Crazy ER Stories: Caliber Effectiveness on the Street

[Johnny C]

I wonder where the 9mm makarov would fit into the hatcher chart.

 

[Aaron1776]

In the .38 vs .380 debate, let me ask you a few things:

Which has a higher initial velocity? Which has a higher velocity at 10y? 20y?

Most .380s on the market right now are using about a 3.75" barrel.

How does that compare to the common 2"-2.25" snub nosed revolver that's the typical .38 carry gun these days?

For your accuracy debate:
How does velocity affect accuracy in a handgun? We aren't talking distances were wind matters much...so how much effect does it really have? Should sub-sonic .22s be less accurate than standard pressure .22s? Should a .357 magnum have tighter groups with magnum rounds over +P rounds over standard pressure .38s? Why?

Point of impact may vary, but why would group sizes open up?

I'm off to the prosecutor to screen a case, look forward to your answers later today.

Those are really good questions man:

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

First, as I said before, the velocities are def. comparable/ similar between a .380 and a .38spl, and sometimes the .380 is faster. But velocity is only half the story. (probably less than) Mass makes a huge difference as well. A 230 grain bullet traveling 850f/s will penetrate a lot further than a 90 grainbullet going 1000f/s........and a 130 grain bullet will penetrate further than a 95 grain bullet. Why is this? Heavier bullets are bigger bullets. Bigger bullets maintain momentum much better than smaller bullets. Why? It takes more friction to slow a bigger mass down as quickly as a smaller mass. When a bullet maintains its momentum it penetrates further, thus allowing the bullet to transfer more of its energy into a greater area of the target, thus doing more damage. Now keep in mind that a smaller bullet CAN (and often does) have more energy than a bigger bullet, but when it loses momentum at such a faster rate it fails to transfer that energy into the target and thus isn't as effective.

But just think for a second about the claim that .380 does near the same amount of damage as a .38spl. Someone who claims this is now claiming that a substancially smaller bullet (95 grains vs 125,130,158, etc) doing the same or near the same velocity, thus having less momentum and/or retaining said momentum far less efficiently, is going to transfer the same amount of energy into the target and do the same amount of damage. That is physically impossible.

As for comparing the .380 to a .38spl with a 2.5" barrel I'm not sure if that's a fair or accurate comparison. I don't know anyone using a 2.5" barrel that isn't using +P .38spl or .357 magnum. The people I know using .38spl are using longer barrels. I personally wouldn't use a snub nose at all. I don't like them.

But to answer the question, I know that the muzzle velocity of a .38spl out of a 2" to 2.5" barrel is 800ish f/s. The .380 out of a 3.75” is going 900-1000ish f/s. But this goes back to my earlier point. All other things being equal, bigger, slower bullets maintain momentum better and do more damage than faster moving lighter bullets. (Obviously if you apply enough speed you can overcome the size difference ex a 55g bullet go 2900f/s = more damage than a 90g going 1000, but the .380 isn't anywhere near that speed difference in comparison to a .38spl or 9mm)

Or as my buddy David once put it, a sports car hitting an interstate barricade at 100 mph is not as likely to punch through as a semi hitting the same barricade at 60 mph.

As for accuracy.
Bigger bullets have more/ maintain their momentum better than smaller bullets, thus having a straighter flight path, yawing less, and maintaining accuracy. I would also assume that it has to do with the 9mm and .38 spl having a better ballistic coefficient, (BC=.165 for 124g 9mm. BC=.151for a 125g .38spl. vs BC=.099 for a 90g .380) As I am not an aeronautical engineer ,I cannot say for certain. What I do know is that after observing multiple lifelong shooters using a .380 in comparison to a 9mm of similar size, all of them shot tighter groupings with the 9mm, me included. And we were using guns ranging from Kel-Tech and Bursa to nice, well-made Colts and Walthers while standing and sitting. Full disclosure, I have not shot a .38spl beyond 10 yards very often as I am not a revolver fan for anything beyond cowboy shooting. Most of my range comparisons are with .380 vs 9mm

The same concept would apply to the .38spl +P vs magnum rounds. I don't know the specifics of magnums off hand so I can't tell you which one would be more accurate than the other.

As for .22 subsonic vs regular .22 the comparison isn't apt for our discussion as my understanding is that the .22 subsonics in many cases just have less powder behind them. Thus it's the same bullet just moving slower. I know that's not always true, but I also know that a .380 isn't the same bullet as a .38spl or 9mm. It's quite a bit lighter, thus smaller, thus retaining momentum poorly in comparison, yawing more, and being less accurate.

All this to say that the claim that a .380 is “almost a 9mm”, is absolute crap. That would violate the laws of physics. Unless of course, someone has changed the definition of “almost” to “not really”. I suppose it’s also possible that some could just have a very generous definition of “almost”.

 

[Turf Doctor]

Nice post, thanks for the information. Now I am thinking if i should carry my .380 when working or my 9mm.

I work outside doing lawn care and the .380 is smaller and would be easier to carry.

 

[Hohn]

Technically, .380 IS 9mm-- in caliber. Just not in mass or sectional density, nor energy.

I always favor heavier bullets within a caliber. They are more stable in flight, more ballistically efficient, and penetrate further, all else equal.

H

 

[Aaron1776]

Ive got a question for the OP (nice post by the way) ...anyway have you ever seen a wound from a 10mm? Im just curious what kind of performance in real life shootings that would have. You can watch ballistic testing in gelatin all day, but its just not the same. Not that I carry one or anything just curious for use while on a big game hunting trip as a last ditch effort against a monster grizzly charging me...I just rather have the ammo capacity over some big revolver that is hard to shoot.

I can't say that I have. I know that .40 cal and beyond begin to create hydrostatic shock in a target at close range, but not very well. If you want to take down a grizzly, please carry a shotgun with slugs or a rifle. If that's too big I'd still stay with a larger caliber revolver. 10mm will put a hurting on humans but monster grizzly bears are just that.........monsters.

 

[Aaron1776]

Aaron welcome and thanks for your information. I will never say I know or have seen it all but have been involved in LE for 26 years so I've seen a lot. and a lot of folks would be amazed by the amount of people in the Federal Prisons across the country that are walking around with 38,9mm,40 S&W, 5.56mm even 12 ga OO buck in them and they are still walking around so while you neve can have to big of a gun it's not a gaurentee either. Sometimes it seems like nothing will kill them. Also I am a Lead Firearms Trainer on the FED's side and we were made aware of this a few years ago but but of a different source but some here might find it interesting as well on what your up against in the thug mentality.

You are absolutely right. Humans are hard to kill. That's what you need a caliber that will deliver damage, but you also have to put those bullets into vital areas. This is why I don't pay attention to marginal hits at all. I can shoot you with a .45 in the stomach, shoulder, etc, but if you're pumped on adrenaline you're going to keep moving and it's doubtful you'll even notice my 230 jhp broke your arm or lacerated your intestines. If I dont put one in your heart or face when you're pumped on adrenaline the Drs will be patching you up in the ER while putting me in cold storage.

 

[Aaron1776]

Aaron, I'm wondering if you have taken note of the caliber and the type of ammo used. Such as if the FMJ .380 has had a different affect than a JHP .380. I'm interested in that caliber because I have family members who carry it. I carry a .45

I'm also considering what you said about a .22.... very interesting.... it sure is easy to shoot and Ruger now has a LCR 22 mag

thanks!

Honestly I haven't. I'm not a surgeon, so, beyond the story I related, I don't deal with pulling them out much to see what sort of round it was. I do know to never count on a JHP actually expanding (it's a real possibility that they won't) and to base your projections upon if the bullet was a semi-wadcuter or a fmj.

 

[Aaron1776]

Good read. Thanks for the info. I have never carried a .380 but had thought about it for my wife. I will go ahead and skip that. A nice single stack 9mm would work just as well if she ever gets her permit.

I recommend a Kahr 9mm for the ladies who want to conceal a small weapon. It's reasonably accurate, reliable, and puts a 9mm down range. It'll take some breaking in though. Out of the box that slide is stiff.

 

[Aaron1776]

Nice post, thanks for the information. Now I am thinking if i should carry my .380 when working or my 9mm.

I work outside doing lawn care and the .380 is smaller and would be easier to carry.

Ruger LC9s and 9mm Kahrs are quite small too. Just a thought

 

[NIFT]

I know that .40 cal and beyond begin to create hydrostatic shock in a target at close range, but not very well.

What is "hydrostatic shock?"
"Hydro" means water. "Static" means at rest or in constant motion, i.e., no acceleration. "Shock" can have many meanings, even when limited to clinical definitions.
So, what is "hydrostatic shock?"

 

[XSVskill]

What is "hydrostatic shock?"
"Hydro" means water. "Static" means at rest or in constant motion, i.e., no acceleration. "Shock" can have many meanings, even when limited to clinical definitions.
So, what is "hydrostatic shock?"

let me google that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

 

[NIFT]

I recommend a Kahr 9mm for the ladies who want to conceal a small weapon. It's reasonably accurate, reliable, and puts a 9mm down range. It'll take some breaking in though. Out of the box that slide is stiff.

Disagree very strongly!
My experience with students' Kahrs has been 100 percent unacceptable. Multiple stoppages. The guns were new, with good factory ammunition, and the shooters were holding and firing the guns correctly. Therefore, it was the gun.

One--just one--stoppage is totally unacceptable, A defensive firearm must run flawlessly right out of the box. Nonsense about break-in periods is just that: nonsense. It must perform pefectly from the very first shot, or it is a big mistake to trust one's life to such a gun.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Would be nice to know ...

... how you determine the cal. in these shootings. Of course, having the extracted round is a big help, but many thru-&-thrus look alike. My $ØØ.Ø2 worth. Very good apocryphal, non-forensic evidence. Keep on it*!@

 

[NIFT]

let me google that. Hydrostatic shock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That stuff is from thoroughly discredited Michael Courtney.

 

[Aaron1776]

Hydrostaic Shock

What is "hydrostatic shock?"
"Hydro" means water. "Static" means at rest or in constant motion, i.e., no acceleration. "Shock" can have many meanings, even when limited to clinical definitions.
So, what is "hydrostatic shock?"

Hydrostatic shock is when the bullet strikes your body with enough force that the energy being transfered from the bullet does more than just tear the tissue the bullet comes into contact with. The "shock wave" if you will, of the bullet causes the body fluids (made mostly of water) to be pushed outwards away from the bullet against arteries, capillaries, organs, etc and tear through them. Thus the energy transfer from the round turns your own body fluids into a weapon against you.
Most handguns rounds don't do this, though I understand that .40 cal and above begin to do it at close range. (Which would account for why they seem to have a stopping percentage that is disproportionate to their size advantage when compared to a 9mm) Long guns are going fast enough to do this far more consistently, which is why a .30 cal rifle does so much more damage than a .45 pistol even though it's coming into contact with a smaller surface area of the body.

Think Fluid Hammer. lol

 

[Aaron1776]

Disagree very strongly!
My experience with students' Kahrs has been 100 percent unacceptable. Multiple stoppages. The guns were new, with good factory ammunition, and the shooters were holding and firing the guns correctly. Therefore, it was the gun.

One--just one--stoppage is totally unacceptable, A defensive firearm must run flawlessly right out of the box. Nonsense about break-in periods is just that: nonsense. It must perform pefectly from the very first shot, or it is a big mistake to trust one's life to such a gun.

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.

 

[Aaron1776]

... how you determine the cal. in these shootings. Of course, having the extracted round is a big help, but many thru-&-thrus look alike. My $ØØ.Ø2 worth. Very good apocryphal, non-forensic evidence. Keep on it*!@

Police often come in with the patient, and I ask them what they found. Sometimes we have no clue though.

 

[reesez]

.45 ACP...we practice at 25 yds. play at 50 and ring steel at 100 pretty well.

THIS^^^^ Because crack/meth heads and zombies wont go down with anything less other than a shotgun lol.

 

[NIFT]

Hydrostatic shock is when the bullet strikes your body with enough force that the energy being transfered from the bullet does more than just tear the tissue the bullet comes into contact with. The "shock wave" if you will, of the bullet causes the body fluids (made mostly of water) to be pushed outwards away from the bullet against arteries, capillaries, organs, etc and tear through them. Thus the energy transfer from the round turns your own body fluids into a weapon against you.
Most handguns rounds don't do this, though I understand that .40 cal and above begin to do it at close range. (Which would account for why they seem to have a stopping percentage that is disproportionate to their size advantage when compared to a 9mm) Long guns are going fast enough to do this far more consistently, which is why a .30 cal rifle does so much more damage than a .45 pistol even though it's coming into contact with a smaller surface area of the body.

Think Fluid Hammer. lol

What you are calling "hydrostatic shock" is, actually, temporary cavitation, which, typically, only happens at bullet speeds above 2,000 fps coupled with bullet yaw, but it varies with tissue and containment, such as with the cranium. At handgun speeds, temporary cavitation has no permanent tissue disruption. Temporary cavitation is, also, mistaken for "ballistic pressure waves" which some claim, erroneously, have remote wounding effects. Such have never been observed either clinically or experimentally, in spite of claims by Michael Courtney, whose work has been thoroughly discredited.

 

[NIFT]

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.

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.