Before beginning this piece on wound potential of various calibers, I opened a few notebooks and studied the subject again. I ignored reams of paper put out by gun writers but rather concentrated on the works by gentlemen with titles such as doctor, colonel or general. Vincent DiMaio, Dr Martin Fackler, John T. Thompson and Colonel Louis LaGarde are among some of the most authoritative experts through the years, so I looked at their work cataloged at the federal level not the newsstand. By federal level, I mean testing performed by the U.S. Army and FBI under careful test conditions. The time period ranges from about 1900 to the present day.
I have long studied the tactical implications of gunfights, which I find important to overall defensive knowledge, but the wound potential of each caliber and load is also incredibly vital to understand. I have taught wound ballistics in an institutional setting. There are well-documented scientific studies that shed much light on the subject. The most recent were conducted by the FBI. In the previous century, the U.S. and British militaries also conducted thorough tests. Each of these studies met the test of science. They were valid, well done, repeatable and verifiable.
In contrast, a generation ago, the popular press published a number of so-called stopping power studies as well. The methodology was questionable at best and the results often unverifiable and even unrepeatable. The editors who published these studies had no background to distinguish between a hoax and science and evidently did not care as long as it kept readership buying. If in fact the events described took place—and that is a big question mark—the results were invalid as the methodology was bankrupt. As an example, only events in which one shot was fired and connected were included. This makes small calibers look much better if the results of that one bullet performed well during that one test.
Science vs. The Popular Press
I remember there were, at one time, reports in a magazine of a so-called goat test in which wired or tethered goats were shot to see how the ballistics performed striking actual tissue and bone. Stories like these that appeared in enthusiast publications had little to no impact on professional opinions save as comic relief among serious study. But some of my students brought that rubbish into the classroom. I told the young police officers I would simply apply the rules like a small-town magistrate court. Prove the events occurred, and we would discuss them. It never happened. They could never offer any proof short of this is what the author said. Among the most respected writers of that generation was a man you may have heard of, Colonel Jeff Cooper. He did not place much stock in these so-called studies either. Cooper was a preeminent firearms instructor, and also a writer who never struck an off key or played a bad note.
The so-called studies purported to gauge the effect of various calibers in actual cases where they stopped actual felons in their tracks, providing unscientific, yet anecdotal evidence of the stopping power of some smaller calibers. Not stopping at the propagation of misplaced faith in calibers such as the .32 ACP and .380 ACP, the pundits and editors even assailed the records of such experienced warriors and gunfighters like Sgt. Alvin York and Wild Bill Hickock.
I know for certain that a Congressional Medal of Honor isn’t awarded without a great deal of investigation, so York’s exploits with a firearm were well-documented and affirmed. As for Hickock, well, no one would have delivered a slander to his face when he lived would they? He knew his way around a firearm.
Controversy Through History
When using history to support arguments for the lethality of calibers, you must infer some things from the data available. For instance, wound potential seemed not to be a subject of study until about 1900. The .44- and .45-caliber service revolvers simply worked and dropped both men and horses well. The .44 cap and ball in particular earned a reputation for lethality during the Civil War. A dead soft .457-inch ball expands aggressively in living targets. The .36 Navy was effective at close range as its .380-caliber soft lead ball expanded and made a serious wound. The more ballistically efficient Minie ball traded off a lot of wound potential. The pointed Minie Ball traveled further and shot flatter due to a flat base and pointed nose. But its wound potential was diminished due to this shape. It did not plump up like round balls upon impact, creating a larger, and thus more lethal, wound cavity. This made for the first wound potential controversy!
Then came smokeless powder and a move to more aerodynamic, elongated pointed bullets. Usually harder than the older soft lead balls, these loads were far from effective in small bores. The U.S. military adopted a .38-caliber revolver that delivered miserably ineffective results. After the initial debacle, the .38 was replaced with .45-caliber revolvers as a stop gap, simply because they were bigger and delivered more energy to their target. A study of handgun calibers was eventually undertaken that led to the adoption of the .45 ACP cartridge. In its own way, the test was as important as the U.S. military trails leading to the development of the 1911 pistol. These tests were undertaken to determine that caliber the the Army would find most efficient and deadly. Settling on a .45-caliber round, they adopted a self-loading pistol that would chamber this caliber.
The U.S. Army conducted a series of tests in 1904. The Thompson/ LaGarde testing was undertaken to explore the effect of handgun bullets on cadavers and live animals. The tests are often used to point out the superior effect of big bore handguns and was instrumental in the adoption of the .45 ACP cartridge. But shooting slaughterhouse bulls and cadavers was more than about the .45 caliber’s capabilities. Colonel John Thompson and Dr Lous LaGarde qualified the factors that affect wound potential. While shooting the dead is gruesome much was learned from the autopsy. Caliber or bullet diameter, bullet weight, velocity, bullet profile, stability, tumbling and angle of impact all play a role in how lethal a round is. The path of each bullet was carefully documented in this study.
Controlling Results
We cannot control and easily measure such factors as they occur in a moving fight against an adversary who may not be stabilized and is moving or who may be firing at us. This makes for an uncertainty principle in wound potential. These studies are far more valid than the modern unprofessional stopping power studies by amateurs. On the other hand, modern lab testing, which involves firing into gelatin blocks and measuring the total wound and total area affected, is measurable and repeatable. Agreed, not all factors are covered in gelatin testing, such as bone and muscle density, but they are a reasonable device for study. Gelatin testing in controlled conditions is preferable to a hodgepodge of uncontrolled events. A reasonable person would choose a handgun with respectable wound ballistics and a balance of controllability. For most of us this means a 9mm, especially if our practice schedule is limited. A .45 ACP is good for those willing to invest more time and effort in learning to control the piece. So is a 10mm or .357 Magnum a good choice. But only if you are able to control the caliber.
The Thompson LaGarde test validated the superior effect of .45-caliber handguns over high-velocity small bores. The .30 Luger and 9mm Luger—all were tested with nonexpanding bullets—were dismal on live animals. But Colonel Thompson did note one area in which the high velocity small bore calibers were superior, and this passage of the test is often overlooked.
When fired into the skull of cadavers—and skulls are thick and solid as bones go—the .30 Luger and 9mm Luger produced extensive damage from secondary fragments and penetration. The .45s were not as impressive in this scenario. The difference was profound. High velocity shattered bones and produced fragments.
This reminds us of WDM Bell’s experience with the .30 Mauser. (Bell was among the most famous African hunters ever, a man of vast experience against both men and animals. He also served in World War One.) A far more powerful cartridge than the .30 Luger, the Mauser cartridge was generally effective when it hit bone.
Back to the Thompson LaGarde testing and trials. These were far-reaching tests of several handgun calibers that evolved in the military trials of the .45 ACP cartridge. Thompson recommended that handguns be issued with cup point “manstopper” bullets as they were capable of generating larger wounds and more rapid blood loss. Finally, Thompson noted that while the big bores were more effective than the 9mm or .38, nothing short of a “75mm field gun” could be counted on to drop an enemy with a single shot. That said, don’t neglect the recommendation of the .45 ACP based on the proven, well-documented performance of the .45 Colt cartridge in that time. There was no question of the lethality of that war dog. At the time, war horses and jaguars were a concern, and the .45 ACP was designed to deal with these threats.
Another finding of the Thompson LaGarde shooting tests was that flat-nose bullets with a blunt profile were superior in creating wounds. A round-nose projectile would sometimes skid off bone depending on the angle. A flat-nose bullet is more likely to break the bone. The examination of wounds in cadavers also found that damage to blood vessels and tissue is greater with a flat-nose bullet.
Elmer Keith’s semi-wadcutter design was yet to come, but it would prove a seminal design for handgunners. When I began my study of physics and mathematics, I began with Pythagoras and studied Kepler and Newton. I don’t find the Thompson LaGarde test invalid at all. Taken as a whole it is a complete and well-documented study in wound ballistics.
Colonel Thompson was also an early advocate of fully automatic weapons who went on to invent the Thompson submachinegun. He sometimes overshadows Dr. LaGarde.
Dr. Lagarde was a Colonel in the Army Medical Corps, a decorated officer who saw much action in Custer era campaigns and in private practice. It is less well known that Dr. LaGarde was in charge of studying wound ballistics of the new .30-40 Krag rifle cartridge and later the .30-03 and .30-06 high-velocity cartridges in which he contrasted these calibers to the black powder era .45-70. His work was published in a report from the Surgeon General in 1893. He also presented his work at the Pan American Medical Congress.
A Crazy Quilt of Observations
In my life, I have learned wound ballistics from many sources. A rich source for information on wound potential comes from ranchers, farmers and outdoorsmen. You run across many different opinions that must be taken at face value in some points and with a grain of salt in others. Some don’t find .32s or .38s effective against a jackrabbit. A military veteran once told me pistols are good for shooting dogs and nothing larger. As for deer, well, deer are about the same size as a man and about as hard to put down. Men are more susceptible to shock, however. As we often said in police work, don’t be the man in the other chair. It usually meant the man in the defendant’s chair in the court room but can mean other things, and it is never good. I wish to be on the side of research, education and reputable testing, not junk science.
A fantasy that is hard to kill is that .22s bounce around in the body. I have been on hand taking reports in the emergency room after folks were shot in the torso with a .22. One was a friend. None bounced in the body. I have seen quite a few autopsy photos. I have also shot animals up to coyote size in the field, not in a lab. From a rifle, the .22 doesn’t bounce around inside the body.
I can also confirm after tests in water and gelatin and also in correspondence with a NYCPD detective, the .45 Colt, in its original 255-grain form, does tumble. I have in my file a hodgepodge of information of interest and some is pretty bizarre.
- A cop is shot at thinks he is shot and kills his attacker—the cop is groaning in agony but not actually wounded. The shot missed.
- An entire agency wiped out by a .32 ACP pistol—well both officers at least. It does happen but doesn’t suggest the .32 ACP is a great defensive choice.
- A fellow actually plucking .38-caliber bullets out of his midsection with his fingers after he is shot (an old break top .38 S&W—146 grains at 560 fps as tested.)
- An FMJ .45 spins around a skull and exits without killing the victim.
- A .44 Magnum to the knee rips bone and cartilage from the appendage, crippling the man for life.
But all of these instances make up such a crazy quilt of results that I would never foist such an assemblage of events on a student seeking to determine what is the best load for delivering threat-stopping wound potential. Laboratory testing is repeatable and verifiable. It can be cross-checked and the results compared. Based on such study, I cannot recommend any caliber below .38 Special or 9mm Luger for personal defense. But that is no surprise. It is your hide, but I suggest everyone make their choices based on reputable testing and results.
Final Thoughts
I am not a ballistician or engineer. My degree is in police science and psychological study. I am an interested student of wound ballistics. I don’t pretend to be a final word but take any recommendation up the logic ladder and see how many rungs it will climb. Consider reliability, accuracy and a clean powder burn when choosing calibers and the ammunition you will use in your chose caliber. The choice you make could literally be a matter of life or death…your life or death quite possibly.
“nothing short of a ’75mm field gun’ could be counted on to drop an enemy with a single shot.”
OK, now I want one.
😁
I have had the opportunity to shoot a canister load out of a restored M1897 French 75 field gun during reference data collection for a WW1 VR project I’m working on with my students. What a blast (literally)! You feel it more than hear it. Kinda heavy to daily carry though!
Probably the most well written article I’ve read since TTAG changed hands. I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. Bigger, deeper holes.
And more of them accurately placed too 😁
Here we have the ten thousandth article on the topic. I think the writer’s conclusions are pretty solid.
I do occasionally carry my LCP .380acp, and know that it is certainly suboptimal. It’s just so much smaller and lighter than even a J-frame or micro 9mm.
Thirty-eight caliber revolvers cover such a huge range of things. You could be talking about weak old .38 S&W out of a snub nose, or you could be talking .38sp+p+ (basically .357 mag) out of a 6″ barrel.
I just don’t find 9mm to be more controllable. Maybe it’s my experience with my Para, or maybe it’s the weight, but I shoot it better than my dad’s Beretta 92 or my brother’s P320. The slow shove of 45 acp is much preferred to the recoil profile of 9mm or .40.
Quite an interesting article but “lessons” from the Great War are not exactly applicable to 2024. That was wholesale slaughter & trench warfare as well as disease & squalor. My 2 uncles were in France & both got deathly ill from Spanish flu.One died in 1939 as a result. I’ve already decided nothing smaller than 9mm and am looking at 10mm. I am somewhat of a fan of Paul Harrell’s meat tests…
10 is fun but I more have it setup in the G40 configuration. I think it was madmax that has one in the compact setup and seemed to really like it.
For a very long time the FBI used to track cartridge type in Police shootings. The .357 magnum had a reputation of one shot stop king (in the 125 grain, 135 grain HP). Of course now it’s at least three ‘mag’ dumps to rule supreme.
Should issue the Glock 18 to save time and spraining trigger fingers.
Net Energy on target trumps simple projectile diameter. Every time.
Now how that energy is transferred into the target makes all the difference. Is it all splashed into the surface due to underpenetration? Is it punching through both sides leaving a hefty remainder of unspent energy in the target?
Does it expand, going just deep enough to deposit all of its energy into vitals?
These are all valid questions that account for variables in lethality of applied ballistics.
Order of importance:
1. Energy on target
2. Shot placement (very close behind #1)
3. Penetration. Too much is better than not enough, but there is a Goldilocks zone that’s best.
4. Bullet construction (what does it do when it hits a flesh and bone target, and how does it deposit its energy?)
5. Permanent Wound Channel (how much tissue is disrupted, and if only circulatory vessels or organs, how quickly will the target bleed out as a result?).
A 5.56 NATO (.22 caliber) is far more statistically lethal than a .45 ACP, simply because it has far more energy (~1,200ft/lbs vs ~400). Bullet diameter is of very little consequence in the grand scheme. Now, when trying to cram effective energy into handgun-sized rounds, with manageable recoil, it becomes a lot tougher of a balancing act and taking advantage of the inertia of heavier bullets into account, it can help bridge the other lacking criteria…somewhat.
For handguns, there is a sweet-spot, but realistically if you practice and can place accurate shots (ideally into the central nervous system), if the rounds penetrate far enough, and perform consistently in the target, that’s the most important step.
For anyone who missed this one. This one is actually very bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM3ycTK7EHo
pass the donut.
FBI taught them everything they “know”.
“We cannot control and easily measure such factors as they occur in a moving fight against an adversary who may not be stabilized and is moving or who may be firing at us. This makes for an uncertainty principle in wound potential.”
I can personally attest to this — it is 100% true and I have first hand actual experience with seeing this “uncertainty principle in wound potential” in action “in a moving fight” where I was moving also “against an adversary who” was not “stabilized” and was “moving” and was firing at me.
Hit the bad guy several times each and the one with the gun was still up and engaging me and the one with the knife was still trying to get to my wife. Finally after several hits on the one with the knife I managed to put one in his lower back and that severed his spinal cord and he went down. But the one with the gun was still up and engaging me despite having been hit several times.
Its not that I missed, and sure I missed a few in all this movement, but the large majority of my rounds landed in the bad guys and created wounds in various body parts. And after I had advanced close enough in my efforts to save my wife and fired the last round I needed to fire out of three 15 round magazines I had three rounds left. Glock model 22 .40 S&W.
So, “uncertainty principle in wound potential” can be a real thing in such a situation.
.40 cal Booger,
What specific cartridges (manufacturer, bullet weight, bullet construction, and published muzzle velocity) did you fire at your attackers? (Bullet velocity and construction can effect terminal performance bigly.)
I was loaded with these in two mags > https://www.federalpremium.com/handgun/premium-personal-defense/personal-defense-hydra-shok/11-P40HS3.html
and loaded with these in one mag > https://www.hornady.com/ammunition/handgun/40-s-w-155-gr-xtp#!/
Ya would think two maybe three of these rounds hitting the bad guys and wounding them would have been enough, but nope, each had been hit several times and were still going. Maybe on a more stationary target with more assured shot placement one maybe two – but real life for such ‘movement’ incidents is not like a block of ballistic gelatin.
Shot placement is a necessary thing in such situations it turns out.
I related this before, to get the context > https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/why-gun-absolutism-is-counterproductive-and-toxic-for-the-concealed-carry-movement/#comment-6844642
.40 cal Booger,
Very good, thank you for your reply.
I wonder if the hollowpoints of both brands of bullets clogged with clothing and failed to expand? If that happened, those bullets would cause virtually the same terminal ballistics as ball ammunition which is very poor at rapidly incapacitating someone.
I replied to you but for some reason it went to moderation. So maybe it will appear later.
As Clint Smith says, don’t expect what you think is going to happen will happen.
Carry as much ammunition as you can. A second gun too if you can. A big one, not a little one.
IMO Rathcoombe still explains ballistics better than anyone.
https://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wound_ballistics_main.html
This video shows just how much ballistic size and numbers can be ineffective in extreme cases. Also why the principles of the Tueller Drill are necessary training when confronted by an attacker.
VIDEO: Deputy fatally shoots man who struck him with piece of wood
https://usacrime.com/montgomery-county-deputy-fatally-shoots-man-struck-him-piece-wood/
Thanks for the comments. Thanks for reading.
And remember- I am an average writer, I do my research and I have a very good editor!
ah, so you’re real.
i suspected they had finally given vlad tepes an underwood.
Verify the projectiles are hard cast for Glock, better yet stick with jacketed.
The Colt and Remington cap and ball revolvers were all nominally .44 cal. at the muzzle, and the most common ball ammunition is .451, not .457, the latter being for .45 cal. rifles. Which is why the .45 Colt (and its .452 bullet) can be loaded in a .44 cal. conversion pistol. I think it was Keith who reported that the Civil War soldiers he shot with told him that bullets were better for slaughtering cows, but that ball was better for killing men. The guns were designed for up to a 36 grain load, but most loads were closer to 27-30 grains.
Further, although plenty of men were killed with a .36, its lethality was typically marginal due to a lack of adequate penetration. Then again, antique store bought pre-made cartridges varied widely as to the amount of powder used, being anywhere from a meek 12 grains up to 18 or 20 grains. (Although the pistols could hold 25 grains, accuracy suffered with loads over 20 grains.)
We certainly did not need the sick and depraved picture of dead bodies to discuss pistol cartridges. If it was meant to glorify the .45 acp it failed because just about any caliber machine gun will chop up people at close range.
I might mention one of the men did survive for a while but refused to give the police any info on who the murderer’s might have been. It is said the police later knew who did it but could not prove it. Either that or they were paid off not to push the investigation as many were “on the take” from the ganges. Many years later the New York Cop Serpico revealed nothing much had changed as far as crooked cops taking pay offs from the underworld.
“We certainly did not need the sick and depraved picture of dead bodies to discuss pistol cartridges.”
We certainly do not need your continual sick and depraved comments supporting an agenda to remove constitutional rights for law abiding Americans to make them defenseless so your left wing insanity that emboldens and facilitates and aids mentally ill killers can do that to them.
We need more pics of the damage inflicted upon the Democrat’s key consistuency ie. the lazy “criminal class”, maybe images of all those limbs amputated by Civil War-era firearms from White men fighting to free the ancestors of ungrateful modern-day blacks who now demand rep-pur-ray-shunz, remind “THEM” of the sacrifices made for them to live their current lifestyles of dozens of pairs of high-priced sneakers, weebs, designer clothing, and taxpayer funded food & housing.
And as for caliber and damage to a “target” nothing beats a rifled musket (Minie) ball, unlike the falsely-labeled lung-blower-outer 9mm referenced by the diapered, dementia-ridden degenerate occupying 1600 MAGA Street that round really packs a punch.
(You Ohio folks) RHINO GOP Candidate Caught Mocking Gun Owners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLoRR8n1lTA
“(You Ohio folks) RHINO GOP Candidate Caught Mocking Gun Owners“
Vote for the party that approved pistol braces and bump stocks… Democrats.
Vote for the party that removed federal restrictions, opening up millions of acres of taxpayer owned land to the carrying of firearms… Democrats.
Spinoff clone linking to FBI now
That would also mean voting for the party of slavery, eugenics, Japanese-American internment camps, socialism, communism, AOC, and Joe Biden. No thank you.
the thing about motor oil is it’s better to have some than none.
Again with the calibre wars?
If you are anchoring your self-defense firearm to anything less than .500 S&W, you ain’t being serious.
Bigger is better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yHogGINkA
“Bigger is better.”
‘Zackly
Always liked the bigger bore weapons. Not always practical for concealment. I’m a larger man and usually can get away with my old 1911 as a concealed weapon.
Now, my advice would be to carry, practice and shoot the largest bore, heaviest load you can comfortably/practically work with. Being competent with a smaller caliber is better than not being able to control am adolescent howitzer.
I have a 75mm field gun. Would not want to be on the receiving end of it. Even with the government mandated solids.
“Always liked the bigger bore weapons. Not always practical for concealment.”
Open carry where possible, and .500 cal in the home should be de rigueur for protection. As to rifles, .69cal was not uncommon in the War of Northern Aggression (or, “The late unpleasantness” in more polite circles). And Civil War 2.0 sets the historical analogue for the ammunition and firearm.
How small is your 75mm? Can it be reduced using modern methods?
Still saving up for the Tippmann Ordnance Baby Gatling Gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJqYftL4uY
“As to rifles, .69cal was not uncommon in the War of Northern Aggression…”
I do miss Shelby Foote… 🙂
bra, bierce’s civil war shorts are must read.
“I do miss Shelby Foote… 🙂”
Indeed.
You pays your money and you makes your choice. Doesn’t hurt a thing to hear other opinions, but that is all they are…opinions.
I believe that modern bullet options and construction have significantly narrowed the terminal performance gap between “large” calibers and “small” calibers.
For example I occasionally carry a micro-compact pistol chambered in .380 ACP which in general is “weak sauce” as far as I can gather. And yet I load it with Underwood cartridges with “special” bullets which look like Philips screwdriver tips: those bullets allegedly produce incredible terminal performance well beyond quality hollowpoint bullets in .380 ACP.
Having said all of the above, I nevertheless carry a full-size pistol chambered in .40 S&W (and 180 grain bonded jacketed hollowpoints) for everyday concealed carry. And I carry a large revolver with 6-inch barrel chambered in .44 Magnum (and 240 grain jacketed softpoints) for “woods defense” against large and dangerous animals. That reveals my adoption of the mantra, “There is no replacement for displacement!”
One shot from a .45acp =2 shots from a 9mm but two shots from a .22 = one shot from a .44.
115+115=230
2 40gr.s 240gr.s it’s all the same. But, if you stick a sawed off shotgunms barrel about 2feet away from a goats head the head comes off.
“One shot from a .45acp =2 shots from a 9mm but two shots from a .22 = one shot from a .44.”
One shot of a Possum fart at close range is lethal in under 10 seconds.
(So a Possum woman once told me… 😉 )
I dont know what you paid her but I used to get a quarter a hide.
hand guns? screw that: atomic hand grenades!
“hand guns? screw that: atomic hand grenades!”
Only police are qualified to have those.
Do they have qualified immunity from the fall out?
“Do they have qualified immunity from the fall out?”
But, of course.
Comments are closed.