Energy
Energy may be the most misunderstood, and bandied about term in small arms
ballistics, at least as it relates to stopping power. The seductive thing
about raw energy is that it seems to make comparisons between different
rounds easy, as energy can be easily calculated by a formula and then the
energies of different rounds may be directly compared. A lot of foolishness
was "proven" by this approach back in the seventies. Because of the high
velocities that it's lighter, smaller bullets can achieve, the 9mm can
generate more muzzle energy than the .45. Many took this as proof that
the 9mm was a more deadly cartridge, even though tests at the turn of the
century using living subjects and animal carcasses instead of formulas
proved the .45 to be the superior round. For those who wish to calculate
energy of various loads the formula is given below, and on the formula
and table page.
W x V
450240
In the above formula W is the weight of the bullet in
grains, V is the velocity in feet per second squared, and the bottom number
is a constant. The answer given is the energy in foot pounds. Congratulations,
you are now a ballistician! You can apply this formula to any load you
know the velocity, and bullet weight of. This is not a bad tool for determining
what is a major caliber, and for getting a feel for how much power it takes
to make a round a reliable stopper, but it should not be considered, as
some have considered it, the gospel. Because this number is arrived at
by squaring the velocity, but only multiplying by the weight, this formula
tends to favor light, fast loads over heavier ones, which effectively means
that it will favor a smaller caliber over a larger one. This would be valid
only if bullet lethality were primarily dependent upon energy, and penetration
alone.
The interesting thing about this is that these light,
fast loads are just the type to make small permanent, but very large temporary
cavities. As was shown in the section on bullet placement, the temporary
cavity has little effect on most of the body. The organs most strongly
effected by the temporary cavity (brain, liver, heart, kidneys) would most
likely cause death if hit with or without the temporary cavitation effect.
A lighter bullet will tend to slow down much faster, so that by the time
it penetrates to a lethal depth in the body it may have lost much of the
cavitation potential it had coming out of the barrel. Some of the ultra
light, hyper velocity bullets introduced in the wake of these "discoveries"
back in the seventies, turned out to be dismal failures in the real world.
What most of them did was to dump most of their energy creating a large
temporary cavity, or to cause a very large, but very shallow wound, depending
upon the design of the bullet. Often this wound was so shallow that it
did not even extend to depth sufficient to reach vital organs. This was
particularly the case with frangible bullet designs, like the Glaser Safety
Slug. What many of the other light fast loads did was to exit the body
completely, causing a slight but very real danger to bystanders, and wasting
much of their vaunted energy as they continued on for some distance after
exiting. This debate has actually been going on for most of this century,
the argument over velocity verses bullet weight. Because Energy is a product
of bullet weight and velocity, it is possible to have a slow heavy bullet,
and a fast light bullet with the same energy. So which is better?
Before Answering the preceding question directly,
I want to set up a little table for comparison.
Projectile |
Weight (grains) |
Speed |
Diameter |
Frontal Area |
Energy |
E / FA |
.45 Auto |
230 |
850fps |
.454 |
.16 |
369fp |
2306 |
9MM |
124 |
1000fps |
.355 |
.099 |
275fp |
2778 |
.38 Special |
158 |
850fps |
.357 |
.1 |
254fp |
2540 |
.357 Magnum |
158 |
1250fps |
.357 |
.1 |
548fp |
5480 |
.44 Magnum |
240 |
1200fps |
.429 |
.144 |
768fp |
5370 |
.223 (NATO) |
55 |
3250fps |
.223 |
.04 |
1290fp |
32250 |
.7.62 (NATO) |
168 |
2600fps |
.308 |
.075 |
2522fp |
36028 |
.300 Win Mag |
200 |
2830fps |
.308 |
.075 |
3558fp |
50828 |
Baseball |
2188 (5 oz.) |
132fps (90mph) |
9.000 |
63.6 |
84.67fp |
1.33 |
Bowling Ball |
112000 (16 lb.) |
20fps |
27.000 |
572.5 |
99.5fp |
.116 |
.25 a.c.p. |
50 |
800fps |
.25 |
.05 |
71fp |
1420 |
.22L.R. |
40 |
1140fps |
.22 |
.04 |
115fp |
2875 |
.177 pellet |
8.5 |
1000fps |
.177 |
.025 |
19fp |
760 |
200lb man faling |
1400000 |
10fps |
|
|
140000000fp |
|
All of the standard measurements have been included,
but what may not be familiar is the measurement in the last column. It
is an attempt by me to approximate what the penetrating power of a given
round may be. It merely shows how much force is concentrated in a given
area by dividing the total energy by the frontal area. This tells how many
foot pounds per square inch a round has. This affects penetration indirectly,
as the bullet type also factors into penetrating power, but it can be used
as a gauge to evaluate the potential penetration of a given round. There
are three axis upon which a round will damage a target. Two of them are
determined by the diameter of the round, while the third is a product of
the penetration of the round. A simpler way of putting it is that two of
them determine the size of the hole, while the third determines the depth.
What is interesting about the above chart is that
it shows the fallacy of depending upon high velocity, or weight alone to
create stops. A .177 pellet has higher velocity than a .38, or .45 slug,
but clearly does not have the lethality. On the other hand, a baseball,
or a bowling ball with their massive frontal area, and weight, are not
generally lethal, even though they have more energy than a .25 round, and
only slightly less than the .22. Recalling that the seriousness of a wound
depends upon the depth of penetration, as well as the total amount of tissue
affected, some observations may be made using the table above. In a man
sized target, it would seem that at least 2000 pounds of force per inch
is needed in order to penetrate far enough into the body cavity to cause
sufficient trauma. Thus it is not simply the amount of force, but the concentration
of force which makes a round lethal. It is estimated that around 20 to
40 foot pounds of force are contained in a knife or an ice pick during
a stabbing motion. Clearly this is a small level of force when compared
to some of those listed above, yet stabbing wounds can be very lethal,
and ice picks are notoriously deadly. What gives a knife, and in particular
an ice pick, it's lethality, and penetrating power is obvious upon examination.
The razor thin blade of a knife, and the tiny point of an ice pick, greatly
concentrate the force applied. If these forces would be calculated and
placed on the table above, it is likely that several thousand foot pounds
per inch would be listed in the last column for these weapons. These weapons
also have a tendency to curve through the body, rather than travel in straight
lines, thus producing a wound channel much larger than the instrument used.
Conclusions
Raw energy is an important factor in bullet lethality,
but it is only a factor, and must be properly applied for a round to be
effective. Tissues are capable of absorbing and disipating energy; some
do this better than others, but all are capable of doing it to a degree.
What is required is enough energy applied so that it will be transmitted
to the tissues faster than it can be dissipated, causing destruction and
penetration. This energy is applied by means of bullet size, weight, shape,
speed, etc. but is merely a measurement of raw power, and does not in itself
indicate effectiveness. All of the rounds considered to be lethal, because
they are able to penetrate to lethal depths in the human body, have between
2000 and 3000 foot pounds of force per square inch. There are rounds with
more power, but they are generally considered to be over penetrative, and
difficult for the shooter to handle. The Hatcher scale, and certain others
based upon the same theories, which take into account bullet diameter,
as well as penetration, and energy, seem to have the closest correspondence
to real world results.