Crazy ER Stories: Caliber Effectiveness on the Street

[downrange72]

Cannot disagree more strongly. Go ahead and recommend guns to women that need "break in" periods. Your contention that flawless performance out of the box is nonsense is ludicrous. You seem to expouse a self-defense gun should not work properly when new. That, sir, is outrageous, and will get someone killed who takes your advice. You also do not know that muscle memory, like "hydrostatic shock" is a misnomer. Memory is not in the muscular system; it is in the neurological system. What you call "muscle memory" is, actually, neural adaptation creating new neural circuits.

There is no way in the world I will ever recommend guns that are known to experience stoppages and malfunctions when new, and no one knows when, or if, those unacceptable events will cease. I will only recommned firearms known to function flawlessly right out of the box. Kahr firearms fail that test in every instance I have observed, and I strongly recommend against them.

Just a quick . I know someone that has a "single shot" Kahr in 9mm as well. Only one example, but even with my limited sample size, I couldn't trust one. If we were lucky, we were able to get 5 shots off before a malfunction. Rarely, did we get a full mag. This was primarily rapid fire at about 7 feet. Others Kahr's maybe flawless, but I've heard too many stories to purchase one.

The only experience I had, when working in the ER, was with a gunshot was a 22 that lodged in a sternum. He was observed overnight and released the next morning. I've heard tales of 9mm hitting the brow line, and never penetrating the skull. Granted, I worked in a small town ER, so gunshots were not common at all. I personally know of one person who tried to commit suicide with a 38 and is a walking, talking, thinking member of society today. I've also seen a kid walking around without a face who tried to commit suicide with a shotgun. Granted, I don't know what load, but he is alive walking, talking, thinking.

 

[Hohn]

There is no way in the world I will ever recommend guns that are known to experience stoppages and malfunctions when new, and no one knows when, or if, those unacceptable events will cease. I will only recommned firearms known to function flawlessly right out of the box. Kahr firearms fail that test in every instance I have observed, and I strongly recommend against them.

Please tell me where I can find this list of guns that are known to experience stoppages.

Does it have the ammo too?

By lot number?

Methinks that would include any gun ever made-- even a Glock or SIG or (insert fanboi brand of choice here).

jmo

 

[Mosinguy]

I'm surprised the .45 guys haven't attacked in full force. It's all about penetration and where you hit the guy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Those are really good questions man:

You seem to be stuck on velocity, which misses the point.

You are mingling the argument about damage and accuracy. Note that I was specifically addressing your claim "the .380 doesn't have enough power behind it to be reasonably accurate beyond 10 yards". Let's stick with that for now, we can discuss power once this is squared away.

The questions I asked where to get you to think about the relationship between power and accuracy. In pistols at standard pistol ranges, say 50y and in they are insignificant compared to variation from shooter skill, equipment, and consistency of ammunition. All of the things you are talking about, velocity, retained momentum, etc. will change point of impact vs point of aim, but won't open up group sizes.

Think about this for a second. If the .380 is opening up groups at 10y due to a lack of power, how do bull's eye competition shooters punch out such little groups at 50y with a .22 pistol? Even an entry level bull's eye pistol, say the Buckmark, will be punching 1" groups at 15y if the shooter does does his part and uses quality ammo. A good shooter, or an average one using a rest, can do the same at 25y. If your power to accuracy theory was correct, how would that be possible?

 

[Mgderf]

What is "hydrostatic shock?"

"Hydostatic" is a term that refers to hydraulic pressure transfers in liquid/semi-liquid environment.

Hydrostatic drive is a propulsion system using fluid under pressure usually utilizing a vane pump.

Hydrostatic shock refers to a situation that occurs immediately in front of and around the projectile as it passes through flesh.
It's sometimes known as a temporary wound cavity. It will create a huge swell around the bullet as it passes through the body, pushing vitals aside violently, then the cavity closes as the pressure drops.

If you watch slow-motion footage of a high-power round passing through ballistic gel you get a graphic example.

Hydrostatic shock can be a killer itself, even if the round necessarily wasn't.

 

[looney2ns]

So since I'm new to this site I thought I'd introduce myself. My name is Aaron. I'm new here but not exactly new to the firearms world. I learned the basics of shooting when I was 7. I've been carrying and training since I was 19, I've received limited training from military sources, advanced training from private/professional sources, and personal instruction from combat veterans.

I work in an ER in downtown Indy doing diagnostic work on all of the patients that come in. Thus, I get to see my fair share of gun and knife wounds, and, odd duck that I am, I often take note on what caliber the patient was hit by, where it hit him, etc. It gives me a lot of real life examples to deal with when considering the caliber vs. bullet placement concept. Today I thought I might share with you guys a few stories relating what we in the medical community experience concerning gunshot wounds and how effective each caliber is. Hopefully these stories will shed some light on the real world effectiveness of different cartridges beyond idealized ballistic gel tests. Obviously my observations cannot be regarded as "scientific". My sample sizes aren't big enough. I can only take what I see on a regular basis, and try to give a story or two that sums up the experiences I have in general.

The first story I wanted to share involved a .32 ACP. I'm sort of known as the "gun guy" in my ER, as I have taught several nurses and clinical scientists there how to shoot and word travels fast when you work so closely together. Anyway, one night we got a GSW, and they asked me to come over and take a look at it. When the bullet was extracted, I could tell right away that it was a .32 ACP. The round hadn't even deformed before coming to a stop between the radius and ulna. (Granted it was a FMJ) The bones weren't even fractured. Now I cannot tell you for certain at what range the round was fired because our patients are usually not truthful about how the events surrounding their being shot transpired. (Judging by the claims of our patients, Indianapolis must be the "random shooting" capital of the world. lol) That being said, I very much doubt that this young man was hit in the forearm at 25 yards whilst jogging on the other side of the street. His injury suggested he had placed his arm up in front of him to shield himself, probably at close range, and was struck in the forearm with a .32 that failed to penetrate.

What I took away: If you or your woman (I say woman because it's normally women I know who decide they want to carry a pistol but then settle on a "cut little gun") decide to carry a .32, you have to realize ahead of time that you absolutely must train to the point where you can always deliver a shot to the ocular-cranial cavity under pressure. (I.e. the area between the mustache line and the eyebrows.) Personally, if I were to carry a round that light I would carry a .22. They are far easier to shoot, and I will be far more likely to deliver that necessary face shot. (Notice that I didn't call it a "head shot", more on that later.) I choose to carry a round much larger than that because I'm too lazy to train to the point where I can instantly deliver face shots with every shot. Torsos are much easier for bums like me to hit.

The next story happened about a year ago. There was a shooting in the courtyard of an apartment complex and our patient was struck five times in the torso. When I saw the info that was sent by the ambulance, I assumed we were in for a lot of work on the guy. Honestly, I figured that five hits in the torso from anything would be bad news bears. How couldn't it be? When the patient arrived he was sitting up in the gurney and talking to us! It turns out he had been shot by a .380. Again the range wasn't beyond normal gunfight distance, yet the rounds failed to penetrate far enough to reach vital organs. We immediately downgraded him to a trauma 2.

I tell you this story because in my life-long firearms journey, I have oft heard men expound upon the virtues of the .380 round. "It's almost a 9mm!" is the most common phrase I hear. "It's accurate and easy to conceal!" and on and on it goes, as if the round was comparable to a 9mm.
Guys. It's all bullcrap. I have seen patients hit by a .380, and honestly, I'm totally underwhelmed. If you're right on top of the guy, the .380 might have enough penetration to stop him, but don't count on it being anything more than an in-your-face-belly-gun. Furthermore, the .380 doesn't have enough power behind it to be reasonably accurate beyond 10 yards and it's quite a bit more expensive than the 9mm. Less power, less accurate, more expensive. Not a great deal if you ask me. If you want a pocket gun Ruger and Kahr make great little 9mms that are actually easier on your hands that common .380s.
That being said a .380 is better than no gun at all. Just please be sure you train with it constantly if you decide it is the caliber for you. Personally, after these experiences, I ditched the .380 round completely.

The final story I want to relate happened about two months ago. Once again I cannot tell you for certain at what range this occurred because again I'm fairly certain the patient was lying to us about how it happened. They tend to do that when there are cops standing there. ("Honestly officer! I wuz just walkn' down the street mind'n my own biznass!") Anyway the man got caught up in a shoot out and took a round of unknown caliber to the face. We were all amazed at his luck. The round struck right at the top of the mustache line. One centimeter higher and it would have likely ricocheted into his ocular-cranial cavity, and it would have been lights outs for him. Instead his mandible stopped the bullet dead in its tracks, where it then floated around under his skin.

What I took away: Head shots are not good enough, especially when using a pistol. You must land the shot between the mustache and the eyebrows. Anywhere else and you're just kidding yourself about the certain effectiveness of your shot. I've even seen people try to use 9mm rounds to commit suicide, fail to hit the brain stem, and live through it. One will even make a recovery. Even if using a high powered rifle, if you don't strike the brain stem they may not die instantly. Instead their death throws could cause them to jerk down on their own trigger before checking out.

I have other stories, but honestly they're not that interesting. The .38 specials and 9mms seem to stop people, though it takes a well placed hit or several torso hits to kill them outright. We've had several experiences of guys trying to rape a woman and taking a round to the chest instead. Perhaps I've become calloused, but inwardly I fine some small satisfaction in that. I have little mercy for such men. I have no experiences with .40s and .45s. People who take shots with these calibers to vital areas don't come to us. They go to the morgue. I'm sure many of them survive long enough to do more damage before they go down. However by the time the ambulance pulls into the bay a lot of time has gone by and they've probably bled out by then. If someone hit in a non-vital area with a .40 or .45 has come in, I either wasn't there or didn't take notice (which is probably the case). Minor hits don't stay in my memory. Everyone knows minor hits don't do you any good anyways no matter what handgun you're using.

One fact that might surprise you: Often clinical staff think that .22s are the deadliest bullets ever. This is due to the fact that men take hits to vital areas, come in with nasty internal leaks, and bleed out. As an added bonus, .22s are small enough to drift around and bury themselves into an artery which then sucks the round downstream until it gets caught somewhere and causes an embolism. (Fun huh?) In contrast, men hit with major calibers who make it to the ER have normally been hit in a non-vital area and thus live.

In conclusion, I would take two things away from this. First, carry the biggest round out of the biggest gun you can handle, and try not to use less than a .38 special/9mm. Humans are actually pretty hard to bring down. Second, don’t be afraid to take a bullet resisting criminals. Chances are, even if he gets the drop on you, he won’t hit you. If you are hit, you have an excellent chance of survival. If you die, it’s better than dying like a sheep after watching them rape and murder your family. Draw your weapon and take them down!
What do you consider to be your minimum caliber?

Great read! thanks, do you by chance make note of what type bullets are used? RN vs HP?

 

[Grunt]

Aaron1776: What type of round are you carrying; hollow point or FMJ and why? To stop an assailant, do you believe more in round penetration or the shock value of the round?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts in this thread; it is very enlightening.

 

[in625shooter]

You are mingling the argument about damage and accuracy. Note that I was specifically addressing your claim "the .380 doesn't have enough power behind it to be reasonably accurate beyond 10 yards". Let's stick with that for now, we can discuss power once this is squared away.

The questions I asked where to get you to think about the relationship between power and accuracy. In pistols at standard pistol ranges, say 50y and in they are insignificant compared to variation from shooter skill, equipment, and consistency of ammunition. All of the things you are talking about, velocity, retained momentum, etc. will change point of impact vs point of aim, but won't open up group sizes.

Think about this for a second. If the .380 is opening up groups at 10y due to a lack of power, how do bull's eye competition shooters punch out such little groups at 50y with a .22 pistol? Even an entry level bull's eye pistol, say the Buckmark, will be punching 1" groups at 15y if the shooter does does his part and uses quality ammo. A good shooter, or an average one using a rest, can do the same at 25y. If your power to accuracy theory was correct, how would that be possible?

BehindBlueI's, Well put. I will go on to say what I believe to be the issue on the 380's perception of poor accuracy is probably due more to the fact that all of the 380 handguns that I know of are sub compact/compact which are harder to shoot as a full size gun.

I posted a couple links earlier here one on FBI handguns that cover a lot of info on shooting at moving subjecty etc. But, what a lot of folks do not factor in is it doesn't matter how many stats you study, or top of the line ammunition, caliber etc etc you pick from those studies and think your ahead of the power curve. it boils doen to a lot of time Mr Murphy is the one that decides why that one is incapacitated by a 22LR and the other one simply walked off after being hit with a 45ACP.

sure you are going to make the best choice you can from current technology but nothing is an absolute when it come to incapcitation with most handgun rounds!

 

[Aaron1776]

You are mingling the argument about damage and accuracy. Note that I was specifically addressing your claim "the .380 doesn't have enough power behind it to be reasonably accurate beyond 10 yards". Let's stick with that for now, we can discuss power once this is squared away.

The questions I asked where to get you to think about the relationship between power and accuracy. In pistols at standard pistol ranges, say 50y and in they are insignificant compared to variation from shooter skill, equipment, and consistency of ammunition. All of the things you are talking about, velocity, retained momentum, etc. will change point of impact vs point of aim, but won't open up group sizes.

Think about this for a second. If the .380 is opening up groups at 10y due to a lack of power, how do bull's eye competition shooters punch out such little groups at 50y with a .22 pistol? Even an entry level bull's eye pistol, say the Buckmark, will be punching 1" groups at 15y if the shooter does does his part and uses quality ammo. A good shooter, or an average one using a rest, can do the same at 25y. If your power to accuracy theory was correct, how would that be possible?

Ahh I see what you're saying now. You're saying that power isn't the reason why the .380 is less accurate. However, you're still ignoring the relationship between momentum and yaw, which I expounded upon. Unless my physics are wrong (or the laws of physics have been repealed), yaw causes rounds to move off path. (wind isn't the only factor causing a round to move side to side) More momentum = less yaw. Less yaw means the bullet flies with less side to side variation. Meaning smaller groups. Does the barrel type, etc also have a lot to do with stabilizing the round? Of course, even more so. But you can't ignore the round's role to play either. Should I have probably included barrel and platform qualities of common .380s into the sentence as well? Probably. Did I unthinkingly assign more blame to the round than the platforms. Yes...which leads me to my next point.

People shooting competitions are firing competition guns and ammo finely tuned for such shooting. I would love to see anyone shoot a .380 at 25 yards hitting 1" groups. Not even competition 1911s are rated for that. We're talking about self defense here. Please show me a common defense .380 w/common ammo that can perform that way. I can definitely show you common 9mms and .45s that can punch excellent groupings at that range. Still haven't found that .380 yet.

You're also ignoring my clarification when I talked about the comparisons between the 9mm and .380 at 15-20 yards by continually talking about the 10 yard line. If the .380 is as accurate as the 9mm, please explain why it is multiple shooters all shot better with 9mms than they did with the .380s of size and quality similar to the 9mms at the same range of 15-20 yards? Was it all in our heads? For example the Kahr 9mm was shot in tighter groups than the Colt .380.......last time I checked Colts were about the same size and of a better make. Am I wrong there?

And none of this changes the fact that the .380 is indeed an anemic round and nowhere near a 9mm. Which is the entire point of the story to begin with.

Great questions. Really made me think and reach back into my days of physics back at Purdue, and in the future I'll be sure to be more specific in my debunking the myth that the .380 deserves to be compared to the 9mm.

 

[in625shooter]

People shooting competitions are firing competition guns and ammo finely tuned for such shooting. I would love to see anyone shoot a .380 at 25 yards hitting 1" groups. Not even competition 1911s are rated for that. We're talking about self defense here. Please show me a common defense .380 w/common ammo that can perform that way. I can definitely show you common 9mms and .45s that can punch excellent groupings at that range. Still haven't found that .380 yet.

You're also ignoring my clarification when I talked about the comparisons between the 9mm and .380 at 15-20 yards by continually talking about the 10 yard line. If the .380 is as accurate as the 9mm, please explain why it is multiple shooters all shot better with 9mms than they did with the .380s of size and quality similar to the 9mms at the same range of 15-20 yards? Was it all in our heads? For example the Kahr 9mm was shot in tighter groups than the Colt .380.......last time I checked Colts were about the same size and of a better make. Am I wrong there?

And none of this changes the fact that the .380 is indeed an anemic round and nowhere near a 9mm. Which is the entire point of the story to begin with.

Great questions. Really made me think and reach back into my days of physics back at Purdue, and in the future I'll be sure to be more specific in my debunking the myth that the .380 deserves to be compared to the 9mm.

Aaron, I will never say I know everything but have been in some from of LE for 27 years and am a Lead Firearms Instructor/tactics trainer for the FED's. I have shared a couple links in priviius posts in this thread that cover some good material from the FBI if one chooses to read it.

The main thing with a gunfight/shooting is while yes the caliber performance is important it is not the absolute! There are a lot of factors like everyone knows. Where exactly the person is hit, was the bullet deflected at all before, was a barrier involved etc etc etc

Also the biggist effect is HUMANS do the shooting. Your talking stress, adrinaline etc etc etc

And while there are certian rounds that are known to exibit match accuracy compaired to other calibers as I said before most 380's are a lot smaller than 9mm even in the compact version the Colt (especially the old Pony) is a little smaller than most Kahr's Even if used in a ransom rest and you averaged several different rounds between the 2 the smaller firearm will generally have less accuracy than the larger one with even a machine doing the testing so what will happen in human hands? It will be worse.

So there is a bit of luck involved in a lot of these thug on thug shooting let alone they don't care if they discharge a whole magazine as they are flying by!

By all means we all study and pick the best caliber/platform for our needs. There is not only one that works better than the others.
Like the old saying most of the time Murphey's Law is the only absolute!

 

[jgreiner]

+1...I really like my .357mag I traded my .45 for it.

My S&W 66 I inherited from my father. It has had a great trigger job done on it, locks up tight....and is one VERY sweet shooter. And you have to love teh big flame that comes out after firing a 357 mag round

 

[bwframe]

I'm surprised the .45 guys haven't attacked in full force. It's all about penetration and where you hit the guy.

OP pretty much summed it it up:

... I have no experiences with .40s and .45s. People who take shots with these calibers to vital areas don't come to us. They go to the morgue....

 

[jgreiner]

Wow really? My understanding from engineers is that guns, like all mechanical devices, are designed for their "middle" lifespan. Typically stoppages occur within the first 200-300 rds. I know several Kahr owners, my mother included, who have fired lots of rounds with no stoppages right out of the box.

I can attest to theory of "break in" periods. I've had many new guns in my lifetime that had a few stoppages in the beggning and then performed flawlessly for years afterwards. If you're having constant stoppages though that's a factory issue. The slides definitely do "break in". I know that because I've compared guns out of the box to the same type of guns that have been fired with a 1000 rds through them. The new ones are often more stiff. I'm sure you can find an exception. Not every gun in the factory is created equal.

The stuff about a gun performing flawlessly out of the box is nonsense. It's made by man. It will fail no matter how well it's made. No matter the gun, you're going to have a stoppage if you shoot enough. It may be the gun, it may be the ammo, sooner or later you'll see stoppages caused by both... Period. This is why professionals, and really anyone who wants to survive a gun fight, will train to clear type 1, 2, and 3 malfunctions flawlessly via muscle memory. You have to assume stoppages will happen.

Guns that require extensive break in periods should NOT, IMO, be carried as a SD weapon. I know we have some Kimber purist here that swear by their weapons...but the big reason I did NOT buy a Kimber 1911, was because of the repeated problems reviewers had with them fresh out of the box. And it wasn't just one reviewing source. Each one I read noted issues. So I opted for a S&W 1911, one that had ZERO issues when reviewed by same reviewers. And I have to say, i made the right choice. The gun has 600 rounds downrange already, and not one issue. With ANY kind of ammo. And it is dead accurate.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ahh I see what you're saying now. You're saying that power isn't the reason why the .380 is less accurate. However, you're still ignoring the relationship between momentum and yaw, which I expounded upon. ....
People shooting competitions are firing competition guns and ammo finely tuned for such shooting.

Keeping it simple, let's look at the claim that's being made.

You: The .380 is less accurate than more powerful calibers and won't group as well past 10y.

Me: The .380 has the same potential accuracy as any other common handgun caliber at that range. Power and accuracy are not related significantly at these distances, look at .22 pistols that group great well past 10y.

1) When I say "its you or the gun" you claim its the physics of the caliber.

2) When I point out an even weaker caliber performs wonderfully, you say "its the gun and ammo".

Self defense or competition, the laws of physics are the same, so that's just confusing the issue. Tuned guns and ammo or not is just confusing the issue, they don't overcome physics, and if its not the gun or the shooter keeping the round from being accurate than tuning the gun or ammo doesn't matter.

#2 is the right answer, and what I've been getting at from the beginning. All of your yaw and whatnot is great for rifle shooting, wind deflection, bullet drop, stable flight, etc. etc. None of it matters a hair in a bear's buttocks at 10-25y. As in625shooter points out, most of the .380s on the market today are smaller guns, and I would suggest cheaper guns, given the perception of lack of accuracy. Due to the platform, not the physics of the caliber. If someone were to Ransom Rest a Sig P238, I wonder what the groups would look like...

I would love to see anyone shoot a .380 at 25 yards hitting 1" groups. Not even competition 1911s are rated for that.

OK, off topic, but competition 1911s aren't rated for that?

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with Les Baer. He sells competition 1911s with a 1.5" at 50y guarantee.

Or Wilson Combat. They sell 1911s with a 1" @ 25y guarantee, and they are considered carry pistols and not competition guns.

Or Kimber's Super Match, which is also guaranteed at 1" at 25y.

And those are just the big names. Any custom shop worth the name offers a 1.5" at 50y on competition 1911s and the same at 25y on carry guns. Hatfield Gun Smithing, for example, guarantees 10 shots at 50y in a 1.5" group.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

Ahh I see what you're saying now. You're saying that power isn't the reason why the .380 is less accurate. However, you're still ignoring the relationship between momentum and yaw, which I expounded upon. Unless my physics are wrong (or the laws of physics have been repealed), yaw causes rounds to move off path. (wind isn't the only factor causing a round to move side to side) More momentum = less yaw. Less yaw means the bullet flies with less side to side variation. Meaning smaller groups. Does the barrel type, etc also have a lot to do with stabilizing the round? Of course, even more so. But you can't ignore the round's role to play either. Should I have probably included barrel and platform qualities of common .380s into the sentence as well? Probably. Did I unthinkingly assign more blame to the round than the platforms. Yes...which leads me to my next point.

People shooting competitions are firing competition guns and ammo finely tuned for such shooting. I would love to see anyone shoot a .380 at 25 yards hitting 1" groups. Not even competition 1911s are rated for that. We're talking about self defense here. Please show me a common defense .380 w/common ammo that can perform that way. I can definitely show you common 9mms and .45s that can punch excellent groupings at that range. Still haven't found that .380 yet.

You're also ignoring my clarification when I talked about the comparisons between the 9mm and .380 at 15-20 yards by continually talking about the 10 yard line. If the .380 is as accurate as the 9mm, please explain why it is multiple shooters all shot better with 9mms than they did with the .380s of size and quality similar to the 9mms at the same range of 15-20 yards? Was it all in our heads? For example the Kahr 9mm was shot in tighter groups than the Colt .380.......last time I checked Colts were about the same size and of a better make. Am I wrong there?

And none of this changes the fact that the .380 is indeed an anemic round and nowhere near a 9mm. Which is the entire point of the story to begin with.

Great questions. Really made me think and reach back into my days of physics back at Purdue, and in the future I'll be sure to be more specific in my debunking the myth that the .380 deserves to be compared to the 9mm.

Errrm, I've shot really good groups with a Ruger LCP 380 with Hydrashok at Wilbur Wright out to 30 yards. I feel it's due in part to having massive hands, and I have more experience in using firearms than I'd like to, but its semantics. Most shootings happen within 7 feet, and if you're engaging a hostile target farther than that with a tiny pocket gun you're doing it wrong (and it also makes your SD shooting very questionable if the BG is 30 ft away, let alone 30 yards).

Here's one for ya. Khan Bani Saad, Iraq, year is irrelevant. Gained entry into a tiny house for an HVT extraction. We got in alright, but encountered more than we thought. Guy gets up and mid reach for a gun I got him. Three shots contact. Shoulder, neck, head. I moved on with the op. Turns out later the guy was down but not out. He was bleeding out from the two lower wounds, but the round to the head had bounced off of his skull and into the ceiling. Granted, he was really messed up and didn't make it, but the round didn't penetrate.

I always aim for the center of the clavicle if the target is moving any way but dead on at me, especially on burst or rock and roll.

The round used: 9mm FMJ, courtesy of the Geneva convention and Uncle Sam. I carry a Keltec PF9 in my cargo pocket loaded with Hydrashoks, but on my hip is a Glock 21 loaded up with more Hydrashoks.

I'll use the 9 if I absolutely have to, but .40 and .45 are devastating, but even those are questionable. Depending on the weight of the clothing and the person, drugs/adrenaline, shock/surprise factor, and the operators training level, a person can take an absurd amount of shots to die. Short of a central nervous hit. I've seen it. If you down someone, don't let them go to the hospital, empty the magazine and see them off to whatever maker you choose.

 

[Aaron1776]

Keeping it simple, let's look at the claim that's being made.

You: The .380 is less accurate than more powerful calibers and won't group as well past 10y.

Me: The .380 has the same potential accuracy as any other common handgun caliber at that range. Power and accuracy are not related significantly at these distances, look at .22 pistols that group great well past 10y.

1) When I say "its you or the gun" you claim its the physics of the caliber.

2) When I point out an even weaker caliber performs wonderfully, you say "its the gun and ammo".

Self defense or competition, the laws of physics are the same, so that's just confusing the issue. Tuned guns and ammo or not is just confusing the issue, they don't overcome physics, and if its not the gun or the shooter keeping the round from being accurate than tuning the gun or ammo doesn't matter.

#2 is the right answer, and what I've been getting at from the beginning. All of your yaw and whatnot is great for rifle shooting, wind deflection, bullet drop, stable flight, etc. etc. None of it matters a hair in a bear's buttocks at 10-25y. As in625shooter points out, most of the .380s on the market today are smaller guns, and I would suggest cheaper guns, given the perception of lack of accuracy. Due to the platform, not the physics of the caliber. If someone were to Ransom Rest a Sig P238, I wonder what the groups would look like...




OK, off topic, but competition 1911s aren't rated for that?

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with Les Baer. He sells competition 1911s with a 1.5" at 50y guarantee.

Or Wilson Combat. They sell 1911s with a 1" @ 25y guarantee, and they are considered carry pistols and not competition guns.

Or Kimber's Super Match, which is also guaranteed at 1" at 25y.

And those are just the big names. Any custom shop worth the name offers a 1.5" at 50y on competition 1911s and the same at 25y on carry guns. Hatfield Gun Smithing, for example, guarantees 10 shots at 50y in a 1.5" group.

Very interesting. Being a rifle shooter from the beggining (I didn't do pistols regularly until I was 20) I figured that at 15-20 yards things like yaw would start to matter on weak pistol rounds. (I think all pistol rounds are weak) My rifle experience has greatly biased my thinking with pistols before, and this isn't the first time. You are glossing over though that I didn't really say it was just due to the .22 being a better gun, I said it was that PLUS the physics of the .22 are actually far more efficient, (Just like how the 6.5mm grendel is far more efficient than the .308 despite it being "weaker") which I assumed accounted for the difference. And no one still has explained why myself and the other shooters where hitting with the kahr 9mm better than the Colt .380, which are about the same size. The Colt, being all steel, is heavier and has a better trigger. When I saw this demonstrated with many shooters, ranging from newbies to lifetime shooters. I assumed it was the .380 round.
If it's not the yaw, do you have any theories why?

Thanks so much! Your questions and convo really made me think!!!

PS I didn't realize that those .45s were rated that well. Then again I don't do competition. I do combat shooting, so I only look into combat guns.

My original point of the story still remains. All handguns suck at stopping people. .380s just suck worse.

 

[Hohn]

Here's the physics of how this plays out:

A bullet spinning down a barrel is acquiring rotational inertia. How much rotational inertia is a function of diameter (caliber), bullet weight, and rotational speed in RPM. We know that heavier bullets in a given caliber require a faster twist to stabilize them, so the relationship is well known.

As the bullet spins down the barrel, it spins around a center axis of rotation. Assuming that bullet is uniform in density, and the barrel is tightly toleranced, this axis stays on the same line all the way down the barrel.

When the bullet leaves the barrel, its position on this axis is no longer positively controlled. It is free to move through the air, subject to outside forces.

Immediately after barrel exit, a large pressure wave pushes on the unconstrained bullet. As the barrel is no longer perfectly in the same axis as the bullet in front of it (usually higher due to recoil), the pressure wave propagates from the barrel slightly above the axis of the bullet. The tendency would be for the bullet's rear to be pushed slightly down by this pressure wave.

The resistance to an outside disturbance like this pressure wave is given by the bullet's rotational inertia. A heavier bullet (say 147gr 9mm relative to 80gr .380) at the same rotational speed has MUCH greater rotational inertia. It is much more stable in flight. Incidentally, the same mass at the same rotational speed at a larger diameter has more angular momentum (which is why figure skaters can accelerate their spin by bringing their arms inward-- angular momentum is conserved). So a 147 gr .40 (if it existed) at the same bullet RPM would be even more stable in terms of momentum than either of the 9mm/.380 bullets.

A longer bullet has one downside to stability in that it provides more leverage for a disturbance that acts on the rear or the front to disturb the flight path and causes the bullet's rotational axis to oscillate in a circle. (think of drawing a circle with a pencil where the pencil is the bullet's rotational axis).

But the hot gases exiting the barrel don't act on the bullet at an angle where this matters. If the force was acting at 90 deg to the rear of the bullet, it would be significantly destabilizing. But it acts at an angle more like 2 or 3 degrees at the most.

Thus, the aspect in which a longer bullet is less stable is far less significant a factor than the rotational inertia that causes it to be far more stable.

Consider the two extremes of aspect ratio: a flat disc going down the barrel and a long slim bullet that is 100 times longer. How stable is that flat disc? It's not very stable within the barrel even, as it cannot normalize even the variations within the barrel; it will easily adapt to even slight changes in the bore and exit the barrel with poor stability.

Compare that to a long, deep bullet that normalizes bore variations (lack of concentricity, specifically) and exits the barrel with much higher rotational inertia.



I would argue that the physics of having to use a light bullet in the 9mm caliber make a .380 inherently less accurate than a 9mm-- even in a high quality gun. The realities of the bullet and the short barrel it is inevitably fired from all but guarantee that.

Whether that decrease in accuracy is relevant is another matter entirely. I doubt that most SD applications will find it relevant.


Given the lack of .380 power, I would carry FMJ if I carried .380, since a JHP won't penetrate deeply enough to be effective.

 

[Hohn]

Interesting the Glocks use the same twist rate in 9mm, .40, 10mm, and .357 SIG it would seem a faster MV would cause a faster spin rate and greater stability, making some Glocks perhaps more accurate than others.

JH

 

[Aaron1776]

Aaron1776: What type of round are you carrying; hollow point or FMJ and why? To stop an assailant, do you believe more in round penetration or the shock value of the round?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts in this thread; it is very enlightening.

I carry 230g .45s in JHP, and when I can't carry that I carry 124g 9mm JHP.

I would always carry hollow points with calibers above 9mm. You're not getting any hydrostatic shock value with a .9mm, and .9mm isn't a very big hole. Thus you need to wided that wound cavity. The 9mm will penetrate reasonably far enough with a JHP to do the neccessary damage. .45s will usually penetrate as far as you need them to so you're only helping yourself with JHP.

Wound cavity ( I assume that is what you mean by "shock") and penetration go hand in hand. You need them both. 62g 5.56mm rifles with steel cores zip through people but require 5 rounds to bring a man down because the bullet doesn't deform and transfer enough energy. .32s and .380s in JHP give a bigger wound cavity but often fail to penetrate.

But I would say that penetration is probably the more important of the two. At least with penetration, if I hit you in the heart or brain stem, they're still dead even if the round is tiny.

 

[Aaron1776]

Here's the physics of how this plays out:

A bullet spinning down a barrel is acquiring rotational inertia. How much rotational inertia is a function of diameter (caliber), bullet weight, and rotational speed in RPM. We know that heavier bullets in a given caliber require a faster twist to stabilize them, so the relationship is well known.

....
When the bullet leaves the barrel, its position on this axis is no longer positively controlled. It is free to move through the air, subject to outside forces.

Immediately after barrel exit, a large pressure wave pushes on the unconstrained bullet. As the barrel is no longer perfectly in the same axis as the bullet in front of it (usually higher due to recoil), the pressure wave propagates from the barrel slightly above the axis of the bullet. The tendency would be for the bullet's rear to be pushed slightly down by this pressure wave.

The resistance to an outside disturbance like this pressure wave is given by the bullet's rotational inertia. A heavier bullet (say 147gr 9mm relative to 80gr .380) at the same rotational speed as MUCH greater rotational inertia. It is much more stable in flight. Incidentally, the same mass at the same rotational speed at a larger diameter has more angular momentum (which is why figure skaters can accelerate their spin by bringing their arms inward-- angular momentum is conserved). So a 147 gr .40 (if it existed) at the same bullet RPM would be even more stable in terms of momentum than either of the 9mm/.380 bullets.

...
Compare that to a long, deep bullet that normalizes bore variations (lack of concentricity, specifically) and exists the barrel with much higher rotational inertia.



I would argue that the physics have having to use a light bullet in the 9mm caliber make a .380 inherently less accurate than a 9mm-- even in a high quality gun. The realities of the bullet and the short barrel it is inevitably fired from all but guarantee that.

Whether that decrease in accuracy is relevant is another matter entirely. I doubt that most SD applications will find it relevant.


Given the lack of .380 power, I would carry FMJ if I carried .380, since a JHP won't penetrate deeply enough to be effective.

This is precisely what I was trying to say, though he said it in much clearer terms.