The handgun caliber question, again...

[Miltiades]

Winchester LE Ammo Website
and looked up the gelatin test data on Ranger ammunition in the three calibers 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. This is shown below, along with bullet weight, muzzle velocity, penetration depth and expanded bullet diameter. I then calculated the volume of the hole made, assuming that the bullet expands upon impact to its final diameter and makes a cylindrical hole. The formula is penetration depth times the frontal area of the bullet (pi times radius squared).

The results showed that the 9mm made the smallest hole, with the .40 S&W making a hole 18% larger, and the .45 ACP making a hole 32% larger. The implication is that the .45 is the most effective. I would be interested in opinions on this approach.

Winchester Ranger Bonded Ammunition in bare gelatin

9mm, 147 grain, 995 velocity, penetration 14.7 in., expanded diameter 0.62 in., hole volume 4.44 cu. in., percent = 100%

.40 S&W, 180 grain, 1070 velocity, penetration 14.8 in., expanded diameter 0.67 in., hole volume 5.22 cu. in., percent = 118%

.45 ACP, 230 grain, 905 velocity, penetration 14.0 in., expanded diameter 0.73 in., hole volume 5.86 cu. in., percent = 132%

[Greg-Dawg]

I use Rangers for HD. The bigger the bullet, the bigger the hole.

[gzinga]

unfortunately on paper all looks good but in real life there are so many more variables that this kind of experiments are only conversation stimulators in my opinion. Ultimately a nice place shot is what you need....

[bsg]

in addition to your thread here... you may want to find the most recent discussion regarding caliber effectiveness here on Calguns. it was long and intense for some....

[bsg]

there was a big thread over this not too long ago... and i think folks are still tired from it all.... yea, it got ugly.

[stormvet]

Not rocket science, bigger bullet makes bigger hole.

[Dhena81]

Not rocket science, bigger bullet makes bigger hole.

lol

[bsg]

[rojocorsa]

[jermzzzzzzz]

not again! We're doomed!

[Miltiades]

Disappointing replies

I've read the responses to my posting thus far, and they are somewhat disappointing. They seem to revolve around the feeling that the general subject of ammunition effectiveness has been discussed before and nothing more of interest can be said about it. How can you learn anything new with that attitude?

In the hundreds of chat threads I have read on this subject, nobody has proposed the theory that the volume of the hole created in gelatin (penetration depth times frontal area of the expanded bullet) could be used as a parameter to rank bullet effectiveness. Those who do gelatin tests always report penetration depth and expanded bullet diameter but never calculate the volume of the cylinder thereby created in the gelatin. I am simply theorizing that this cylinder volume might be a useful measurement of the relative "damaging" capability of the bullet in gelatin or the analogous human tissue.

But nobody has yet commented on this. Maybe I posted this on the wrong forum.

[-hanko]

I've read the responses to my posting thus far, and they are somewhat disappointing. They seem to revolve around the feeling that the general subject of ammunition effectiveness has been discussed before and nothing more of interest can be said about it. How can you learn anything new with that attitude?

In the hundreds of chat threads I have read on this subject, nobody has proposed the theory that the volume of the hole created in gelatin (penetration depth times frontal area of the expanded bullet) could be used as a parameter to rank bullet effectiveness. Those who do gelatin tests always report penetration depth and expanded bullet diameter but never calculate the volume of the cylinder thereby created in the gelatin. I am simply theorizing that this cylinder volume might be a useful measurement of the relative "damaging" capability of the bullet in gelatin or the analogous human tissue.

But nobody has yet commented on this. Maybe I posted this on the wrong forum.

Ammo effectiveness discussions go on forever simply because there's no definitive answer...but there are many opinions. The question gets posted here, as you've noticed, every week or so; the answers end up into a downward spiral with no set answers. You've probably noted this in the "hundreds of chat threads" you've already read.

Gelatin testing indicates penetration but not incapacitation. The finished hole is not cylindrical if the bullet doesn't expand...if the bullet does expand then the hole has varying diameters throughout its length.

A general rule of thumb is than an effective bullet needs 12 to 18 inches of penetration (depends on which opinion your believe). Given adequate penetration, the best bullet is then the largest that you can shoot accurately.

Your theory assumes equal accuracy between calibers, which doesn't work in real life. As I posted earlier, ammo effectiveness is primarily related to the shooter, not the caliber.

Google a little both on and off this forum, you'll have reading material for the next 3 months. The answer is to use the largest caliber that you can shoot accurately...meaning you have a bit of homework.

You're looking for a quick answer, but there is no quick answer to your question. For starters, so this thread doesn't go on forever, Google "Fackler" and "Marshall and Sanow" (sp?).

Sorry you're feeling a little butt-hurt, but this is one of the 'beat the dead horse to death' threads that infects interweb gun boards.

hth

-hanko

[Miltiades]

Response to hanko

Thanks for the pertinent response, hanko. I'll respond to you:

Ammo effectiveness discussions go on forever simply because there's no definitive answer...but there are many opinions

I know there is no definitive answer, and I am interested in opinions because the subject interests me.

Gelatin testing indicates penetration but not incapacitation. The finished hole is not cylindrical if the bullet doesn't expand...if the bullet does expand then the hole has varying diameters throughout its length.

I have made some assumptions upfront. I know the finished hole may not be cylindrical, but the disrupted tissue is probably in a cylindrical pattern because it is made by a spinning object that resembles a drill. And I assumed that the full expansion of the bullet happened early in its passage through the gel, so that diameter would not vary much along its length. I am approximating the hole dimensions by assuming that they are cylindrical, which allows me to calculate volume easily.

Your theory assumes equal accuracy between calibers, which doesn't work in real life. As I posted earlier, ammo effectiveness is primarily related to the shooter, not the caliber.

I know that shooter accuracy is important, but I am holding shooter accuracy constant by talking about one shooter (like me) and asking which caliber is most effective for me. I shoot multiple guns in the 3 calibers mentioned, and I have found that if I use my best 9mm, my best .40 and my best .45, my accuracy is about the same - the groups on my targets are roughly equal.

Google a little both on and off this forum, you'll have reading material for the next 3 months. The answer is to use the largest caliber that you can shoot accurately...meaning you have a bit of homework.

Your answer above, to use the largest caliber that one can shoot accurately, is the same one implied by my approach of looking at gelatin "hole volume". Since the three Ranger calibers all penetrated about the same depth, the volume calculation came down to the frontal area of the expanded bullet. And because the area of the circle goes up as the square of radius, the .45 caliber bullet seemed to have an advantage - it expanded to the largest final diameter and by far the largest area.

[themailman]

[QUOTE=rojocorsa;4866943][IMG]

yup....

[Old4eyes]

Here's a link (I can't guarantee that the information is true) about a guy in the morgue and what he sees.

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

Take note of this guy's ideas about ballistic gelatin testing.



Bottom line for him, the bigger the better.
Now, let's look at it from another point of view, which may not apply to us in California. How many of us have been in multiple gun fights and developed nerves of steel. I haven't. So when it hits the fan would I be better served with say 8+1 rounds in my 1911 or 15+1 out of my 9mm. Probably the 9mm since I'll bet I'll be missing some many shots. I prefaced that statement with the caveat of us Californians with pre-ban magazines. I've got an XD-9 with 10 rounds and and an XD-45 with 10 rounds. Given that my round count is the same, I'd go with the 45. If I had the choice of another 5-7 rounds, I'd think seriously about going to 9mm.

What do you shoot best - that's the answer. If I get back onto target better with a 9mm vs 40 vs 45 vs...... then I shot that.

Use the biggest caliber that you can shoot accurately under stress.