Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:11 pm
TomS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:35 am
Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:57 pm
TomS wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:03 pm
You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles. You’re only advantage is penetration depth, sometimes too much penetration as experienced by PD using 357 Sig Gold Dots going through people.
A very good friend was a surgeon before his untimely death. He disagreed with your statement. Plus, you ignore damage caused by the temporary would cavity.
The testing done by LuckyGunner.com also proves that faster pistol velocities do produce larger permanent would cavities and temporary cavities. Below are photos from testing .357 SIG 125 Gr. PDX-1 (1431 FPS) and 9mm +P Gold Dot 124 Gr (1157 fps). Obviously, the photos on the LuckyGunner.com website are not to scale since when printed at 100% actual size, they measure only 9" rather than 22". Therefore, the measurements of the permanent would cavity are understated, but their relative size comparison is accurate.
The numbers below were measured with a dial caliper on photos printed from the LuckyGunner.com website. The permanent wound cavity is scaled up to account for the scaling issue.
- .357 SIG 125 gr JHP @ 1,431 fps = .642" (approx. 1.57" actual) permanent wound cavity;
9mm Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. JHP @ 1157 fps = .354" (approx. .86") permanent wound cavity.
Thus, with identical bullet weight, diameter and configuration (JHP) the .357 SIG traveling 274 fps faster produced a wound cavity that was 81% larger.
There are videos of each of these rounds being tested. There are on the LuckyGunner.com website, so I couldn't post a direct link. However, links to the page where these videos can be seen are listed below by caliber. The temporary would cavity caused by the .357 SIG at 1,431 fps was significantly larger and of longer duration/depth than the slower 9mm at 1,157 fps.
While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do many larger temporary/permanent would cavities.
Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. 9mm JHP video -
https://www.luckygunner.com/9mm-p-124-g ... ds#geltest
Winchester PDX-1 125 gr. 357 Sig JHP video -
https://www.luckygunner.com/winchester- ... on#geltest
Chas.
The increase in velocity and energy of a .357 Sig Gold Dot over a 9mm +P Gold Dot is insignificant. You’re not getting the hydrostatic shock in handguns as you will with a rifle. A hit to a non-vital area isn’t going to kill you because it’s the mighty .357 Sig. You either hit something important or you don’t. All the experts agree on this.
Why are you changing your focus Tom? The data I posted was to refute your erroneous statement that "
You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles.." Now you want to talk about muzzle energy. I never said you get the same level hydrostatic shock with a handgun as with a rifle. Indeed, I specifically stated "
While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do make larger temporary/permanent would cavities."
The increase in velocity between the 357 SIG and the Gold Dot +P is hardly "insignificant." The additional 274 fps resulted in a larger temporary cavity with longer duration, as evidenced in the video to which I linked. The permanent cavity was 81% larger! You call that insignificant? Remember, the larger the wound cavity the greater the tissue and vascular damage and the faster incapacitation will be achieved.
Of course a CNS hit is far more likely to cause instantaneous incapacitation than is any hit in another area of the body. A CNS hit is better than a lung hit, which is better than a liver hit, which is better than a kidney, hit which is better than . . . I could go on and on. What you seem to discount is the impact of blood loss and, to a far lesser degree, pain on an attacker's ability or willingness to continue his attack on the victim.
If I have to defend myself or an innocent 3rd person, I'd prefer a CNS hit to lower the chance that my/our attacker may get off a fatal shot before being incapacitated. But if I can't get a CNS hit, then I want the attacker to be incapacitated as soon as possible and blood loss is Plan B.
I'm no fan of the .357 SIG (I don't own one) and I sometimes carry a 9mm. I also don't delude myself into believing that I am as well armed as I am with one of my 45ACP, 40 S&W, .357 Mag, 41 Mag., or 44 Mag. handguns.
Chas.
Why do I bring up energy? Speed and mass defines energy and that’s what we’re talking about here. The US Army proved long ago using live animals that handgun calibers are incapable of producing the necessary temporary cavity to be an effective component of gunshot wounds, even the mighty 357 magnum.
According to Ballistics101 charts the 357 Sig GD has a 140 FPS speed advantage over the 9mm +P GD (which is not a boutique ammunition). As far as the permanent wound channel being 81% larger from such a marginal difference in speed when both calibers are the same diameter, that’s hard to believe.
Unless your using 9mm ball whizzing complete through people without dumping all its energy (there I ago again) into the target, current 9mm defensive loads are pretty effective at expanding and dumping this energy into the target. Is 9mm +P absolutely just as effective as 357 Sig, no it’s not, but it’s close enough. It sure isn’t 81% less effective.
As suggested, they’re are too many variables in bullet technology, shot placement and individual reactions to being shot to come to a definitive conclusion, and that’s why caliber wars persist.
I don’t fault anyone who wishes to take advantage of any increase in velocity or sectional density of any particular caliber. That’s why we have free will. I’m not a fanboy of any particular caliber and have owned all the service caliber handguns - they’re all fun to shoot.
