An End To The Caliber Wars . . .?

[tipoc]

Ackley has a useful chapter introducing Chamberlin. Chamberlin began as a medical doctor in the U.S. military where he set up field hospitals in Europe and a few other countries. He paid particular attention to the victims of gunshot wounds and shrapnel wounds. He interviewed hundres of soldiers from several armies who survived the same. He was meticulous. What were they doing when shot? When had they last eaten? Could they continue to function after being shot? etc. He went on to work on the development of rifle rounds for the Army. In the latter they shot hundreds of hogs and goats to record the effects of various calibers under different conditions. They did pioneering work in the development of medium to shoot into and test before ballistic geletin came on the scene.

Chamberlin found that no two wounds were the same. He found a great difference in the effect of GSWs based on a variety of factors. A man who was relaxed, or asleep at the time of being shot tended to suffer less trauma than one who was tensed up. A man in warmer climates tended to suffer less trauma than in colder. In the cold our bodies and those of animals tense up as we shiver, for example. A well hydrated man or animal with a full belly will suffer more injury than one that is not. This, of course given that the wounds and caliber are similar. How a man or animal reacted to being shot varied widely.

Chamberlin gives many instances of the effect of hydraulic shock on men and animals. He speaks of their having fed and watered hogs and goats and then allowing various periods of time to pass before shooting them. The most explosive effects were to be seen in those animals that were fed most recently. Bits of partially digested corn became missles which penetrated neck muscles, for example. He speaks of shooting hogs and goats where the bullets barely penetrated the skin, and in some cases did not, and examining the injury to major organs on autopsy. Injuries he believed were created by hydraulic shock. He also speaks of instances where the shock had little effect.

Chamberlin says that he would argue the statement that only the permanant or stretch cavity does damage.

He discusses the confusion among shooters in defining shock. Medical shock is different from GSW shock or the shock effect of varying calibers and should not be confused.

While shock exists the many variables involved prevent accurate measurement of it or relying on it to kill. A well placed bullet of the proper caliber for the job is irreplaceable.

Theories abound he says any fool can come up with a new one and they do often.

tipoc

[JohnKSa]

Instant kills are usually accomplished by 1 (Damage to or destruction of a major nerve center such as the brain or spinal cord) or 5 (Hydraulic pressure transmitted to nerve centers which can cause 1) Ackley says.

This sounds remarkably like the Ballistic Pressure Wave theory espoused by the Dr.s Courtney (et. al.).

Interesting.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by tipoc

Both discuss hydrostatic shock, or as it's called by some the pressure wave.

Not to be a doubting-dumbjohn but I think Courtney is saying that hydrostatic-shock is a distinct and different animal than the pressure wave.

Handgun bullets seldom have the velocity necessary to produce hydrostatic shock or large temporary stretch cavities (as Sanow likes to call them).

One problem, of course, is that it is exceedingly difficult and/or expensive to actually see the various effects of a bullet's path through living tissue while it happens. We can only look at post-mortem results and draw conclusions.

It might be illuminating to see high speed film of various shapes of bullets impacting gelatin and their first 12" of travel and observe shockwave effects at various velocities. Again, this is expensive to set up with those cameras than run at several thousand frames/sec.

[Aqeous]

How about this . . .

http://splodetv.com/video/hollowpoin...allistic-gel-0

If you look at the shockwave in extreme slow motion as it passes through the gel, it is clear that the shockwave is not uniform. Its more "screw" like . . . it is actually very interesting.

[Socrates]

Aqueous: That's a great link, if for no other reason to contrast with the difference between the bullet going through the gello
at near full speed, or, as is common in service calibers, the wave is gone in the first half of the block, and goes to sleep, and just penetrates in the second part.

I guess having a friend that took pictures of projectiles going through barriers for evaluation for the military might have skewed my view. He used the world's fastest camera, and also rated detonation cord burn rate for sale.

Some nice pictures of 20mm cannon rounds, or sabots, in particular.

I suspect that maybe where my preference for bullet size came from.

From the stuff I've been working up, with a 3.2-3.6 pound gun, I can shoot a 275-325 grain .510" bullet at 800 fps, and have recoil like a 9mm. What's not to like?

I'm currently looking at my new bullet shipment:


The bullet is as long as the straight walled part of this 45 ACP case, excluding the primer area:



475 Linebaugh, 480 Ruger (475 Diameter) 325 Grain Flat Nose Box of 50 10 X=600

Something very comforting about knowing your bullet is the same diameter as a 45 ACP CASE, and, just 1/8" shorter.


Bill, I think the bullets create more shock as the diameter of the bullet is increased, and, I think it occurs pretty much geometric, not linear. Also, if the bullet is large and heavy, it will maintain, or increase the pressure wave as it goes through the target.

As for math formulas for bullets: the problem is that the formulas do nothing, if they fail to explain the many observed results in different shootings.

[tipoc]

This sounds remarkably like the Ballistic Pressure Wave theory espoused by the Dr.s Courtney (et. al.).

Yep, very close. Which is why I say that Courtney's theory is not entirely new. Chamberlin says that there have been variations on the theory over the years going by different names and would continue to be, Courtney's variation is more developed than those of the past and his focus is on developing bullets that more reliably produce the effect. But I encourage folks to locate and read the originals and draw their own conclusions.

tipoc

[Socrates]

Courtney's doesn't seem to take into account bullet diameter...

[tipoc]

I should add that both Ackley and Chamberlin discussed the pressure wave as a seperate phenomena from the damage of the temporary wound cavity or the damage done by shrapnel from a bullet that shed it's jacket in expansion, or that exploded due to poor construction for the velocities used. Both men were serious hunters by the way. They had both observed the phenomena of liquified meat in shot game animals with high velocity rounds of 3-4000 fps. Jellied meat is not something that folks hunting for game meat care to see. It's wasteful.

Elsewhere in the books Ackley and others discuss the merits of high velocity heavy calibers for various game. They work they said the downside is that many shooters can not handle the recoil and so don't shoot enough to be reliably accurate with them. They are better off with something else that they can handle that will still do the job. A point that is one of the conclusions of the caliber wars.




tipoc

[tipoc]

The energy delivered downrange, not at the muzzle, the momentum and weight of the bullet, a rounds ballistic coefficient, the construction of the bullet for the game being sought, matching the caliber to the game and the type of country one is in, matching the rifle and the round to ones capabilities. All these are part of figuring out what's best.

Newton's formula I believe is useful but also limited. The TKO figures can also shed some light though they are less scientific. Both leave out of the picture the type of bullet being used though, but both do shed some light on downrange effectiveness IMHO.

Dr. Courtney's big challenge is taking all the various factors into consideration so that there is some consistantcy to it all. I have my doubts he can do this but I wish him the best.

tipoc

[Socrates]

Newton's formula I believe is useful but also limited. The TKO figures can also shed some light though they are less scientific. Both leave out of the picture the type of bullet being used though, but both do shed some light on downrange effectiveness IMHO.

The increase in the effect of caliber is increased by the better bullets we have now. IIRC, and this has now radically changed with the advent of the monometal bullet: 2150 fps is ideal for stopping calibers. Ackley enlarged case size, so he could get the same, or more velocity, with less pressure, hence the 450 Ackley. It will push a 500 grain bullet 2300 fps, yet with less pressure, it approaches the 35k nitro express, and gives you the 2150 the NE 450 produces. Now, if you push conventional bullets past 2600 fps, you start having bullets come apart,
hence the perfection of the 375, which, by the way, is only surpassed by the 9.3 x 62. However, now, you can take advantage of those 2300 fps, or more with a lighter 458 bullet, using such bullets as this:
http://www.gsgroup.co.za/03fn.html




Barnes uses this as well, and, if they weren't so expensive, might well be a great solution to a combination of penetration, higher velocity, great opening, and consistency...

[Aqeous]

"From the stuff I've been working up, with a 3.2-3.6 pound gun, I can shoot a 275-325 grain .510" bullet at 800 fps, and have recoil like a 9mm. What's not to like?"

Thats so awesome it about makes me drool I've been working up to a concept like that in my mind but I think you have just given me a real jump start in that direction. I have found that I can handle a heavier gun far better then I can handle heavier recoil. The recoil takes so much out of the follow up shot, where as the only complaint with a heavier gun is being able to hold it at arms length for extended periods of time. There are however techniques that can be employed to minimize fatigue and they have always worked well for me so a heavier gun is much preferred to trying to keep the muzzle from jumping back and knocking me on the head .

I have been seriously considering methods of possibility having lead or tungsten weights attached to modified rails on handguns (one at the muzzle and a one near the grip to keep it balanced) to bleed off some of the recoil of heavier loads in lighter weight guns. But turning a .510 into a 9mm goes beyond my wildest expectations.




Regarding bullet diameter:

From what I have gathered from the information that I have collected, bullet diameter should play a very significant role in the formation of the Ballistics Shockwave. I also have come to suspect that, perhaps, the actual moment that a JHP expands may in itself possess a certain "explosive" quality upon opening that might create a peak in the pressure wave. The hydrostatic pressure that forces the hollow point to expand would be suddenly released, and at that same instant, the diameter of the bullet (and hence the "fluid" that it is displacing) would be significantly increased.

I think that this "explosive expansion" may play a role in the shape of the temporary cavity that we see in the ballistics gel test (link in previous post ) I provided above. If you stop the clip frame by frame, you can see that the peak of the TC coincides with the exact moment that the hollow point "bursts" open. Rather explosively I might add. Now granted the velocity is bleeding off pretty quickly, but there is a definite peak in the wave at the very instant that it expands.

I also noted that the "screw" pattern of the wave is fairly uniform as well (meaning that the bullet's spin didn't seem to be that dramatically effected from the impact) And spin . . . is energy. It is obvious that the actual spin of the bullet is visibly imparting additional energy into the stretch cavity that CANNOT be factored in by calculating velocity or foot pounds alone. Curious . . . I wonder if people are factoring in this "added" energy when they are considering the effects of bullet vs target??


EDIT:
One last thing . . . if you look REALLY CLOSE you can actually see a shockwave move through the block AHEAD of the bullet. When it impacts don't look at the bullet itself, instead look to where it exits.

[JohnKSa]

But turning a .510 into a 9mm goes beyond my wildest expectations.

At the risk of stating the obvious, there aren't many 3.6lb 9mms on the market. What you're talking about is a gun that weighs about as much as a Super RedHawk revolver with a 10 inch barrel.

Yes, you can really drop recoil by pushing the weight of the gun up--that's pretty basic physics, there's nothing revolutionary or surprising there. But there's a reason people aren't enthused about 3.5lb handguns...

Newton's formula I believe is useful but also limited.

It kills me that you list Newton's "formula" along with the TKO values as if they have comparable value. The TKO values are useful only as anecdotal observations of an elephant poacher named Taylor--the only thing that gives them some minimal basis in credibility is that they are a doctored up momentum value--essentially momentum "corrupted" by scaling it with the bullet diameter.

Newton's laws of motions, on the other hand, are the very foundation of the science of motion as long as you don't get into the realm of relativity. Even then, Newton's laws (as originally stated by Newton not the oversimplified versions we usually quote) do not contradict relativity.

BPW, according to Courtney, is based on the rate of change of kinetic energy of a projectile in tissue. There are several ways to maximize that effect, one is by using a large diameter projectile, another is fragmentation, another is aggressive expansion, etc. Bullet diameter can play a part, but the EFFECT itself is due to a measurable change in a scientific quantity--as it MUST BE. All physical effects are, that's the whole point of science. I'm not saying BPW is the right answer, but the fact that it can be explained by science is a good start. One might accurately say that it is an ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITE.

Courtney is not inaccessible. Rather than running amok, proposing variants of the BPW theory or speculating about what has already been studied and characterized, I suggest contacting him and asking him for information.

[Socrates]

Dr. C's homepage

http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/

[kiov]

I'm guessing most folks haven't made it this far. I've learned a great deal from this discussion.

I also feel that the FBI report was well done. Penetration, placement, and modern ammo (JHP) were sited as the crucial factors, if I recall correctly.

I'm sure we will hear more about the shock wave theory as we get more science coming in. That said, I think the results will probably bear out the general consensus among those who fight for us in the military and police forces....that the medium load .45 is a good choice for close range, limited shot, handgun fighting.

For the CCW, as stated by others, over-penetation is a big issue, as is size and weight of the gun since its needs to be actually carried.

My most likely use of my gun will be in a local bar playing cards, or walking home after the weekly game. I carry a 9mm on my ankle in the winter and a 380 inside my waistband during hot months. The 9mm is an all steel Kahr MK9 which is accurate as heck, and points and shoots quickly. I load the 9mm with Speer Gold dots. The 9's got plenty of power to penetrate, so the JHP is good both for the kill and to help prevent a thru and thru. I also drill aiming my shots downwards to limit the chances of killing somebody behind my target. The 380 is a Colt Mustang and is loaded with FMJ rounds to help penetration. I reluctantly give up the benifits of a hollow point round.

BTW, my home gun is a Para 14-45, also loaded with JHP's.

I have a S&W 500 which I couldn't resist buying, but don't like to shoot. Its just too much for my older wrists.

I very much appreciate the time and thought put into the posts in this thread, but I don't see changing my guns or calibers just yet.

kiov

[Socrates]

kiov:

Jack Huntington has designed, and sells a short version of the
500 S&W, called the .500JRH. He's got two loads, done by buffalobore.com that he sells. The light load is a 440 grain bullet at 950 fps. If your gun weighs the normal 71 oz that the X frames normally do, is should recoil at Recoil Energy of 14 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 14 fps. That's like a Glock 30.

He also makes a pretty much full house load for the caliber, 430 grain bullet at 1350 fps: Recoil Energy of 28 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 20 fps. That's a bit more, about 25% more, then a 44. However, the speed of the recoil is so slow, it's like a push.

Jack was selling this ammunition for 35.00 for 20 rounds, and, considering that the bullets alone are .75 cents each, and, IIRC, the brass is the same cost, that's a REAL good price. Jack's phone is 530-268-6877.

Also, the powder that buffalobore used in these loads is a low recoil, low flash powder, so, it's REALLY mild recoiling ammunition. Part of the problem with rounds such as the S&W 500 is commercial loaders can use very cheap, high recoiling powders, that kick the shooter a ton, and yet give poor ballistics. Buffalobore used the best he could find, for this particular application, and the results are pretty spectacular. The bullets are Cast Performance bullets, LFN's, and will penetrate about 5-6 feet of buffalo, or,
will punch nice big holes in paper.



The above went side to side on an Asian buffalo, at 950 fps, and, were caught by the off side skin, which was 1.5" thick, and makes an excellent bullet catcher. One on the left broke a shoulder bone, and mushroomed
just like a good hollowpoint. Hats off to Cast Performance. They got these bullets just right, not too brittle and hard, and not too soft.

[tipoc]

It kills me that you list Newton's "formula" along with the TKO values as if they have comparable value. The TKO values are useful only as anecdotal observations of an elephant poacher named Taylor--the only thing that gives them some minimal basis in credibility is that they are a doctored up momentum value--essentially momentum "corrupted" by scaling it with the bullet diameter.

As I said in the context of a discussion of caliber selection and the effectiveness of various rounds Newton's formula, only goes so far and has it's limitations. It can tell you the foot pds. of energy that a round strikes at but that is all it tells you. Newton's formula is consistent though as it is scientific. The momentum formulas work but also have their limitations. The TKO formulas (which are based on a solid bullet) and their variations don't rest on solid ground but are useful for comparison. Pick a few loads and work with the formulas some. The 30-30 is a much better killer than it appears on paper, this is not just because the type of bullet used is left out of all the equations. they all leave out the most important thing it seems or can't account for them there is no formula that does.

Below is an example (not my own):

bullet weight, velocity, Kinetic energy, momentum value(bullet weight in hundreds of grains times velocity in hundreds of feet)

1. 200 2000 1776 40
2. 200 2200 2148 44

So a 10% increase in velocity boosts the K/energy 21% while the momentum value goes up by 10%.

3. 220 2200 1953 44

Here a 10% increase in weight over 1. boosts the K/energy by 10%. Numbers 2 and 3 are equal in momentum value which makes some sense to me. Note the drop in energy.

4. 300 1470 1400 44

Adding 100 grains to the bullet, drops the velocity some and makes it a less effective round if we look at the energy alone. But the momentum figures tell us a different story, one I think is closer to the truth.

5. 300 2200 3150 66

We add 50% to the velocity, this gives us 50% more stopping power (momentum) but 125% energy. Something ain't right here.

Another angle, take a 12 guage rifled slug from a shot gun at 50 feet.

6. 440 1400 1914 61.6

Momentum gives the killing potential of this as close to #5, which I think is about right. But velocity shows a substancial loss and close to 3.

The old buffalo gun the 45-120.

7. 550 1450 2560 80
8. 200 2400 2560 48

So both these loads in the old cartridge would work for me. That much energy at 100 yards is impressive. But the 500 grain load has much more killing potential than the energy figures alone account for.

If we were to do the same for some light fast loads the energy figures would highlight them better and might give a more accurate picture for some than the momentum formulas do.

None take into account the type bullet used. Another limitation of their usefulness.

Play with these figures and the TKO figures some on various loads. May be interesting.

That Taylor was a poacher and ivory thief don't bother me too much as the whole African continent was being poached at the time, he was a small part of the thievery. He was trying to illustrate something he couldn't account for otherwise. Not so scientific, but it has it's uses. Bob Forker includes them in his book on ammo for illustrative purposes.

Factor in Socrates' recoil formulas for some fun. I think the formulas work best with rifles and revolvers rather than pistols though. Recoil from a 1911 is quite different than one from a S&W M29 which in itself is far different from a Ruger Vaquero. Not to mention S&W target grips vs. a set of Pachmayr decelerators.

tipoc

[5whiskey]

Do you really want the end of caliber wars???

Apply the KISS formula (keep it simple stupid)

Rule #1 A handgun is used intermittently to fight your way to a rifle or away from danger. Meaning you shoot it as your running to the shotty in your home or you shoot it as you haul arse in amongst others out in the world.

Rule #2 A .22 derringer in the pocket is worth more than the .44 mag in the truck. Are you gonna carry the thing?

Rule #3 If you don't have to CC (you're a cop or like to OC) then carry the best gun for caliber/weight/capacity that you can. This is the personal decision. This is where there will always be arguments. There is no right and no wrong, just preference. There has been massive amounts of research trying to determine if small/fast is better than big/slow, HP in small/fast better than FMJ small/fast, ditto for big/slow, so on and so forth. This has been studied and overanalyzed to death for 50 years, with every new study electing a new "clear winner". Carry what you want and be done with it.



Also, there is more to the caliber war than just stopping power and the actual effect of the round on live tissue. Also coming to play is weight of the weapon (is it a pain in the arse to carry it around all day?), capacity of the weapon, price of practice ammunition (a miss from a .50AE is just as effective as a miss from a .25). Geez...

[JohnKSa]

As I said in the context of a discussion of caliber selection and the effectiveness of various rounds Newton's formula, only goes so far and has it's limitations.

The problem is that this comment implies that "Newton's formula" was designed to quantify the effectiveness/stopping power of bullets.

Newton discovered the laws of motion that defined the scientific properties of projectiles. The laws are perfectly useful and completely accurate and fully descriptive.

Momentum is also part of Newton's laws of motion so, properly speaking it is also one of "Newton's formulas".

BPW is based on rate of change of kinetic energy. "Rate of change" in the sense of this theory is a mathematical concept which was made tractable by Newton and kinetic energy is defined in Newton's laws of motion, so it would be accurate to call it another of "Newton's formula" as well, I suppose.

What I'm getting at is that "Newton's formula" (kinetic energy) is one tiny part of his statement of the laws of motion. Scientific quantities that are not debatable. The "limitations" of "Newton's formulas" have to do with how they are understood and applied to the problem, there is absolutely no question as to their validity. In other words, if someone could make all the proper measurements and carefully model the terminal effects of bullets with the precision it would take to make a useful determination about how to predict performance, he would find that the entire problem could be defined in terms of Newton's laws of motion.

The problem is that the process is complicated, not that Newton's formulas are limited.

Does kinetic energy give you the whole answer? NO.
Does momentum give you the whole answer? NO.

But I can guarantee you that they are parts of the answer. The BPW theory, which appears to be supported at least to some extent by experimental testing, passes the "smell check" in that it is explained in terms of the science of motion, NOT in terms of made up, non-scientific formulas. I don't know if it's the right answer, but it's on the right track.

[Socrates]

Well for me, it's shot placement. Shot placement requires an accurate gun. I happen to have a bunch of em. The irony is, the biggest ones are the most accurate.

Everyone of these is a tack driver, except the S&W 360 PD, but, it maybe I just can't get it done with that gun.

I was thinking at the range that I would NOT want to be 25 yards away with someone shooting at me with a Freedom Arms 83, in 22lr. that can shoot. An eyeball is a huge target for that gun, at that range...

Most accurate is the .475 Linebaugh. One hole at 25 yards, if I do my part. The .510 Maximum is about the same, we think, but no one has ever put sane loads in the gun, so we aren't sure. The previous owner put 525 grain bullets at 1550 fps in it, and managed to miss a bison with it, at close range. I just got some 'little' 300 grain Hawk HP's I plan to load at 1100-1200 fps. Should recoil about like a Glock 30.

I also REALLY like the auto version, 265 grain .475 HP bullet Hawk makes. VERY cool bullet...Pictures to follow.

[tipoc]

I did not mean that the laws and properties of the physical universe and Newton's laws that help to describe some of them aren't valid, while I'm a little spiritual I'm not a metaphysician. I agree that both the formulas for velocity and momentum, the BC, etc. are useful for viewing different aspects of a bullets performance.

tipoc

[kiov]

Socrates,
Thanks for the info on the 500 rounds. I was thinking that I'd have to load my own to shoot the gun. In the end tho, I'm thinking that I might just be better off shooting my python (another example of the best round being the one that best fits the shooter, as many have stated.) Still, its nice to know somebody loads a shootable .50 round for those who aren't willing to take lots of recoil.

[MikeOrick]

I'm still here, several pit bulls are not. They were DRT w 9 minimeter FMJ no less!

Location, location, location... mine was the roof of a truck.

[Boris Bush]

MikeOrick

carefull now! I got it real good for killing with 9mm fmj. It is either illegal, immoral, irresponsible or stupid when you have a better choice(?)


I have seen what fmj 9mm does to people and the only thing that stops me from carrying it is overpenetration. When I hunt hike or camp where there is little chance of hitting someone behind them I use ball for best penetration..............

[vox rationis]

I have seen what fmj 9mm does to people and the only thing that stops me from carrying it is overpenetration. When I hunt hike or camp where there is little cance of hitting someone behind them I use ball for best penetration..............

you guys know that I sympathize with the proponents of bigger and heavier bullets, but ironically had that FBI agent loaded his 9mm pistol with regular old 124grain NATO FMJ instead of those fast lightweight Silvertips, that bad guy's heart would have been perforated instead of the round stopping well short like the Silvertip did..

[JohnKSa]

ironically had that FBI agent loaded his 9mm pistol with regular old 124grain NATO FMJ instead of those fast lightweight Silvertips, that bad guy's heart would have been perforated instead of the round stopping well short like the Silvertip did..

An interesting point that is not often made. This is why you'll see FMJ recommended in .380 sometimes--to insure proper penetration.

I think that one could make the same statement but replace "regular old 125 grain NATO FMJ" with "modern premium self-defense ammunition" and it would be equally true.

RE: "stopping well short "--the bullet stopped about an inch from penetrating Platt's heart wall.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm