Handgun wound ballistics
- Thread starter Ganderite
- Start date
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
There are a few things in your post I will challenge. First, no bear in the world has survived a solid head shot from a heavy rifle. It has never happened and never will. It is time for that myth to die. Good marksmanship X good bullet placement X good bullet performance = dead bear!
Secondly, pointed bullets are miserable penetrators. That is why solids for use on heavy African game tend to be short, with parallel sides and flat or hemispherical noses. The old Kynoch/Woodleigh tapered solid does not perform nearly as well.
A visit to the Bear-Tooth Bullet site illustrates the advantage of a Wide Flat Nose bullet design, as these bullets create wound volumes and kill all out of proportion to their size. Furthermore, an expanded bullet travels in a straight line due to its large frontal area and weight forward configuration. A non-expanding, pointed bullet has all of its weight in the tail, which passes the nose as soon as resistance is encountered, regardless of velocity. When the bullet is sideways, it may break in two which results in a shallow wound and what penetration occurs is limited by the reduced weight of each bullet fragment that travels along the path of least resistance, meaning that straight line penetration is lost. While the path of an expanding or a big game solid through soft tissue remains supersonic, a shock-wave exists forward of the bullet, extending along the bullet from the outside edges of the expanded diameter, look up supercavitation. As a result once expanded, no fluid or soft tissue is in contact with the bullet until it becomes subsonic.
The FBI did quite extensive studies regarding terminal ballisctics.
There is an interesting one called "handgun wounding factors and effectiveness" by spcl agent Urey W. Patrick (1989).
His conclusions were as folow;
"Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival
determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.
The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.
Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the
bigger bullet."
This should also bring some light to the often dabated subject of "does a 22 will kill a moose".. Of course it can do it, but not "effectively".
Hitting surface is one of the keys, and as per pointed by Boomer, a larger bore with an almost flat solid bullet will bring more penentration and damages than a pointed one, wich, most of the times will bent and thumble (loosing a lot of energy in the process).
On the other side, a "too fast acting" expanding bullet will give away most of it's energy at the contact point, giving almost no penetration. A "controlled expansion" bullet will tranfer it's energy through the whole penetration process, causing much more internal damages by its increased "mushroom" shape diameter.
What is usually called the "shock wave" seems to be better described as a "high pressure area".
There is an interesting one called "handgun wounding factors and effectiveness" by spcl agent Urey W. Patrick (1989).
His conclusions were as folow;
"Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival
determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.
The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.
Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the
bigger bullet."
This should also bring some light to the often dabated subject of "does a 22 will kill a moose".. Of course it can do it, but not "effectively".
Hitting surface is one of the keys, and as per pointed by Boomer, a larger bore with an almost flat solid bullet will bring more penentration and damages than a pointed one, wich, most of the times will bent and thumble (loosing a lot of energy in the process).
On the other side, a "too fast acting" expanding bullet will give away most of it's energy at the contact point, giving almost no penetration. A "controlled expansion" bullet will tranfer it's energy through the whole penetration process, causing much more internal damages by its increased "mushroom" shape diameter.
What is usually called the "shock wave" seems to be better described as a "high pressure area".
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The issue is not trigger pull weight, the issue is travel length of the trigger. Imperceptible movement of the trigger makes good shooting easier. The only thing worse than a very heavy trigger is a light squishy one with lots of travel.
Of course, no bear has survived a "solid head shot from a heavy rifle" but that's not what I said happened - "solid" is not what I said! "at an angle, skipping off it's angled skullbone", is not "solid head shot". If that's a myth, then good.
Then again, explain the moose shot from the previous poster, if "no bear in the world has survived a solid head shot" and with that logic, "no moose has ever survived a sold shot aimed at it's vitals".
For the penetration issue, large, flat heavy bullets are indeed superior unless we're talking about body armor - and this thread deals with person to person confrontations where body armor may be worn. In the case of a relatively "hard" and thin target, the advantage is with a thin, pointed bullet, and as you know, this is like a pistol caliber punching through a vest where a shotgun slug doesn't. I would trust a pointy projo to get through a thin, relatively hard target at an angle, as the point would indent the surface, making a cavity to let the rest of the bullet enter. A rounded point fails to do this as reliably, and could deviate. This thread isn't talking about getting through sixty inches of meat, and even then, I don't think supercavitation happens with normal bullets going through meat, as all the cavitation-creating projoes have special noses to create the cavitation. I think what's going on with those calibers and bullet configurations is a heavy bullet going very fast and not expanding a lot, giving it extreme penetration, good wound channel size and a straight penetration. If you can supply a source for supercavitation in supersonic rounds during tissue penetration, I would be thankful.
Meph have you seen a bear skull. They aren't tanks! The skulls I have seen are paper thin. I am not saying a bullet won't skip of a bear skull I just think it is highly unlikely. A hit in the head with a 9MM will take down a Black bear quickly. The 9MM woiuld not be my first choice but it sure as heck beats a stick.
Humans and bears for that matter die when their blood pressure drops ie bleeds out or by hitting or destroying the nervous system. The latter is by far the quickest. As saskcop has noted pistols are ok but shotguns and rifles work better....by a lot.
Take Care
Bob
"I am not saying a bullet won't skip of a bear skull I just think it is highly unlikely" funny how all of my posts were about "putting the odds in your favor". The chance of this deflection happening is logically higher with a .22 than with a .338 WM. Hell, you can observe bullets zinging off the surface of water if the angle is flat enough. It's also good to say what kind of bear we're talking about, as a little black bear is obviously not a tank compared to a polar bear or a grizzly.
Interesting post from M4 Carbine.net with some good pics
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
I agree that ballistics mean nothing if you can't hit what your aiming at, but I find it funny that anytime someone mentions ballistics, there are several guys saying it doesn't mean anything if you can't hit your target
Yes practice and practice lots....but shot placement and bullet choice are not mutually exclusive, you can have both.
Yes practice and practice lots....but shot placement and bullet choice are not mutually exclusive, you can have both.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Meph, bullets don't skip off bear heads, at least not the bullets out of my guns. Is it possible that a hunter makes a poor shot resulting in the bullet slipping between skin and bone? Yes, I've heard of that, but it is the result of a marksmanship problem and does not occur because the bear's skull is angled like the armor on an Abrams turret.
With respect to the discussion about pointed solids you said . . .
The context of your post was the performance on pointy bullets on big game.
As to the subject of super cavitation, it occurs in all cases of bullets passing through a fluid, to a greater or lesser degree, regardless of shape. But the flat nosed bullet or the expanded soft point takes the greatest advantage of the effect, with the exception of bullets designed to maximize penetration through this process, by a disk larger than the meplat being designed onto the nose.
Again I refer you to articles found on Bear-tooth Bullet's web site which refer to the greater penetration of WFN bullets through tissue compared to round nose or even semi-wadcutter designs. The reason for the better penetration and greater wound volume of the WFN bullets is related to supercavitation at super-sonic impact velocities.
I agree, that both improved terminal ballistics and improved marksmanship can be had in unison. The problem is that many get wrapped around the axle about ballistic performance and calibre. Of the two, marksmanship is far more important. Only hits count and any hit beats any miss regardless of calibre or design. Even clear numbers supporting one calibre or load over another is not a simple choice. Other factors such as recoil, magazine capacity, concealability, and availability need to be considered.
TDC
Re: Moose and 338WinMag. It was on the same trail as me, coming towards me. When I fired it was at least 90% directly at me. I assume there was a bit of angle and this caused the bullet to be able to deflect.
In the real world we can't do much more than hit where we aimed with a good bullet. That will usually do the job. It is the exceptions I tend to remember.
BTW, if a bear is tritting towards you, there is a very shallow angle on the forhead, above the eyes. I would exect a bullet to glance off. the neck or open mouth would be a better target.
As for 9mm, in practice they don't seem to do much in big animals. I have seen them stuck in the fat, just under the hide.
In the real world we can't do much more than hit where we aimed with a good bullet. That will usually do the job. It is the exceptions I tend to remember.
BTW, if a bear is tritting towards you, there is a very shallow angle on the forhead, above the eyes. I would exect a bullet to glance off. the neck or open mouth would be a better target.
As for 9mm, in practice they don't seem to do much in big animals. I have seen them stuck in the fat, just under the hide.
Thanks, this is what I meant. Man communication is difficult here.
@ Bommer: There is no supporting evidence in your "supercavitation" theory. Even at supersonic velocities, bullets all just crush, punch and rip their way through things both soft and hard. All I find when I look for anything mentioning supercavitation in projectiles is the army's special air/water bullets that create a cavity when going through liquids by means of a small rocket motor at the nose of the projo. Effectively making an air bubble in front and around the bullet.
I don't see your flat nosed heavies doing that any time soon. They go through game 'cause they're heavy and they keep that weight and shape through an animal, putting maximum force straight forward, where it's going, not spreading it everywhere.
Again, find me a source that can prove those bullets mystically create a cavity in which to travel in.
The keys to surviving lethal force encounters
1. Cultivate a warrior mindset.
2. Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice.
3. Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system.
4. Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.
1. Cultivate a warrior mindset.
2. Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice.
3. Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system.
4. Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.
Big JD-From the hills
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Saskatchewan.
I am not blaming there pistol, or all the members, I used to shoot with an rcmp member at a club, and he did phenomenally well with his s&w... but he took his training and proficiency seriously. There have been so many cases in recent years that the members haven't been able to shoot to save there own lives... its sad that they don't get the range time or training to prevent this.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Have you never shot a big game animal? How big was the wound volume compared to the bullet diameter? What caused this to happen? When a ballistic missle (ICBM, airplane, or a bullet) travels at super-sonic speed a shock wave is created around that projectile whether it travels through the air or through fluid.
If you can't find any supporting information its not becasue its not there. Check out www.grosswildjagd.de/penetrat.htm. The articles concerning the penetration of WFN bullet on Beartooth Bullets is quite similar. When you get done those order yourself a copy of the A-Square loading manual and read the chapters on terminal ballistics.
