For those that claim increased velocity in revolvers doesn’t increase wound channel because the velocity is below 2,000 FPS, then why is the 357 mag more effective in producing larger wound channels than the 38 Special?
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
It doesn't really matter. Everyone knows now that 9mm is answer to all caliber wars now that the FBI adopted it. You can even stop bears in their tracks with it.
If the bullet integrity is up to it, any increase in velocity will increase wound channel. Jwp—i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?!
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
Of course it makes a difference. There is a lot of bullshitting going on.
If 2000 fps was the magic velocity, then the 22lr and 22WMR rifles would be equal with 40gr hollow points. I don't think anybody can make that argument either, at least not with a straight face.
If the bullet integrity is up to it, any increase in velocity will increase wound channel. Jwp—i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?!
The 2000 FPS is for secondary wounding of fragments of bone and or bullet fragments but people have taken it out of context.
Doesn’t matter a monumental flap point leaves a smaller wound channel at 1000 FPS than the same bullet driven at 1400 FPS. BTDT and seen the results first hand.
Last edited by jwp475; 06/11/19.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above, my point is that the reasons for wound channel size being a function of velocity are quite likely different depending on if the bullet is expanding or not.
Consider a non-expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it has enough energy to create a pass through. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. It too should pass through. If it creates a larger wound channel it will do so because of some phenomena based only on velocity.
Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity.
If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves.
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above, my point is that the reasons for wound channel size being a function of velocity are quite likely different depending on if the bullet is expanding or not.
Consider a non-expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it has enough energy to create a pass through. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. It too should pass through. If it creates a larger wound channel it will do so because of some phenomena based only on velocity.
Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity.
If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves.
I have shot enough big game with a revolver to know that a bullet such as a mono metal flat point will inflict a larger would channel at 1400 FPS than the same bullet at 1000 FPS to soft tissue such as heart and lungs.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
If the bullet integrity is up to it, any increase in velocity will increase wound channel. Jwp—i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?!
The 2000 FOS is for secondary wounding of fragments of bone and or bullet fragments but people have taken it out of context.
If that is the origin of the 2000 fps number, it's still wrong. I've seen significant wounding from bone and bullet fragments from impact velocities as low as 900 fps (suppressed subsonic hollow points). Faster causes more damage. I agree that whatever the 2000 fps number was supposed to mean, it's been taken out of context and accepted as gospel by a lot of people who claim to be authorities on the subject. Actually shooting AND butchering animals shows a different story though, as many handgun hunters know.
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above, my point is that the reasons for wound channel size being a function of velocity are quite likely different depending on if the bullet is expanding or not.
Consider a non-expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it has enough energy to create a pass through. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. It too should pass through. If it creates a larger wound channel it will do so because of some phenomena based only on velocity.
Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity.
If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves.
I have shot enough big game with a revolver to know that a bullet such as a mono metal flat point will inflict a larger would channel at 1400 FPS than the same bullet at 1000 FPS to soft tissue such as heart and lungs.
I don't doubt your experience. For clarification, are you talking about an expanding bullet or not? (Some mono metal bullets are designed to expand, correct?)
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above, my point is that the reasons for wound channel size being a function of velocity are quite likely different depending on if the bullet is expanding or not.
Consider a non-expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it has enough energy to create a pass through. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. It too should pass through. If it creates a larger wound channel it will do so because of some phenomena based only on velocity.
Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity.
If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves.
I have shot enough big game with a revolver to know that a bullet such as a mono metal flat point will inflict a larger would channel at 1400 FPS than the same bullet at 1000 FPS to soft tissue such as heart and lungs.
I don't doubt your experience. For clarification, are you talking about an expanding bullet or not? (Some mono metal bullets are designed to expand, correct?)
I’ve never seen a monometal flat point that expanded in a revolver. I am saying more velocity equals more damage with both. Lungs and heart react to velocity in my experience. On very large game a revolver hunter needs penetration more than expansion.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
GunDoc7, when the velocity is increased so is the momentum along with the hydraulic pressure both add to the wound channel. Many tend to forget that depth of wound channel is also part of the total volume.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity.
....Unless that larger diameter (or fragmentation) limits penetration too much. Then it may actually be a smaller wound channel, if the animal is large enough.
Quote
If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves.
No sir, no bullshitting, under 2200 or so fps the temporary wound channel is the wound channel. If you shoot a 45 caliber bullet the collateral damage under 2200 fps is limited to a smaller area around the bullet channel. When you reach a certain velocity then the temporary wound channel expansion is permanent. First I would not want to shoot a bear with a 5.56 as penetration would not be there. OTOH at 40-50 yards a 55 grain FMJ 5.56 round into your chest will FYU, and you probably will not make the hospital. A 44 magnum 255 grain slug thru the same hole if it was off center might not kill you. It AINT hydrostatic shock, its when yo tissue cannot stretch any further and it just tears. The collateral damage is just greater with high velocity rounds. I noticed while hunting that a 5.56 thru a deers chest under 100 yards will kill them just as fast or faster than a 30-06 at the same distance...poor comparison I guess.
GunDoc7, when the velocity is increased so is the momentum along with the hydraulic pressure both add to the wound channel. Many tend to forget that depth of wound channel is also part of the total volume.
I do understand the physics. But I don't have enough experience to say what works best.
My question about "monometal" was because to me "monometal" means the expanding copper bullets such as the Barnes bullets especially the rifle bullets. While a lead bullet is also made of one metal, I tend to call them swaged, cast, or hard cast.
If I understand you experience and argument correctly, given equal diameter, shape, and meplat diameter, within reason one should trade weight for velocity. For example, a 250 grain hard cast .44 is better than a slower 300 grain hard cast .44 as long as the 250 grain gives sufficient penetration for the animal and the angle. This is because any energy the bullet has as it exits the animal is essentially wasted. If you are of the "complete penetration is good" school of thought (as I am) the ideal situation is for the bullet to exit with very little remaining velocity. Correct?
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
No your wrong gundoc7, if the felt recoil from the revolver is greater then it has to be a better killer.. (sorry I am being insensitive) caveat on big game penetration is more important.
That "wasted energy" is the toll which must be paid for insuring complete penetration, since what the projectile hits and what it does when it hits is not completely in the control of the shooter.
this is all JWP stirring the s-hit. On Lightweight animals, velocity is more important than penetration and on heavy animals penetration is more important than velocity.
this is all JWP stirring the s-hit. On Lightweight animals, velocity is more important than penetration and on heavy animals penetration is more important than velocity.
This is Jimmyp showing his ignorance, don’t be like Jimmyp
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
GunDoc7, when the velocity is increased so is the momentum along with the hydraulic pressure both add to the wound channel. Many tend to forget that depth of wound channel is also part of the total volume.
I do understand the physics. But I don't have enough experience to say what works best.
My question about "monometal" was because to me "monometal" means the expanding copper bullets such as the Barnes bullets especially the rifle bullets. While a lead bullet is also made of one metal, I tend to call them swaged, cast, or hard cast.
If I understand you experience and argument correctly, given equal diameter, shape, and meplat diameter, within reason one should trade weight for velocity. For example, a 250 grain hard cast .44 is better than a slower 300 grain hard cast .44 as long as the 250 grain gives sufficient penetration for the animal and the angle. This is because any energy the bullet has as it exits the animal is essentially wasted. If you are of the "complete penetration is good" school of thought (as I am) the ideal situation is for the bullet to exit with very little remaining velocity. Correct?
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
So the 230 grain 45 ACP trucking along at 800 fps vs. the 9mm 124 grain bullet moving at 1200 fps, which one wins?
Is that what you get from this discussion? You comparing apples to oranges. How about a 124 grain 9mm at 1000 FPS versus the same bullet at 1200 FPS.
Not at all but the whole thing started with 45 vs 9mm and it's been drug down this rabbit hole and every other one that can be thought of. My response was in sarcasm font.
So the 230 grain 45 ACP trucking along at 800 fps vs. the 9mm 124 grain bullet moving at 1200 fps, which one wins?
Is that what you get from this discussion? You comparing apples to oranges. How about a 124 grain 9mm at 1000 FPS versus the same bullet at 1200 FPS.
Not at all but the whole thing started with 45 vs 9mm and it's been drug down this rabbit hole and every other one that can be thought of. My response was in sarcasm font.
This thread has zero to do with 9mm vs 45, not sure how you connected those dots.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
Last edited by GunDoc7; 06/11/19.
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
no permanent wound cavity much bigger than the bullet diameter until the bullet is over 2100-2200 or so FPS or unless it fragments.... at 1400 FPS a 62 grain federal fusion will make a .38 caliber hole in you as it will expand, however it is not as lethal as a hole made by a 55 grain FMJ at 3300FPS in about the same area of yo body.
if you shot a small 120 pound deer in the ass side to side, which would be more devastating to the deer? A 300 grain 44 magnum at 1200 fps or a 220 swift with a 40 grain nosler? Now apply this same thing to a 600 pound bear, the bear would stuff the swift up YOUR ass but the deer would be flattened by the thing.
Of course it makes a difference. There is a lot of bullshitting going on.
If 2000 fps was the magic velocity, then the 22lr and 22WMR rifles would be equal with 40gr hollow points. I don't think anybody can make that argument either, at least not with a straight face.
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
If bullet construction is equal the faster bullet will produce more damage through lung and or heart without a doubt. With mono metal flat point bullets I’m not sure that weight is as important as it is with lead type bullets.
Buffalo Bore has a Dangerous Game Line of revolver bullets using the Leigh mono metal in r4 mag they load a 265 grain at a claimed 1425 FPS. Grizzly Ammo loads at 300 grain Punch Bullet at 1200 assuming equal meplats I would not be surprised if penetration was a wash.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
if you shot a small 120 pound deer in the ass side to side, which would be more devastating to the deer? A 300 grain 44 magnum at 1200 fps or a 220 swift with a 40 grain nosler? Now apply this same thing to a 600 pound bear, the bear would stuff the swift up YOUR ass but the deer would be flattened by the thing.
The opening post mentioned nothing about rifle bullets, you can’t connect those dots.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
if you shot a small 120 pound deer in the ass side to side, which would be more devastating to the deer? A 300 grain 44 magnum at 1200 fps or a 220 swift with a 40 grain nosler? Now apply this same thing to a 600 pound bear, the bear would stuff the swift up YOUR ass but the deer would be flattened by the thing.
Use the right bullet and the swift will do the job well. Not a problem. The original question was basically, two of the same bullets and in one case one is driven faster than the other, will the faster one make a larger wound channel. Ive shot too many big and small things that had a much larger wound channel at velocities much less speed than the over 2000fps mandate listed. Ive seen it. Dont care what studies show
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
look up wound ballistics of high velocity cartridges.
You are full of crap and don’t understand what you read or observe is apparent. If yo7 were correct then a 357 mag would be no more effective than a 38 Special which is not the case
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
look up wound ballistics of high velocity cartridges.
Is hit a fallow deer with a 425 grain flat point hard cast at 1380 FPS through both lungs and removed a 3 to 4 inch diameter section of lung tissue. Your claim is hogwash at best.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
No sir, no bullshitting, under 2200 or so fps the temporary wound channel is the wound channel. If you shoot a 45 caliber bullet the collateral damage under 2200 fps is limited to a smaller area around the bullet channel. When you reach a certain velocity then the temporary wound channel expansion is permanent. First I would not want to shoot a bear with a 5.56 as penetration would not be there. OTOH at 40-50 yards a 55 grain FMJ 5.56 round into your chest will FYU, and you probably will not make the hospital. A 44 magnum 255 grain slug thru the same hole if it was off center might not kill you. It AINT hydrostatic shock, its when yo tissue cannot stretch any further and it just tears. The collateral damage is just greater with high velocity rounds. I noticed while hunting that a 5.56 thru a deers chest under 100 yards will kill them just as fast or faster than a 30-06 at the same distance...poor comparison I guess.
I guess I don't understand the argument very well.
I offered the 22LR/22WMR example as it is something I shot a lot of ground squirrels with as a kid, and the WMR did a LOT more damage, with velocities around 1200/1800 respectively.
You could compare wounds from a 158gr JHP fired at 800 fps from a 38 Spl handgun, and the same bullet out of a 357 Carbine at 1800 fps. The difference will be dramatic.
...i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?!
I think it has been introduced with discussions of hydro-static shock. Somehow, it morphed to include the wound channel.
I think the idea is that hydro-static disruption occurs with handguns, too, but just not to the extent of increasing the permanent wound cavity. For that, the bullet needs to exceed about 2000 fps.
...i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?!
I think it has been introduced with discussions of hydro-static shock. Somehow, it morphed to include the wound channel.
I think the idea is that hydro-static disruption occurs with handguns, too, but just not to the extent of increasing the permanent wound cavity. For that, the bullet needs to exceed about 2000 fps.
No wound channels increas in revolver and pistols as velocity increases, that is why a 357 is more effective than a 38 Special. The 2000 FPS threshold is about secondary wounding.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I am posting these for tradmark. The animals are deer, so nothing exotic for the naysayers to complain about. tradmark will elaborate.
Lung damage (half a lung is missing) from a .41 Mag Swift A-frame at 1,680 fps.
These next two show the huge crater in the lungs from a .460 S&W loaded with a 300 A-frame with an impact velocity of 1,800 fps - this is after the bullet traveled from a ham to the front end of the deer.
This is a hole in a lung from a large meplat 440 grain cast bullet from a .480 at 1,100 fps -- this is for those who think these things make a caliber sized hole.
The point of the photos is to show how even a smaller bullet does leave a much larger wound than something larger going slower. Also pretty obvious that theres permanent wound channels larger than caliber sized and speed matters. Needless to say the fast 41 does a larger wound channel than the big 480 solid. Doesnt go as deep but doesnt need to.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
Its what i deal with in the hospital all the time. Dr, havent you read the studies?!?! That doesnt help with rsv bronchiolitis!! Well every time i give it they breath better, oxygen levels go up and respiratory rate goes to normal! But the studies doc!!e
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
Its what i deal with in the hospital all the time. Dr, havent you read the studies?!?! That doesnt help with rsv bronchiolitis!! Well every time i give it they breath better, oxygen levels go up and respiratory rate goes to normal! But the studies doc!!e
Studies that go counter to result are useless
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
if you could get a 45 caliber 300 grain bullet going 2300 or faster FPS in a man portable firearm you would really have something. Velocity seems to matter. Why do all objective studies which I know are totally useless here on the fire show that there is not that much difference in handgun wounding power between 380 and 44 magnum?
if you could get a 45 caliber 300 grain bullet going 2300 or faster FPS in a man portable firearm you would really have something. Velocity seems to matter. Why do all objective studies which I know are totally useless here on the fire show that there is not that much difference in handgun wounding power between 380 and 44 magnum?
Ever hear of a 458 Lott? Anyone that claims not much difference in wounding ability from a 380 to a 44 mag is full of crapr
Last edited by jwp475; 06/12/19.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
458 lott is a rifle, you guys just cannot believe that penetration past 14 inches has no bearing on wounding in two legged animals under 350 pounds. Didn't that Muslim yelling alah akbar at fort hood kill dead a bunch of people with a piss ant FN 5.7? If he had been using a 44 magnum I guess they would have been deader. Andy Obama is a muslim himself for calling it workplace violence.
if you could get a 45 caliber 300 grain bullet going 2300 or faster FPS in a man portable firearm you would really have something. Velocity seems to matter. Why do all objective studies which I know are totally useless here on the fire show that there is not that much difference in handgun wounding power between 380 and 44 magnum?
What studies are you talking about specifically? We already have a portable platform that will shoot a 300 grain .45 bullet around 2,000 fps and the results are quite spectacular - ON GAME. Jimmy, you really need to get out and shoot some deer with a .380 and then with a .44 Mag and again tell me there is not much difference between the two with a straight face.
I shot a small buck once with a 240 grain SJHP and nearly blew the off shoulder completely off. Only a small amount of meat and skinn held the shoulder to the deer.
Show me a 380 doing that
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
2 legged stand up straight studies say they are about the same within 20%, two legged stand up straight animals are pussies compared to a small buck.
Specific studies? Do you have any links? Can you cite a study specifically? Humans and deer are roughly the same size and about as hard to penetrate. It's not a bad comparison, and I'm not talking about their will to live, just the physical attributes.
".….Didn't that Muslim yelling alah akbar at fort hood kill dead a bunch of people with a piss ant FN 5.7?."
You just made the argument we are all talking about. FN shooting 40gr VMax around 1800 fps. Does a lot more damage than a 22LR shooting 40gr HP at 1200 fps.
And well below 2000 fps. Velocity matters, even under 2K fps.
458 lott is a rifle, you guys just cannot believe that penetration past 14 inches has no bearing on wounding in two legged animals under 350 pounds. Didn't that Muslim yelling alah akbar at fort hood kill dead a bunch of people with a piss ant FN 5.7? If he had been using a 44 magnum I guess they would have been deader. Andy Obama is a muslim himself for calling it workplace violence.
Again you miss the point totally, what alternate universe do you live in? Do you think the 22 LR at 1200 out of a Rifle will do the same damage as the FN 40 grain at 1800?
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
".….Didn't that Muslim yelling alah akbar at fort hood kill dead a bunch of people with a piss ant FN 5.7?."
You just made the argument we are all talking about. FN shooting 40gr VMax around 1800 fps. Does a lot more damage than a 22LR shooting 40gr HP at 1200 fps.
And well below 2000 fps. Velocity matters, even under 2K fps.
Originally Posted by MontanaMarine
Velocity and bullet design both matter.
Exactly
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
".….Didn't that Muslim yelling alah akbar at fort hood kill dead a bunch of people with a piss ant FN 5.7?."
You just made the argument we are all talking about. FN shooting 40gr VMax around 1800 fps. Does a lot more damage than a 22LR shooting 40gr HP at 1200 fps.
And well below 2000 fps. Velocity matters, even under 2K fps.
Originally Posted by MontanaMarine
Velocity and bullet design both matter.
Exactly
This
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
if you could get a 45 caliber 300 grain bullet going 2300 or faster FPS in a man portable firearm you would really have something. Velocity seems to matter. Why do all objective studies which I know are totally useless here on the fire show that there is not that much difference in handgun wounding power between 380 and 44 magnum?
Im not sure of what studies you speak. However, it doesnt take much real life evidence to know which studies are academic nonsense and which arent. Ive been in the chest cavity of shooting victims of a number of bullet wounds. To think theres not much of a difference bw a 357 mag and a 380 is just laughable. Never have seen a center chest 357 wound in surgery because they are basically already dead. Not so with a 380. To bring that up to a 44 mag is just getting silly. Thats when you just dismiss the studies right away.
People and deer arent much difference toughness wise. Thats why i posted pics of deer.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
I dont know how one quantifies percentages of lethality and that there in lies the rub. Academics trying to quantify it is where the problems come in. What i can say is a 45 acp makes a lot deeper and larger hole than a 380. Period and end if story.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
I loaded them so they would run out of the levergun where i habe them run out of the freedom arms 41 mag i have. The rifle will give better ballistics but the pistol can be loaded to a much much higher pressure. I do this to get more information on pistol cartridge wound dynamics and since i have 7 kiddos to take hunting i can get alot of info if they shoot pistol chambered carbines when theyre young. My son matt was shooting a henry leveraction to take his first 10 deer and is now transitioning to big bore pistols and has taken a few deer with a 41 mag and a downloaded 454 casull.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
It's never been difficult to cypher,who shoots...and who don't. Congratulations?!?
Hint................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
".….Didn't that Muslim yelling alah akbar at fort hood kill dead a bunch of people with a piss ant FN 5.7?."
You just made the argument we are all talking about. FN shooting 40gr VMax around 1800 fps. Does a lot more damage than a 22LR shooting 40gr HP at 1200 fps.
And well below 2000 fps. Velocity matters, even under 2K fps.
you have me confused, I am arguing that velocity is as important as bullet size and mass. I argued that the 5.7 with its 40 grain bullet at 1800 was as or more lethal than a 9mm ir 45ACP. I never have mentioned a 22 LR in this discussion that I recollect. Does anyone want to argue that a 55 grain 5.56 at 2600 FPS is less lethal than a 240 grain 44 magnum at 1300FPS applied into the chest cavity? Secondly that handguns of all common calibers are all about the same regards lethality in self defense shootings with more than 50% of people being shot surviving single hits to the chest. I know a man that I hunt with that survived 4 shots with a 357 magnum, the shooter shot low 3 times into his pelvis and stomach and one blew his thumb off, one missed and he used the last one on himself. Now replace that with a 223, 30-06, or 12 gunge with buckshot and the odds are slim to none. Finally take something like a glock 34 with 124 grain HP ammunition, someone will shoot you two to three times with that while many are recovering from a single recoil from a 1911 45ACP. Just sayin is all.
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
If bullet construction is equal the faster bullet will produce more damage through lung and or heart without a doubt. With mono metal flat point bullets I’m not sure that weight is as important as it is with lead type bullets.
Buffalo Bore has a Dangerous Game Line of revolver bullets using the Leigh mono metal in r4 mag they load a 265 grain at a claimed 1425 FPS. Grizzly Ammo loads at 300 grain Punch Bullet at 1200 assuming equal meplats I would not be surprised if penetration was a wash.
I don't understand exactly what you mean by the part highlighted in red, or why you believe it to be true. Does it have to do with bullet hardness?
Concerning the part in blue: So if you believe penetration is a wash, then you would pick the 265 at 1425 fps, because it should do the most damage, correct?
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
I don’t believe that bullet weight for a mono Metal flat point is as important as for a lead based bullet, because lighter mono metal flat point bullet often out penetrate heavier lead based bullet or penetrate the same in test in both rifles and revolvers. Yes the monometal is harder, deforms Less and penetrates better than lead based bullets.
If penetration is adequate more damage is achieved by more velocity.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
".….Didn't that Muslim yelling alah akbar at fort hood kill dead a bunch of people with a piss ant FN 5.7?."
You just made the argument we are all talking about. FN shooting 40gr VMax around 1800 fps. Does a lot more damage than a 22LR shooting 40gr HP at 1200 fps.
And well below 2000 fps. Velocity matters, even under 2K fps.
you have me confused, I am arguing that velocity is as important as bullet size and mass. I argued that the 5.7 with its 40 grain bullet at 1800 was as or more lethal than a 9mm ir 45ACP. I never have mentioned a 22 LR in this discussion that I recollect. Does anyone want to argue that a 55 grain 5.56 at 2600 FPS is less lethal than a 240 grain 44 magnum at 1300FPS applied into the chest cavity? Secondly that handguns of all common calibers are all about the same regards lethality in self defense shootings with more than 50% of people being shot surviving single hits to the chest. I know a man that I hunt with that survived 4 shots with a 357 magnum, the shooter shot low 3 times into his pelvis and stomach and one blew his thumb off, one missed and he used the last one on himself. Now replace that with a 223, 30-06, or 12 gunge with buckshot and the odds are slim to none. Finally take something like a glock 34 with 124 grain HP ammunition, someone will shoot you two to three times with that while many are recovering from a single recoil from a 1911 45ACP. Just sayin is all.
I played ball with a man that survived a point blank shot with a 16 ghage shotgun into his abdomen, people survive a lot of horrific injuries, that doesn’t change the fact that more velocity in handguns increase damage.
Stop including rifles.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
A 310 Keith from my sixgun at almost 1200 pokes a hole through a prairie dog. The same exact load from my rifle does 1550 and will cut a p dog in half. Both loads will kill deer and antelope quite well
A 310 Keith from my sixgun at almost 1200 pokes a hole through a prairie dog. The same exact load from my rifle does 1550 and will cut a p dog in half. Both loads will kill deer and antelope quite well
You understand the intent of the thread.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
".….Didn't that Muslim yelling alah akbar at fort hood kill dead a bunch of people with a piss ant FN 5.7?."
You just made the argument we are all talking about. FN shooting 40gr VMax around 1800 fps. Does a lot more damage than a 22LR shooting 40gr HP at 1200 fps.
And well below 2000 fps. Velocity matters, even under 2K fps.
you have me confused, I am arguing that velocity is as important as bullet size and mass. I argued that the 5.7 with its 40 grain bullet at 1800 was as or more lethal than a 9mm ir 45ACP. I never have mentioned a 22 LR in this discussion that I recollect. Does anyone want to argue that a 55 grain 5.56 at 2600 FPS is less lethal than a 240 grain 44 magnum at 1300FPS applied into the chest cavity? Secondly that handguns of all common calibers are all about the same regards lethality in self defense shootings with more than 50% of people being shot surviving single hits to the chest. I know a man that I hunt with that survived 4 shots with a 357 magnum, the shooter shot low 3 times into his pelvis and stomach and one blew his thumb off, one missed and he used the last one on himself. Now replace that with a 223, 30-06, or 12 gunge with buckshot and the odds are slim to none. Finally take something like a glock 34 with 124 grain HP ammunition, someone will shoot you two to three times with that while many are recovering from a single recoil from a 1911 45ACP. Just sayin is all.
It's all good, I was relating your comments to the question posed in the OP.
At this point the conversation is just going in circles. I'm out.
It seems all Jimmy's argument (in several threads) really is about, is his inability to shoot a 45. I don't think anyone is going to change his mind.
sadly even at 15 yards I fail to even hit the target with my G21. I am delighted your Mensa level intelligence ferreted this fact out!
I get a laugh every time someone posts a target photo in a forum to make some pissing point. As if that is evidence of anything. Your words say much more than your target. I can post a 15 yd target that looks better than yours, but it doesn't prove anything. You, OTOH, seem to have a lot to say about the. 45 acp having no reason to live.
I myself get aggravated when one of the fires Mensa members picks a argument and then backs it up with moronic assumptions along with a good dose of red herring. I never ran the 45 ACP down, I simply pointed out that it’s not significantly better as a SD cartridge than a 9mm. Sorry you got your tit in the wringer over me posting an actual target, but again you seem to have some disdain for actual facts. Why I bet if you were in charge you would correct all these lies and falsehoods and the 45ACP would be adopted in every military and all police departments! Anyway more facts. I own two 45ACP pistols both of which I like and shoot reasonably well. I carry and practice with one of my two P365’s and I am more proficient with those as I shoot them a lot more. However as I hope that you might be able to tell from the target, I do own and can hit with a M21 and a 45 shield. Please forgive me if I offended you or your people.
I myself get aggravated when one of the fires Mensa members picks a argument and then backs it up with moronic assumptions along with a good dose of red herring. I never ran the 45 ACP down, I simply pointed out that it’s not significantly better as a SD cartridge than a 9mm. Sorry you got your tit in the wringer over me posting an actual target, but again you seem to have some disdain for actual facts. Why I bet if you were in charge you would correct all these lies and falsehoods and the 45ACP would be adopted in every military and all police departments! Anyway more facts. I own two 45ACP pistols both of which I like and shoot reasonably well. I carry and practice with one of my two P365’s and I am more proficient with those as I shoot them a lot more. However as I hope that you might be able to tell from the target, I do own and can hit with a M21 and a 45 shield. Please forgive me if I offended you or your people.
Jimmyp, you haven't offended me a bit. I rather find you mildly amusing. You have spent a good deal of time here belaboring this issue based on what? Statistical reports? You have pestered several others here with this obsession over what is debunked by those who shoot living things. And then, when someone makes an observation based on your recent contributions here, you imply some sort of victim status and lash out. (My tit in a wringer over your pointless target? Almost as hilarious as the target itself.) It's not a good look on you, but it does have humor value. I don't have a dog in this current caliber fight, but admit to adding to my amusement by commenting on your by now absurd argument, and then your silly target "proof" (of what, no one can be sure). And now your butt-hurt response is predictable at this point.
FreeMe, I like your argument style, it cleverly personally attacks me in the nicest way possible. My belaboring the 9mm,40sw,45acp issue has me in equal company with you and many others here who don’t believe the world is round and don’t believe most all CCW pistol rounds are about the same. I belabor the point but those who think opposite of me do not belabor the point! Interesting take! It’s almost progressive like in its structure. My side is right so we can do as we please, your side is wrong so anything you say or do is wrong.
FreeMe, I like your argument style, it cleverly personally attacks me in the nicest way possible. My belaboring the 9mm,40sw,45acp issue has me in equal company with you....
No it doesn't. I'm not belaboring either side of the argument. But you left yourself open for attack, and I am trying to be kind of nice about it.
Quote
....and many others here who don’t believe the world is round and don’t believe most all CCW pistol rounds are about the same...
Equating flat-earthers with those who aren't buying what is debatable is pretty lame.
Yeah, both sides are beating this horse to pieces - but one side relies heavily on statistics, and the other relies heavily on personal accounts of dead animals. Having seen some pretty questionable things inferred from statistics (bear spray superiority, for instance), I'll run with the dead animal crowd (of which I am just a small part), thank you.
We can agree to disagree. The dead animal crowd has great credibility however they are not using typical carry gun cartridges. Flat nosed, 1500 FPS 45 caliber 300 grain bullets will shoot thru a lot of meat, and they have little in common with 230 grain 45 caliber hollow points at 950 FPS. If they want to extrapolate from a 454 Casul to a 45ACP that is fine, but no major agency, military, etc etc has stuck with the 45ACP and "on average" there is very little difference between a 9mm and a 45ACP in a self defense situation.
Both sides will likely agree to disagree far into the future. As part of the dead animal crowd though, I have to say that I see a significant difference on smaller animals between the 9mm and the .45acp too. Whether that extrapolates to self-defense against humans.......can't say. But given the way the data has been put together, I ain't bettin' against it.
We can agree to disagree. The dead animal crowd has great credibility however they are not using typical carry gun cartridges. Flat nosed, 1500 FPS 45 caliber 300 grain bullets will shoot thru a lot of meat, and they have little in common with 230 grain 45 caliber hollow points at 950 FPS. If they want to extrapolate from a 454 Casul to a 45ACP that is fine, but no major agency, military, etc etc has stuck with the 45ACP and "on average" there is very little difference between a 9mm and a 45ACP in a self defense situation.
No, I have posted about useing both the 9 and the 45ACP on Deer and pigs but you only talk about 454, you apparently can’t comprehend. Yes the 45’s wound channels are larger. The fact is larger wound channels doesn’t mean they are the only adequate choice.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
Not at all. The lighter bullet might exit before any energy is transmitted to internals,
In self defense situations there is not a huge difference between the lethality of a .380 and the 44 magnum.
Funniest thing I ever heard. Toy guns come with many, many shots because one will make you dead. I do not believe in velocity for more killing power but I believe in bullet performance at the velocity.
a 380 will kill a man with about the same effectiveness as a 44 magnum, within 20% IIRC for one or the other and you assume room temperature.
I don't know where you get the "within 20% figure", but accepting it for now, 20% seems a significant difference to me.
I believe a .380 will kill a small animal, e.g. rabbit, as well as a .44 Magnum. At some point, it is hard to tell the difference between sufficiently lethal and exceedingly sufficiently lethal. But whitetail deer and people are about the same size. Granted, deer are stronger and "tougher" for their weight, but they are not much differently constructed around the heart/lung area. Would you just as soon hunt deer with a .380 as with a .44 Magnum?
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
Not at all. The lighter bullet might exit before any energy is transmitted to internals,
Please explain. Are you saying that if the bullet goes through fast enough, there is less time for energy to be transmitted to the internal organs?
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
Not at all. The lighter bullet might exit before any energy is transmitted to internals,
Please explain. Are you saying that if the bullet goes through fast enough, there is less time for energy to be transmitted to the internal organs?
You guessed it. Its coming, always has. Its the stupidest idea ever, but he is gonna bring it. Best part is its based in his experience of basically shooting nothing but a few deer. Bfrshooter never fails!
Last edited by Tradmark; 06/17/19.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
The problem with his so called experience is he doesn’t consider the size of the wound channel just which one went down faster. Since all animals give it up differently this is not a valid observation
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
a 380 will kill a man with about the same effectiveness as a 44 magnum, within 20% IIRC for one or the other and you assume room temperature.
I don't know where you get the "within 20% figure", but accepting it for now, 20% seems a significant difference to me.
I believe a .380 will kill a small animal, e.g. rabbit, as well as a .44 Magnum. At some point, it is hard to tell the difference between sufficiently lethal and exceedingly sufficiently lethal. But whitetail deer and people are about the same size. Granted, deer are stronger and "tougher" for their weight, but they are not much differently constructed around the heart/lung area. Would you just as soon hunt deer with a .380 as with a .44 Magnum?
Originally Posted by GunDoc7
Originally Posted by jimmyp
a 380 will kill a man with about the same effectiveness as a 44 magnum, within 20% IIRC for one or the other and you assume room temperature.
I don't know where you get the "within 20% figure", but accepting it for now, 20% seems a significant difference to me.
I believe a .380 will kill a small animal, e.g. rabbit, as well as a .44 Magnum. At some point, it is hard to tell the difference between sufficiently lethal and exceedingly sufficiently lethal. But whitetail deer and people are about the same size. Granted, deer are stronger and "tougher" for their weight, but they are not much differently constructed around the heart/lung area. Would you just as soon hunt deer with a .380 as with a .44 Magnum?
Anyone that has ever shot a deer with a Remington 240 SJHP know the silliness of Jimmyp’s quote the size of the wound has to be seen to be believed, no service pistol rounds can equal the damage of a 44 mag
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
Not at all. The lighter bullet might exit before any energy is transmitted to internals,
Please explain. Are you saying that if the bullet goes through fast enough, there is less time for energy to be transmitted to the internal organs?
A bucket strike is an inelastic collision and only a small amount of untraceable energy is transferred, faster also means increases momentum with is always transferred.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
Not at all. The lighter bullet might exit before any energy is transmitted to internals,
Please explain. Are you saying that if the bullet goes through fast enough, there is less time for energy to be transmitted to the internal organs?
Yes, deer shot with my .45 Colt and a 335 gr bullet at 1160 FPS will drop deer fast and so will my C&B Ruger Old Army with a RB at 1100 fps. But the 45-70 revolver with the same weight bullet will lose deer and recovered will be 200 to 300 yards. No dwell time to transmit energy. Too fast or too heavy a bullet will not do the damage. The .44 has lost no deer. To believe speed kills better you must have a bullet to match. It is always the bullet in the end. You can lose deer with the .44 by shooting the wrong bullets too. A 180 as fast as it can go is a sad sack but a slower 300 is deadly. I am a firm believer in Dwell time or a slowing bullet to give energy with enough weight to penetrate.
It might sound strange but a RB from a ML will kill better then any modern gun. Step up to the Minie' and destruction is massive. I have well over 200 deer kills with a flint lock .45. Would you hunt elk with a 300 Weatherby and 110 gr bullets or choose a 220 gr? It is repeated over and over a larger meplat on a revolver kills better. Not true since velocity matters. Too fast and the pressure wave from the meplat moves tissue away in a secondary wound channel. The channel will collapse without damage. So you say to speed it up or make the meplat larger. Actually you need to slow it down.
Example a Lehigh monometal flat point non expanding bullet same caliber same weight one fired at 950 FPS the other fired at 1400 FPS the faster bullet will produce more damage.
If that is your experience, I don't doubt you one bit.
My question was a bit different: Two .44 caliber bullets, 250 grain and 300 grain, same nose shape, equal meplat diameters, both hard cast and do not expand. Load each to however "hot" you are comfortable with, but each loaded as hot as the other. (Maybe different charge weights, maybe different powders, but each load is equal as far as how hard you are "leaning on the gun." This probably means equal peak chamber pressure.) The lighter bullet will be faster, correct? Assume that on the animal in question, and the angle of the shot, both bullets exit. So depth of penetration is "total." In this case, you will pick the lighter, faster bullet, because it will do more damage, correct?
But on a bigger animal, or a situation where you may have to take a poor angle shot, you might choose the heavier, slower bullet to ensure sufficient penetration, correct?
Not at all. The lighter bullet might exit before any energy is transmitted to internals,
Please explain. Are you saying that if the bullet goes through fast enough, there is less time for energy to be transmitted to the internal organs?
Yes, deer shot with my .45 Colt and a 335 gr bullet at 1160 FPS will drop deer fast and so will my C&B Ruger Old Army with a RB at 1100 fps. But the 45-70 revolver with the same weight bullet will lose deer and recovered will be 200 to 300 yards. No dwell time to transmit energy. Too fast or too heavy a bullet will not do the damage. The .44 has lost no deer. To believe speed kills better you must have a bullet to match. It is always the bullet in the end. You can lose deer with the .44 by shooting the wrong bullets too. A 180 as fast as it can go is a sad sack but a slower 300 is deadly. I am a firm believer in Dwell time or a slowing bullet to give energy with enough weight to penetrate.
Maybe you just cant shoot a 45/70 worth a crap and just hit em bad.
Better yet, while we are talking about silly magic; why dont you enlighten all the gents here about how your 475 linebaugh has half the drop with a 420 gr bullet as a 45/70 with a 435gr bullet at roughly the same speed. That one was a gem too bfrshooter!
All i can say is i am glad you werent ever in charge of anything important in your working career or the world would be a worse place for sure. You can argue with physics. You just cant ever win that argument!
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
In self defense situations there is not a huge difference between the lethality of a .380 and the 44 magnum.
When did we stop talking about stopping an attack, and commence talking about lethality? The two are not the same.
My most often carried round is 9mm. But my observation on game is that the .45acp does more damage, and the .44mag does dramatically more damage - even on hares. Stats are useful, but IME, they don't account for outliers. I can't prove it statistically, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that more damage is a good thing when that exception to the rule is in your face.
In self defense situations there is not a huge difference between the lethality of a .380 and the 44 magnum.
When did we stop talking about stopping an attack, and commence talking about lethality? The two are not the same.
My most often carried round is 9mm. But my observation on game is that the .45acp does more damage, and the .44mag does dramatically more damage - even on hares. Stats are useful, but IME, they don't account for outliers. I can't prove it statistically, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that more damage is a good thing when that exception to the rule is in your face.
Could not agree more.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
There’s just not a tremendous difference in performance between common calibers.
Let me be clear on all of this. This is not my personal war on the 45 ACP or 44 magnum or whatever, but it is a look at really who can shoot what effectively. My wake up call to all of this was Shrapnel saying 6 rounds triggered into the dirt from a handgun that you cannot control will get you killed or something to that effect. Give one person a .380 and that person might be lethal with the weapon, give the same person a 45ACP and they might not be as effective. In short in my opinion all things need to be considered when discussing handgun effectiveness. In common calibers similar hits in similar places may not be tremendously different but at the higher end of the spectrum like a 44 magnum with a 180 grain hollow point it stands to reason that there has to be some difference in destruction. The real key in all of these studies is that a handgun that is effective for one person may not be for another and thus the .380 is not that much different than the 45ACP when considered across many many shootings. However we have to consider all the various bullets employed as well the variables are endless.
In the end however and much more important than any caliber war or any possible intelligent discussion on any topic, I really hope that BFR finds his lost post.
In the end however and much more important than any caliber war or any possible intelligent discussion on any topic, I really hope that BFR finds his lost post.
I agree with both JWP and Whitworth because they use the proper bullets. They also know I use proper for deer with each caliber. I have failed many times and it was always the bullet and never where the deer was hit. We learn by doing and not reading. Every single deer gets a necropsy to determine bullet results. If you think this is the wrong place for energy you might be wrong.
Yep I use hard cast with miniature parachutes on the hind end in place of the gascheck , ensuring the bullet spends the max amount of time in the animal , killing it the deadest . Transfer the hell outta that energy
Rabid Creedmoorians ring my doorbell ... as I open it a crack they speak : "Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior , 6.5Creed?"
Wtf are u talking about. I smell a load of bs. I sort of did the math and basically found in west virginia if you take and tag out 5 deer a year it would take a cool 40 years to even hit 200 deer, which is still under the amount you claim with just your flintlock rifle so exactly how many, with what, and how the f$ck have you shot that many, or is it really just bs. I know what i think.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
Wtf are u talking about. I smell a load of bs. I sort of did the math and basically found in west virginia if you take and tag out 5 deer a year it would take a cool 40 years to even hit 200 deer, which is still under the amount you claim with just your flintlock rifle so exactly how many, with what, and how the f$ck have you shot that many, or is it really just bs. I know what i think.
Ohio orchards and farms with unlimited tags for crop damage. Most deer donated to feed hungry as I did not have to pay processing. Now I have to pay so I take what I need and for neighbors. I hunted WV, Ohio, Mich and PA. Most states were 1 deer a year unless crop damage tags were had. One farmer here kills over 250 deer a year and throws them in a gully to rot. One pig farmer shot many a year to rot. Even in PA the farm I hunted was a kill free zone and any deer that stepped in the field was shot any time of year. They would gut shoot them to die in the woods so they did not have to drag them out. I had farms and orchards from Lake Erie to the river to hunt.
No, I could not use them for deer back then. Once here I averaged 5 to 6 a season with revolvers for 33 years. Now they reduced doe amounts so it will be less. I do not need a license here in WV as it is free after a certain age. Doe tags have been cut back. But we can shoot a doe in buck season, then must kill a buck before another doe. It gets confusing as to how many we can take. In years past from archery to rifle and BP I averaged 7 a season.
I had my first when 14, a model 27 in .357. I cast and loaded also. In 1956 I bought the Ruger .44 and had 5 model 29's over the years. We could use a revolver for game in Ohio but not for deer. I used the .44 mostly for wood chucks and the Mark I and II's for squirrels. I moved here to WV 33 years ago and we could use them for deer. The year I left, Ohio made it legal for deer. UAL closed the Cle hub so I worked at Dulles, put in 42 years at the airline. Been shooting and working revolvers for 68 years, I shot IHMSA for many years with A SBH and started deer with it. Back then production revolver high scores were 19 to 20 out of 40. Everyone used the wrong powder and primer. I studied and learned the .44 until I shot 40's and won Ohio state big bore and .22 the same year with a Ruger Mark. I missed the last ram with the SBH, just worn out, 79 out of 80. It only takes a jiggle to miss a 200 meter ram. My .22 did not have sight settings, brand new gun, missed 3 but hit all shoot off chickens at 100. I never did good with the 29's even though I shot 1/2" groups at 50 meters, I never tamed the grips. Hit 5 dead center and put the gun down for target setters and miss the next 5. I have the same trouble with a Bisley. My SBH Hunter Bisley went away in 2 weeks. Then I found the BFR's and no revolver on earth shoots like they do. Yes I actually shot a 2-1/2" group at 500 yards with the huge 45-70.
So in those years, when did the laws of physics change for you? The fact that energy transfer happens thru hydrostatic shock and the faster the bullet goes the more hydrostatic shock you get is basically a law. Doesnt change for those that believe in dwell time and other such nonsense. Just curious where that changed and is it possible those laws of physics changed just for you or do you think your powers of observation may be lacking?
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
My first 3 deer were shot with 240 gr XTP bullets. Yes, they killed but I seen them drop. I recovered the bullets and back tracking I found no blood on the ground at all. I went to the 320 LBT and blood on the ground looked like a fire truck sprayed it. The LBT is a lot slower then the 240. It is thick here and a deer will be out of sight in one jump. Need a blood trail. Hydraulic shock is another myth. A revolver does not have what a rifle has. Another story for you. My mailman John brought his daughter to hunt every year with a .223. She did get a few but she shot a big doe in the front and Whitworth, me, John and her searched with no blood. An hour later I went to my other stand and found her deer. I gutted it to find the bullet only went 6" in. So much for shock. I went into my stand and shot a buck with my SBH. I dragged both deer to the trail and called John to get hers. I made John get her a 30-30 and she shoots larger bucks each year then her dad. Her .223 deer was over 200 yards from where hit. You will get hydrostatic shock from a .300 Weatherby but not from a revolver. You just make a bullet work.
My first 3 deer were shot with 240 gr XTP bullets. Yes, they killed but I seen them drop. I recovered the bullets and back tracking I found no blood on the ground at all. I went to the 320 LBT and blood on the ground looked like a fire truck sprayed it. The LBT is a lot slower then the 240. It is thick here and a deer will be out of sight in one jump. Need a blood trail. Hydraulic shock is another myth. A revolver does not have what a rifle has. Another story for you. My mailman John brought his daughter to hunt every year with a .223. She did get a few but she shot a big doe in the front and Whitworth, me, John and her searched with no blood. An hour later I went to my other stand and found her deer. I gutted it to find the bullet only went 6" in. So much for shock. I went into my stand and shot a buck with my SBH. I dragged both deer to the trail and called John to get hers. I made John get her a 30-30 and she shoots larger bucks each year then her dad. Her .223 deer was over 200 yards from where hit. You will get hydrostatic shock from a .300 Weatherby but not from a revolver. You just make a bullet work.
You are confusing crappy bullets and having no hydrostatic shock out of a pistol which is why i dont believe anything you say. The idea that a revolver doesnt have the velocity to put a big big old hole due to hudrostatic shock is absurd but an often blithered theory. How a 320 hardcast with a meplat smaller than its diameter makes a bigger hole than a good expandable expanding to .7” or more isonly made because the bullets suck. The only reason anyone thinks a .223 wont just flatten a deer handily with a large wound channel isnt that the small fast bullet theory is wrong (on deer) but because the shooter doesnt use the right bullet. That is why i view your supposed experience so skeptically. Either you dont have the experience you say you do or your powers of observation are really poor. Basednon your 500 yard rock chuck revolver shot claims and 2” groups with revolvers at 500 yards and what not i choose both options. Your powers of observation are poor and your experience isnt what you claim it to be!
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
Sorry you do not understand. But you have zero experience. I fell into the wide meplat junk and with failures with a WLN too fast I made WFN bullets to find they were worse at speed. The pressure wave from the nose moved tissue out of the bullet path with too much velocity. Slowing the bullet got rid of the secondary wound channel. Most of what you hit in lungs is AIR and it does not transmit energy like fluid. Did the deer breath out or in when shot? I am not allowed to post large pictures here but I can show revolver destruction as bad as a 577 express. Fix this site to post. My new lap top is 1 trig but a few KB's here is stopped.
I have shot most guns to the .460 Weatherby and the largest revolvers made. But I only have deer here. Now there is a worry about the disease and if it is safe to eat meat. Now the tick that carries lime disease has a new virus that kills. But what I learned about bullets that might fail on deer would be just the ticket on elk, moose or drop an elephant. Every picture I want to post is rejected by the size. That sorry thing gets sick.
1 trig byte of storage. Remember the old days with byte, then a kilobyte, a gigabyte was huge and you stuck sticks of ram to get faster. The hard drive went away with solid state memory. The desk top is gone, a watch has more power today. Look at cell phones.
I’m really not the kind to like arguing, but this is such a trip when someone espouses such nonsense and years if experience essentially go to waste. Its kinda like going riding with a friend that has ridden a motorcycle for 40 years and still doesnt know how to correctly turn and brake. Except this is funny and not dangerous.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
Dwell time??? I guess those fairies need time to sprinkle their dust. I have to give credit to BFR, he is relentless. If I ever start feeling sorry for myself, I just read a few of his posts and instantly start feeling better. Which is safer and more convenient than a trip to Walmart on EBT day.
Originally Posted by Tradmark
I’m really not the kind to like arguing, but this is such a trip when someone espouses such nonsense and years if experience essentially go to waste. Its kinda like going riding with a friend that has ridden a motorcycle for 40 years and still doesnt know how to correctly turn and brake. Except this is funny and not dangerous.
Fact, you can do something for decades and still be doing it wrong. This is lost on a lot of people.
1 trig byte of storage. Remember the old days with byte, then a kilobyte, a gigabyte was huge and you stuck sticks of ram to get faster. The hard drive went away with solid state memory. The desk top is gone, a watch has more power today. Look at cell phones.
It's terabyte.
I remember those days too. Got our first IBM PC in 1983.
We still add or replace RAM chips to gain memory/capability/speed.
Conventional hard drives never went away. Solid state drives are not universal and they are still hard drives.
I'm sitting at a desktop right now, with the OS on an SSD and everything else on a conventional hard drive. People who fart around on Facebook or the internet in general might have gone to tablets and laptops but if you do it for a living, you're almost universally going to be using a desktop. I would never be without one. Unless I could retire early. Then I'd never look at another screen or argue with you ever again!
Stick to what you know....or at least the usual things you 'think' you know.
Problem was power outages even with a surge strip. Fried the mother board. I lost sound after the power went off 3 times in a row. Then I got the blue screen of death after 5 minutes. USB plugs were hot. We have the worst power company ever. At the desk top the power goes so restart and it goes out again and again even before the screen comes up. It zapped the power supply once so I changed it. The pin from the cord was burnt. Must have gone through more desktops then I can count. Bump it and the hard drive fails. Ram was running 82% with the max I could install. I built my own and my daughter built the rest. Best for the time but a year to the next advance was like 1000 years. Big hunk of metal with more wires in the way.
![[Linked Image]](https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f196/MarkoR/IMG_1569_1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f196/MarkoR/IMG_0748_1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f196/MarkoR/IMG_0749_1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f196/MarkoR/IMG_0847_1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/medium/102083.jpeg)
