could happen inside the body. Keep in mind that the fragmentation threshold of a cartridge is still a very high velocity, and differs from bullet to bullet.
Did You Know?
This fragmentation effect doesn’t just happen with soft tissue. One of the reasons SWAT teams moved away from 9mm submachine guns was that the hard ball of lead and copper tended to overpenetrate more walls. In contrast, a fast-moving 5.56 bullet tended to more readily tumble and break apart after passing through common construction materials like drywall and studs. For this reason, they saw the 5.56 bullet as safer for use inside of structures while also offering the benefits of rifle ballistics.
Fragmentation and Terminal Ballistics
When you combine the possible shredding effect of fragmentation with the intense blunt trauma and stretching effect of temporary cavitation, you enable dramatic wound channels. Think of it like a rubber band that you nicked with a knife. What used to be easily stretchable now rips and tears.
Shattered bone fragments produce the same effect, perforating surrounding stretchy tissue during expansion until it ruptures rather than stretches.
If both fragmentation and cavitation occur, you make the permanent wound channel much more intense.
But that’s a big if.
All rifle bullets do this to a degree, but smaller lighter bullets tend to do it better due to their construction. Even then, achieving this kind of synergistic effect isn’t 100% reliable. Which is why it’s so common to fire more than one shot.
Also, since fragmentation is related to the dramatic deceleration of the bullet, it helps to have the bullet moving at a higher velocity upon impact. This is why barrel length has an impact on the “optimal” effective range of the .223 projectile.
My Take: Putting it All Together
When it comes to terminal ballistics, we fundamentally have to create two categories of projectiles: slow and fast. The rules for each are slightly different, and our dividing line is the FBI’s 2200 FPS mark. For our purposes, “slow” projectiles include pretty much any handgun or revolver cartridge (including said cartridge fired from a PCC), any subsonic rifle round (like 300 BLK), rimfire, and any “slow” rifle like a muzzle loader or vintage military rifle that doesn’t cross the 2200 fps threshold at the target.
“Fast” projectiles are those that impact at speeds greater than 2200 FPS. That also means that the muzzle velocity typically needs to be significantly higher to account for velocity drop over distance.
“Slow” Terminal Ballistics: Handguns and Shotguns
Slow bullets don’t have the inertial power to trigger devastating temporary cavities, nor do they have the aerodynamic properties to cause desirable fragmentation. As such, the terminal performance of this category is entirely dependent on tissue that is crushed or cut apart in the direct path of the projectile. To make this work, the projectile needs to be able to penetrate deep enough into a target to reach those vital organs, blood vessels, and nerves.
The FBI’s Ballistics Lab states that when using 10% organic ballistic gel, penetration needs to be better than 12″ in the gellatin. Ideally, it would be between 16″ and 18″ depth. Going beyond 18″ increases the risk of overpenetration and going out the other side. Overpenetration is still a better option than underpenetration, though.
I’ll note here that ballistics gel is not a 1:1 to human tissue. 12″ on the gel block may translate to 6″ in a human chest cavity. The FBI determined that between 12″ and 18″ in the gel seems to be the right depth for translating to terminal success on a human without too much overpenetration.
The role of expansion, particularly with handgun ammo, is to both widen the cutting/crushing surface area of the bullet and also inducing more drag so that it stops short of overpenetrating.
The Role of Energy and “Stopping Power”
The FBI and wound experts definitely state that the only mechanism that matters is direct damage to tissue via shot placement and sufficient penetration. The fabled “stopping power” and “kinetic energy” argument has no place here.
Or does it?
There are many anecdotal stories from people who have used a variety of calibers from 9mm to 357 Mag and 45 ACP against human targets. Within those stories, a significant portion explicitly called out greater success with stopping a threat when they used a more powerful cartridge like a 45 ACP or 357 than with a 9mm.
So what’s going on there? Well, I think there might be something to the kinetic energy argument when you think of it like blunt force trauma. There very likely is an element of kinetic force transferring to a target as the bullet dumps its energy. The target then perceives this force much like getting punched and knocked over.
The problem for researchers is that there is no repeatable way to actually measure this result. Gellatin cannot tell you “how that one felt to get hit with.” Furthermore, the effectiveness of this energy argument also depends on how the target reacts to it. Some people may take a punch and crumble right away, while others might shrug it off. Some people might be hopped up on drugs and pain killers that reduce the sensation of pain from kinetic energy. You have no way of knowing what the outcome will be.
So, the prudent think to do is simply relegate the kinetic energy argument as a possible helpful secondary effect and not something you should ever plan for.
Choosing Defensive Handgun Ammo
With that said, your first priority is choosing a cartridge (and bullet) that provides sufficient penetration to reach vital targets. Second is choosing a cartridge/bullet that gives you the best chance of quickly placing an accurate shot (or multiple shots) on something important. That includes good expansion properties- but expansion does not make up for poor marksmanship.
More velocity is not always your friend. Manufacturers design modern bullets to work best within a specific window of velocity, like 900 FPS to 1200 FPS. Exceeding that doesn’t do anything better, and could actually be worse. With modern expanding bullets, too much velocity may actually cause the bullet to experience more drag in tissue and fail to penetrate deeply enough.
This is why manufacturers engineer the bullets differently for different cartridges. For example, the 357 Sig and 9mm use bullets with the exact same diameter and nearly identical weight, but the 9mm bullets are engineered to expand at a lower velocity window.
After those two conditions are met, everything else is a personal compromise between energy on target, barrier penetration capacity, and recoil sensitivity.
Lastly, don’t discount the role of the pistol itself. Given the same cartridge with nearly identical performance characteristics from two different handguns, I’d choose the gun that’s reliable and gives me the best chance to put rounds on target quickly and accurately.
On Shotguns
Shotguns work on the same principle as handguns, but have the benefit of launching multiple projectiles at the same time. 8 or 9 pellets at a time. Each one is about 0.33 inches in diameter (assuming 00 buck), flying at around 1200 FPS, and impacting at the same time in a hand-sized area. That’s a lot of opportunity to hit something vital. It’s also a huge amount of tissue damage within a concentrated area (and potentially a lot of kinetic energy on target for whatever that’s worth).
Choosing Rifle Ammunition
Rifles obey the same principles. The most important thing is putting a shot into something vital to crush/cut it. But rifles, particularly the 5.56 cartridge, also benefit from high velocity. For several years, it was trendy to choose a heavy-for-caliber loading (like 77gr SMK) because it was more likely to upset and fragment at self defense distances. That makes a lot of sense for military shooters who have limited options. But we civilians, and law enforcement, are not bound by traditional laws of armed conflict on ammo selection.
So, for most people, most of the time, it makes the most sense to use some kind of soft point or controlled expansion bullet. That way, you have the benefit of both velocity and expansion. As before, the guidelines of penetration between 12″ and 18″ is ideal.
I’m not naming any specific loadings for any of this because that changes over time, but looking at whatever the FBI uses is typically a good bet.
And That’s All, For Now
That wraps up this brain dump. This information should guide your selection of a factory defensive (or hunting) cartridge for your pistol and rifle. There are plenty of sites out there with lots of information detailing expansion and penetration for a variety of factory ammunition. That’s great for common ammunition like 9mm, 5.56, and 7.62. Where things tend to go off the rails a bit is the world of handloading for less common cartridges, like 38 Super+ (my new obsession).
But that’s a tale for another day.
“Expanding [handgun] ammunition increases the diameter of that wound channel and the probability that you put a hole in something important.”
Eh. The bullet doesn’t expand all *that* much – you either hit something or not. Real life is not like a shooting match where nicking a scoring ring counts as higher score. Where expanding handgun caliber bullets do bring a benefit, is reliable performance through both the target and any intermediate barriers, and *especially* reduction of overpenetration. Both very positive attributes for a service or self-defense bullet! (Also, both much harder to market than “our bullets make bigger holes”…)
You are correct, I don’t want to overstate the behavior of JHP handgun rounds. They aren’t magic. Shot placement is still the most important factor for effectiveness.
The issue of balancing barrier performance and overpenetration is also important, but something I want to talk about in another article.
Shot placement and as well as larger calibers matter. The larger the diameter; the more potential a vital is hit and more damage achieved.
Even with a vital hit, it can still take minutes for incapacitating, so the larger the better for speeding up the process.
“Real life is not like a shooting match where nicking a scoring ring counts as higher score.”
The hell it doesn’t, if you nick an artery, that’s the “winning shot” you need.
There have been documented shootings where tenths of an inch was almost that was needed for a fatal hit, and a larger diameter bullet would have achieved stopping the threat.
Thos why shooting the largest bore you can accurately fire is the best option.
“Born in Switzerland in 1941” ← 1841？
Ah, good catch. Thanks!
FWIW: No one involved in the Spanish-American War was issuing cartridges using spitzer projectiles. The contemporary Spanish-issue 7mm Mauser cartridge launched a roundnose 173-grain FMJ at ~2,300 fps.
The French were the first to adopt the sharp-pointed projectile concept in 1898 with their Balle D, but it remained a state secret at the time. The rest of the world did not follow until after the German adoption of the S Patrone in 1903. The Swiss didn’t adopt the spitzer until 1911 (GP11), and Spain waited until 1913 (Tipo S). If I remember correctly, Louis La Garde stated the first conflict to see the use of spitzers was the First Balkan War (1912-1913) with the Turkish 7.65x53mm Mauser.
Ah, you are correct. Thank you for the correction.
No worries, I’m always glad to help. Really, the performance of the .30-40 Krag issue cartridge was not that different from any of the other major power’s contemporary issue cartridge in the 7.5-8mm bore range. The perceived superiority of the 7mm Mauser in the Spanish-American War had a lot more to do with the battlefield tactics and terrain. The end result would have been much the same if the two opposing forces had swapped rifles. An offensive force is going to take casualties charging a prepared defensive position on a ridge line, especially when there is little cover or concealment between the two forces. It is inevitably worse when you assemble and hold your forces in clear view of the enemy’s defensive positions and their supporting artillery, as was done at San Juan Hill.
In related popular myths, the internal box magazine of the Winchester M1895 rifle was not likely designed for spitzer projectiles, as no one was yet producing them. If you look at Browning’s patents, the M1895 patent drawings show the use of a single-stack en-bloc clip, a design which Browning had also patented. Clearly, Winchester deleted this feature for the final commercial design.
You may wish to put a link to that PDF at the very beginning of your article and the very end of your article, so people can find it easier.
Hi Shorty, thanks for coming by! Which PDF are you referring to? I linked to several within the article.
Sorry, I meant the big one. Martin Facklers report on lies and misinformation in the ballistics community. Which, by the way, was a real eye-opener for me.
I’ve just found this site accidentally, but I’m glad I did. 🙂 As a hunter I can very much support your points in the article. I’m also a technical guy, who likes to understand how things work, and I’d like to improve my skills, so I always check the effects of my shots on animals, and what I’ve found yet is consistent with the facts you mentioned above: – Shockwave myth: I usually hunt animals (like deers) where headshot would destroy the trophy, or small critters (like fox) where a missed headshot from 100+ meters would be an unnecessary injury risk (rather than humane kill), so I usually avoid headshots in 90% of my shots. I aim mid-high front torso for lung shots. About 10-15% of the animals I shot there suddenly collapse the rest runs for 30-50 meters before the loss of blood incapacitates them. At first I also thought that the 10-15% sudden kill is caused by shockwaves, but after processing the animal I’ve checked and found that the projectile nicked or broke the spinal column in all that cases. (somewhat high shot) So suddenly incapacitating nervous system damage was also caused by the mechanical damage, rather than a hydraulic shockwave. – Temporal vs. permanent cavity: Temporal cavity as I’ve found really only helps if you hit some less elastic, or hard surfaced internal organs like liver, spleen, kidney. It effectively destroys this organs, causing massive bleeding which incapacitates the animal in a short time. But this organs… Read more »
Hey Andy, thanks for coming by and commenting! I’m glad you found the article helpful.
I’m also very glad you provided some real world examples of how terminal ballistics works for your hunting shots. Theory is one thing, but getting relatable examples is even better!
I’m glad I could add something. 🙂
One more thing on shockwave: I personally never hit an animal there (luckily) but there is the “spike shot” where you hit one of the spikes on the spinal column. (happens with wild boars sometimes) There in 100% of the cases the shot renders the animal unconscious, but it recovers in a short time (few minutes) and runs away. They usually fully recover without permanent damage. (we’ve found some animals with healed wound there) I think it works so that there you mechanically hit the spinal column which sends a real shockwave in the spinal fluid, which acts as a concussion. That makes a temporal effect (like you’d be punched in the face) but it usually is not deadly. So if there would be an incapacitating shockwave it would surely work in this cases as the bullet passes an inch from the central nervous system itself. Still there’s nothing permanent.
Thanks for a good article. I heard the story of the 45 ACP related to the relative in-effectiveness of the Army .38 against the drugged Moros as compared with the Army 45 Colt effectiveness. Bigger holes equal faster bleed out
I’m glad you enjoyed it! And yep, when it comes down to it, bigger holes in the plumbing will help drain the system.
A number of years ago, I took a field medicine workshop taught by a former U.S. Navy FMF Corpsman who had seen extensive combat in Vietnam. He commented on the “unrealism” of Hollywood’s war films, in particular how infrequently GSWs are shown as causing fractures. His experience treating trauma in the field was that fractures were often present, if not always. He commented that – in his view – one of the reasons the .45 Auto worked as well as it did out of M1911 handgun is because of its propensity to break bones with that big 230-gr. hardball round. He also mentioned hemorrhaging, too, as you did in your comment.
>Go ahead and drop your answer in the comments now, just to get things started. And don’t say .40 or 10mm, you instigator.
Fair enough, .357 SIG.
Outside of the context of hunting, where preserving the meat is a priority, would the synergy effect you mention imply that fragmenting projectiles see preferred over expanding projectiles? If so, why is it that nearly all of the defensive ammunition on the market seems to have softpoint projectiles, or some other kind of expansion mechanism, rather than provisions for fragmenting?
You see self defense rounds as expanding because most marketed self defense rounds are handgun rounds. Fragmenting for self defense only works at rifle velocities. Handgun speeds doesnt create the same violent splash effect and yaw. Itsx a lot more then just fragmenting vs expanding, Matt coulda wrote 100s of pages on it. Even just in hunting you can use a 308 win and hunt coyotes with a 110gr v max or an elk with a 180 gr nosler partition. Two completely different bullets that are intended to wound differently.
The trouble here is that fragmentation is a relatively unreliable wounding mechanism. It’s a characteristic of a relatively light weight projectile moving at high velocities. Anything sold as primarily being fragmenting is going to carry a different connotation with it (i.e. frangible) and probably not gain a lot of market share.
In my opinion, we’re walking a fine balance with a lot modern loads because we demand the kind of accuracy, wind, and barrier performance that comes from sacrificing terminal performance. Bullet construction that provides great wounding characteristics (such as soft point) often suffer at the external ballistics piece.
For 223 specifically, which I based a lot of this article around, a lot of hunting bullet construction is geared towards small animals and wouldn’t have enough penetration on something larger.
It would seem clear that fragmenting pistol bullets are the proverbial right answer. It would appear FN was spot on when they developed the 5.7×28 and created the SS197SR. The SS198LF uses a nearly 1 inch long 27 grain bullet that in fact does tumble in soft tissue, and of course all this is viewable in any one of thousands of published videos. As for conventional pistol bullets, seems like we were doing it right back in the revolver era when most ammo was either lead bulleted or exposed lead nose jacketed. Certainly this article and the Thompson-Le Garde tests validated that lead bullets are much better stoppers and recommended jacketed bullets have a very thin jacket over the nose to allow it to deform. Today we have plated bullets which perform that duty nicely, as well as polymer coated lead that retains the malleable nature of lead alloy with a sealed “wrap.” There is a saying I coined that goes like this: A hit to a non-vital area with hollowpoint bullet is no more effective than a hit with a non-expanding bullet. A hit to a vital area with a non-expanding bullet is no less effective than a hit with a hollowpoint. Regardless of marketing hyperbole, gape-mouth hollowpoint bullets are NOT as reliable as rounded nose designs for feeding through semiautomatic pistols, and since it really is all about, “location, location, location” in terms of dropping an assailant, and the current dogma is to “shoot to stop the threat,”… Read more »
Could you please explain your conclusions about the 22 long rifle. I may have missed something in the reading.
I have considerable experience with .22 handguns and have found them to be quite effective. That has also been the experience of an old friend who served 20 years with SAS and who was issued a Walther PP in .22 caliber when he was operating at Northern Ireland.
However, I’ve never really understood why the 22 was so effective other than its extreme accuracy and the ability to put many shots on target rapidly.
I’m always open to learning and would welcome any information you can provide on this topic. Thanks in advance.
Hi Morgan, thanks for commenting. I didn’t make any particular conclusions about the 22LR. Given it’s slower velocity, it falls into the category of “slow bullets” and therefore obeys the same rules. Everything relies on hitting something important or poking enough holes to drain blood fast enough to stop the threat. Whatever reputation 22LR might have amongst special military units most likely comes from skilled shooters who used suppressed pistols for up-close dispatching into the central nervous system/brain of an opponent while remaining quiet. I wouldn’t put that in the same category as general use defensive cartridges.
The most infamous failure of a bullet to stop and attacker was the 9mm Silvertip in the 1986 Miami shootout. The bullet performed EXACTLY as it was design – passed through the upper arm, missed the bone, into the chest, and directly to the heart where it came to rest outside the Pericardium – expanded, but completely out of sufficient energy to penetrate or in any other manner, damage the heart!
Had THAT bullet been a 115 to 124 grain non-expanding – even “round nose” design it would have pierced the Pericardial sac and entered the heart muscle, severing all sorts of nerve bundles, vessels, and heart muscle, and possibly passed through to create an exit hole on the other side!
That was a hollowpoint FAILURE, yet somehow seems to have spawned a profitable industry of marketing expanding and hollowpoint bullets!
>>38316724
This contradicts nothing of what I said. I think the confusion is in large part because of not understanding how bullets usually kill. Unless if hitting the heart or spinal column, which is pretty rare, it’s from the exit wounds causing blood loss. Even if a lung is punctured (do we know??), it can be grafted and patched reliably.
In summary, those exit wounds could easily seem like odd angles from the slight chance that Tim might’ve been laying down or otherwise contorted for the rounds.
Thanks for all that information. I think you would be a good person to ask this question to. I’ve looked for an answer, but the answers always seem to veer off course… Is there any case where the exact same projectile will penetrate steel more at a lower velocity than at a higher velocity? To reiterate, and hopefully avoid any answers that address something other than what is being asked… Another way to think about it is this: Is there any case where a bullet fired from a gun will penetrate steel more when the steel is shot at a greater distance than when the same bullet is used to shoot that same steel at a lesser distance… Of course the last way that I’ve stated the question is hinged on the fact that a bullet slows down as it travels. I hope I’ve managed to make clear exactly what my question is. It doesn’t involve any factors such as caliber, weight, what the bullet is made of etc… I’m only asking about any situation where the bullets are exactly the same, but only different velocities…
Thank you!
Hi Stephen, that’s well outside of my wheelhouse. I suspect that sectional density is the key variable there, but velocity would go right along with it.
Being an avid hunter/shooter and a former member of a neuroscience research team.
I am curious if you are aware of any research regarding the phenic and vegas nerve systems.
Both are linked to spontaneous syncope (blackout involving loss of motor function) with rapid motor control function.
In humans, conditions such as cough, vasovagal and staining syncopes seem to mimic the knockdiwn phenomena….often with very rapid recovery.. (3-5 seconds)
It seems plausible to me, that a sudden stimulation by either pressure wave or physical trauma to either of those nerve systems would be sufficient to produce that “knock down” effect that is frequently witnessed by hunters and also explain why some of those “dropped” animals recover after a few seconds jump up and run away.
Hey Chappe, that’s actually a really interesting point. I’ve never come across such research, but wouldn’t be surprised if some of the expert laboratories have and keep it close to home for their own purposes. Given the blunt force trauma-like effects that can happen, it makes total sense. Though I would caveat that back to the actual effect will probably have a lot of individual variance, which means it’s not a consistently reliable mechanism to calculate for.