6.8 SPC Forums banner

How many people think pistol caliber cartridges kill better than rifle caliber cartridges

41 - 60 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
So pistol calibers kill better than rifle calibers?
They both kill. Its all a bunch of trade offs. Weight, velocity, over penetration etc. Personally if its anything under a 12" barrel I prefer pistol caliber. Ammo is plentiful and I can set up both my backup (pistol) and primary (carbine) to run the samd ammo. This lowers my overall logistics requirement. Here is a nice compact .300 BO for you
66535
66536
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
So pistol calibers kill better than rifle calibers?
At slower speeds they do. Rifle bullets traveling at higher impact speeds have greater stored energy to fragment or to tumble. Lighter rifle bullets traveling at lower speeds do not have the same momentum or kinetic energy as heavier pistol bullet with a large diameter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
At slower speeds they do. Rifle bullets traveling at higher impact speeds have greater stored energy to fragment or to tumble. Lighter rifle bullets traveling at lower speeds do not have the same momentum or kinetic energy as heavier pistol bullet with a large diameter.
True, unless they have any body armor. Then you may want the faster moving rifle bullet.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,053 Posts
Velocity is what does the most damage, what causes the most shock to organs and tissue outside the wound channel. Sure a bigger bullet makes a bigger hole but it doesn't kill nearly as efficiently as a smaller faster bullet. Any bullet designer out there will tell you the same thing. If it isn't at least 2200FPS then it is just a trade off. None of them are going to be as effiicient as any caliber traveling over 2200.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
True, unless they have any body armor. Then you may want the faster moving rifle bullet.
True, but the faster bullet will have to be traveling much much faster to penetrate armor. The heavier bullets will have better penetration on barriers like doors, glass and walls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
A 9mm out of a pistol will not defeat LIIA
A 9mm out of a carbine should not defeat LII
A 300 BO or 5.56 will both defeat LIIIA soft armor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
I think for the discussion at hand, I would choose a rifle cartridge.

And because of the short barrel to meet the size & weight constraints, 300BO would be my first choice due to terminal performance, adaptability (supersonic/subsonic), large capacity & readily available mags (and other parts) and reasonable ammunition weight per round count.

I know I already said all of this, and most of the time we are all trying to shut down the BO promoters for unrealistic performance, but this application is literally what this cartridge was developed for and I feel it meets all the criteria and specs set with the best balance of all the above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guts

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
A 9mm out of a pistol will not defeat LIIA
A 9mm out of a carbine should not defeat LII
A 300 BO or 5.56 will both defeat LIIIA soft armor
Excellent questions. I enjoy this debate.

True, if the 300 and 5.56 are not expanding bullets. The none expanding bullets will not having the same terminal performance as 9mm unless they tumble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leatherneck

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
I think for the discussion at hand, I would choose a rifle cartridge.

And because of the short barrel to meet the size & weight constraints, 300BO would be my first choice due to terminal performance, adaptability (supersonic/subsonic), large capacity & readily available mags (and other parts) and reasonable ammunition weight per round count.

I know I already said all of this, and most of the time we are all trying to shut down the BO promoters for unrealistic performance, but this application is literally what this cartridge was developed for and I feel it meets all the criteria and specs set with the best balance of all the above.
Agree.
The 300 BO is a poor choice for hunting and is no where near a 30-30 that all of that crowd likes say. The 300 Ham-r is not near the performance of a 30-30 when the same weight bullets and same length barrels are used. I think we all had plenty to say about the exaggeration of performance of the 300BO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
If I want to match 9mm performance I can always load 147 gr at 3/4 strength in the 300.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guts

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Why do all the doctors say pistol wounds don't do that much damage but rifle rounds destroy much more?
You probably know this stuff, but just in case.... Going back to what Dr. Martin Fackler and Dr. Gary Roberts said a number of years ago, it has to do with the amount of stretch from the temporary cavity (TC). If the temp cavity is too small (handgun rounds), pretty much everything returns to its original location unharmed. The only permanent damage is what the bullet cut and crushed on its way though. If the TC is large enough, some tissues tear before they return. If there are fragments that cut the tissue while it is stretched, the damage can be much worse. WHEN 5.56 fragments, that's why it is so deadly (it didn't alway fragment, though). That is also why the proposed military bullets for the 6.8 SPC all fragmented. Surgeons like Fackler who actually worked with combat injuries made the distinction between simple "pistol-like injuries" and the more complex "rifle-like" injuries that often had more widespread damage. The pistol bullet needs to hit the vital organ whereas the rifle bullet just needs to get close enough while traveling fast enough.

The recent rule of thumb for "rifle-like effects" has become 2200 fps (one of the hunting ammo makers recently stated that on a video), the real world is more complicated than that. It is combination of effective frontal area and speed as well as exactly what tissue the bullet is passing through. An expanded bullet has an increased effective frontal area as does a FMJ when traveling sideways. Years ago, I asked Dr. Roberts about .30 carbine and he said that it showed "rifle-like" wounding, fwiw. He also said that an expanding .44mag out of a carbine caused rifle-like wounds. My understanding is that the large diameter of the mushrooming bullet makes up for the lower velocity.

Duncan MacPherson wrote an article in the Wound Ballistics Review an number of years ago about the "stunning effect" of high-velocity rifle rounds. He stated that if a bullet traveling at high velocity passes near the spine, the force of the moving tissue from the TC smashes into the spine, essentially causing enough blunt force trauma to stun the animal. Often it is stunned long enough to bleed out before it can recover and run off. This explains some DRT's that miss the spine but manage to drop the animal. Apparently this surprised a lot of hunters who switched from 30-30's to .270's in the 1920's and 30's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
If I want to match 9mm performance I can always load 147 gr at 3/4 strength in the 300.
If the 300 and 9 are the same weight and the same speed, the BO will have better penetration, deaper wound channel but smaller diameter. P=Force/Area
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #54
I started out with a 30-30 around 1970...big heavy and slow because that is what the old timers thought worked. Around 76 I purchased a 30-06 and found out what worked better. A few years later I really got into the gunsmithing courses and tried a .243 and 270 with lighter and faster bullets. The big heavy and slow 30-30 never dropped animals as quick as the lighter, faster bullets. If I had tried 110-120gr bullets in that old 30-30 it may have worked as well as the 6.8 does now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guts

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
My neighbor worked on a study for the military (I don't know which study) on "remote wounded", the military term for hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock should really be called hydrodynamic shock, but that's the colloquial term for it. He is a physician and has a degree in mechanical engineering. Very interesting guy to talk to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
If I want to match 9mm performance I can always load 147 gr at 3/4 strength in the 300.
Do you know if anyone has tried the 350 Legend from a short barrel. It has a .357 bullet and a lot more powder behind it. Hodgdon list 24-30gr of powder. The bullets aren't as sleek as the 300, but the larger diameter bullet should make better use of the powder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
It is the pressure wave, (temporary wound channel) that causes "remote wounding". Wider frontal area at higher speeds causes a greater pressure wave, the "drop them in their tracks effect". Basically knocking them out. Blood loss kills them before they wake up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
My neighbor worked on a study for the military (I don't know which study) on "remote wounded", the military term for hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock should really be called hydrodynamic shock, but that's the colloquial term for it. He is a physician and has a degree in mechanical engineering. Very interesting guy to talk to.
In the early 2000s all you had to do was say "hydrostatic shock" to really, really upset Dr. Roberts and most of the other people studying wound ballistics. "Remote Wounding" would do it too. They had no problem with damage a few inches from the bullet track, but there was one guy (Courtney maybe?) who kept saying that you could shoot an animal in the leg and the hydrostatic shock would cause the blood vessels in its brain to explode. They HATED that guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
Do you know if anyone has tried the 350 Legend from a short barrel. It has a .357 bullet and a lot more powder behind it. Hodgdon list 24-30gr of powder. The bullets aren't as sleek as the 300, but the larger diameter bullet should make better use of the powder.
I do not but should work well on deer and hogs. I never run across anyone shooting the 450 BM, 458 Socom, 30RAR or anything like that. I would like to see the real sales numbers of those rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #60
In the early 2000s all you had to do was say "hydrostatic shock" to really, really upset Dr. Roberts and most of the other people studying wound ballistics. "Remote Wounding" would do it too. They had no problem with damage a few inches from the bullet track, but there was one guy (Courtney maybe?) who kept saying that you could shoot an animal in the leg and the hydrostatic shock would cause the blood vessels in its brain to explode. They HATED that guy.
Yes, I remember Doc going off on snipershide several times. I think it was just misunderstanding the definition of the term. Lots of people really meant the wounding due to higher velocity not the pressure through arteries.
 
41 - 60 of 96 Posts
Top