Does speed matter?

Biggfoot44 · Feb 8, 2019

Before the thread goes wild discussing Zoro's second line of inquiry, I'll touch upon Amigo's observations above.

Kudos for your approach in selecting your revolver ammo . It is important for you to test drive your serious purpose ammo for what works best for you in your gun, in your hand(s) . Going with the important factor that shot placement is critical , a load that you can shoot accurately , and control for for follow up shots is what you want. A good .38 +P , is a popular choice for defensive/ duty use in .357 revolvers . Also , you could try some of the various medium velocity .357 loads.

smokey · Feb 8, 2019

Zorros said:
Let me re pose the question ( althought a great discussion followed the original question). Any anecdotal evidence Of a negligible, but life saving, benefit to getting your bullet to target 300+ ft faster than the opponent? Say, if you are .5 second faster to shoot. .25 faster to shoot?

Are you asking if the flight time of a bullet within self-defense distances makes any difference in the outcome of a gun-fight? No. Bullets don't just instantly zap someone into oblivion, and you striking the target has no impact on any of their bullets that may already be in flight..... so if the bullet exited the muzzles at the same and you struck the threat first, you're still very much getting shot. In the time difference it would take between the two bullets making impact, nerves wouldn't have even gotten the first signal to the brain yet.

I also phrased it as "exited the muzzle", since there's be more variance in the lock time of different guns than the flight time of different cartridges at self defense distances.

The only real practical advantage of a faster projectile would materialize in the external ballistics. By that, I mean specifically the ballistic trajectory of the bullet in flight. The bullets fall at the same rate(gravity and all that), but the faster one covers more distance as it falls than the slower one. In other words, more velocity equates to less drop at distance. So if you expect to need to fire a handgun for defense(or offense for that matter) and are intending to hit a target 50+ yards away, something like a 10mm or .356 sig could make it easier to hit the target because you wouldn't need to account for as much drop.

outrider58 · Feb 8, 2019

Until humans develop super human abilities and become capable of dodging bullets, I don't see where bullet speed enters into the equation.

From the moment you squeeze the trigger, only two factors will count. One, the accuracy with which you are able to place the round. And two, what that bullet does once it hits its designated target.

All the rest will be debated for pages. It's all, superfluous IMHO.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Feb 8, 2019

If two guys shoot at one another at the same time and accurately...one shoots a higher velocity round...they will still both get hit and possibly both still die. You can do everything right and still lose your life...there are no guarantees. If you die a second or so after the bad guy...guess what? You still lose. As Bill Jordan said in his book "There are no second place winners in a gunfight."

cstone · Feb 8, 2019

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
If two guys shoot at one another at the same time and accurately...one shoots a higher velocity round...they will still both get hit and possibly both still die. You can do everything right and still lose your life...there are no guarantees. If you die a second or so after the bad guy...guess what? You still lose. As Bill Jordan said in his book "There are no second place winners in a gunfight."

My favorite example of your point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Coffelt

Shot three times, he returned fire killing his murderer with a single shot.

Pinecone · Feb 8, 2019

Amigo109 said:
I heard that if you shoot someone in MD with a "designer" round and they die, the States attorney will argue that they might have survived if it weren't for the KILLER bullets you used.

This is just what I heard.

Show evidence of ONE case where this happened?

Gun shop cowboy advice.

jcutonilli · Feb 8, 2019

Zorros said:
Looking at some defensive ammo in the ammo safe this am. 357 sig vs .45 critical duty. Stated 1350 fps v. 990. Guessing in a defensive situation, 300 fps+- faster can be a life saver?

The answer really depends on the situation. First of all, not all guns give the stated velocities. Many defensive rounds have a minimum velocity for expansion and putting that round in a shorter barrel may cause slower velocities and cause the round to not expand. Expanding bullets tend to cause more tissue damage than unexpanded bullets.

Additionally, real world situations suggest caliber does not play as an important role as some have suggested. Take a look at https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

If you want to see specifically which is better, I would look a get tests with firearms with similar barrel lengths and types. One place that I have found that has a significant number of these gel tests is lucky gunner. See https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/

jcutonilli · Feb 8, 2019

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
If two guys shoot at one another at the same time and accurately...one shoots a higher velocity round...they will still both get hit and possibly both still die. You can do everything right and still lose your life...there are no guarantees. If you die a second or so after the bad guy...guess what? You still lose. As Bill Jordan said in his book "There are no second place winners in a gunfight."

The statistics show that the vast majority of people in this country survive being shot. Only one in five or six die.

mopar92 · Feb 8, 2019

I haven't seen any bad guys who have a lil floating icon above their skull computer that says "requires X FPS or X Caliber to defeat. Now the benefits of reduced recoil/velocity loads is all things being equal faster split times and reduced muzzle rise. The compromise is reduced terminal ballistics and possible increased chances of mechanical malfunction. So, lets examine these pros and cons.
Faster split times. More bullets on the threat is always good. We're trying to hit a roughly 8" x10" area for practical effect. The more you can put there the better your chances.
Reduced muzzle rise. Gun goes off, muzzle moves off target. Less of that means more bullets on target. Good shit here.
Reduced terminal ballistics. Bullets don't do as much damage and are more likely to be negated by enviromental objects. Here's where it gets tricky. Handguns suck at lethality. Handguns poke holes in people, rifles blow holes through people and shotguns blow chunks off of people. Handguns are the most convenient option for 24/7 being around you. Rifles and shotguns suck to carry and stow.
Increased chance of mechanical malfunctions. YOU NEED TO TEST YOUR GUN AND YOUR AMMO. 200 round MINIMUM. You may need to modify your gun and/or magazines. If it's a revolver you need to make sure the crimp is good and it doesn't muck up the innards when fired.
My advice? If there is no medical need (arthritis, carpet funnel, nerve damage) avoid it. Get a bigger heavier gun and/or shoot more. Seek instruction. If there is a medical need, get the gun modified by a smith to ensure reliability.
That said I do use reduced recoil buckshot in the secondary truck gun. Other people might not be as good at dealing with 12 gauge plus I can shoot it a wee bit faster.

cstone · Feb 8, 2019

jcutonilli said:
The statistics show that the vast majority of people in this country survive being shot. Only one in five or six die.

Because handguns are generally not good for killing. Small rounds with mediocre velocity out of short barrels. They would be even less effective if they were regularly employed at distances over three yards. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but we use handguns because they are easy to carry and easy to conceal.

Long guns are a good tool if you are looking to make an impact. 12 gauge slugs are pretty convincing when they hit their target.

Blaster229 · Feb 8, 2019

The amount of ballistics knowledge is overwhelming LOL

Alan3413 · Feb 8, 2019

Shot placement trumps other considerations. Pick one you can shoot well and accurately.

ToolAA · Feb 9, 2019

cstone said:
Because handguns are generally not good for killing. Small rounds with mediocre velocity out of short barrels. They would be even less effective if they were regularly employed at distances over three yards. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but we use handguns because they are easy to carry and easy to conceal.

Long guns are a good tool if you are looking to make an impact. 12 gauge slugs are pretty convincing when they hit their target.

I’m not sure that is proven conclusion. I suspect that 95/100 ppl shot in the head die and 8/10 shot in chest die. The reason those fatality numbers are low is because of GSW’s to other parts of the body.

I’m looking for data to back that up, but picked a bad time to jump into this post.

Biggfoot44 · Feb 9, 2019

Yes shot placement is critical .

But there has been a comparison of head shot statistics. Evan Marshall broke out the numbers on aprox 10,000 cases in his data base on head shot vs toro shot ( all for single hits ) and there was no statistical significant difference in incapacition . Plenty of areas on the head don't impact the brain. Hits in the cheek, jaw , etc .

outrider58 · Feb 9, 2019

Blaster229 said:
The amount of ballistics knowledge is overwhelming LOL

It's all right there...on the interwebz.

Blaster229 · Feb 9, 2019

Biggfoot44 said:
Yes shot placement is critical .

But there has been a comparison of head shot statistics. Evan Marshall broke out the numbers on aprox 10,000 cases in his data base on head shot vs toro shot ( all for single hits ) and there was no statistical significant difference in incapacition . Plenty of areas on the head don't impact the brain. Hits in the cheek, jaw , etc .

I would consider those face shots. Not true "head" shots. You have to hit between the eyes down to the nose. Picture an upside down triangle going from the tip of the nose, up intersecting through the eyes and connecting just above the eyebrows.
You'll stop anyone, using any caliber, going any speed.

Huckleberry · Feb 9, 2019

Blaster229 said:
The amount of ballistics knowledge is overwhelming LOL

All the time I wasted reading Dr Ken Oehler’s books and research.

Wow!

Huckleberry · Feb 9, 2019

“Always Shoot First” - Han Solo, Kessel Run Ranch

Blacksmith101 · Feb 9, 2019

Huckleberry said:
All the time I wasted reading Dr Ken Oehler’s books and research.

Wow!

And Franklin Weston Mann's book:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4522233;view=1up;seq=1

jcutonilli · Feb 9, 2019

Pinecone said:
Show evidence of ONE case where this happened?

Gun shop cowboy advice.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...linois-version-of-the-george-zimmerman-trial/

While they did not argue different ammo would have saved his life, they do argue that the use of hollow point ammo was a sign of ill intent.

Does speed matter?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

2A TEACHER

Eats Bacon Raw

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Official MDS Court Jester

Active Member

God loves you, I don't.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Eats Bacon Raw

God loves you, I don't.

No One of Consequence

No One of Consequence

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics