Skip to main content

Tortoise v. Hare

Tortoise v. Hare

The bullet weight/velocity debate rages on. But is it important?

Slow, heavy rounds provide excellent penetration—too much of it, fast-bullet aficionados claim.

Some few of you may remember Super Vel ammo. It was the first attempt at making handgun ammo "all it could be." Lee Jurras developed the ammo, and the idea was to use then-recent advances in powder technology to get more power out of existing cartridges. By going with lighter than standard bullets and upping the velocity, he wanted to improve performance without having to invent new calibers.

Starting in the 1960s, the common police cartridge was the .38 Special, so instead of a 158-grain lead round-nosed bullet at an optimistic 850 fps (most did, or do, more like 700), Jurras used a jacketed 125-grain hollowpoint going 1,100 fps.

In the .45 ACP, he went from a 230-grain full metal jacket at 800 fps to a 170-grain jacketed hollowpoint at 1,100 fps. The results were spectacular, at least in the marketing. Every gun magazine ran articles, and the letters to the editor flew thick and fast.

And since those days we still have not settled the argument of light and fast versus slow and heavy. We have, however, greatly improved bullet design. In the 1960s and 1970s, even at hyper-speed bullets rarely expanded. Those that did often ended up as a scattering of jacket and core fragments.

Not that we had any standard test media to try them in. Water, soaking phone books, sawdust and cadavers all did their part, but it took Dr. M.L. Fackler and ballistic gelatin to give us a consistent test medium. And yet we're still unable to settle the slow vs. fast argument because we can't come up with a large enough, consistent enough database of shootings to come to any significant conclusion.

The ballistic gelatin crowd points to the consistency of gelatin and how results can be demonstrated scientifically, but they gloss over the fact that gelatin only simulates tissue. It is not the real thing.

Recommended


The "real-world" crowd points to the results of shootings to bolster this or that approach. However, every jurisdiction in the country reports things differently. And each shooting is subject to legal review, which means none is subjected to an utterly impartial analysis.

What does each say about the other? The slow 'n heavy side claims fast bullets break apart and fail to do more than create a surface wound. The fast-bullet crowd doesn't like the excessive penetration and says low impact velocities aren't great enough to produce temporary cavitation effects.

The dividing line falls with the heavy-and-slow camp on the side of the ballistic gel and the light-and-fast side looking at real-world shootings. And both are basing their opinions on incomplete data, like the blind men trying to describe an elephant.

In fact, real-world results contradict both approaches, and so do ballistic gel tests. One of my law-enforcement contacts reports that his department uses 9mm 147-grain subsonic jacketed hollowpoints--a load that is sneered at by both camps--and yet his department reports an unbroken string of successful shootings with that load. "Successful" in that the bad guys were all dead or immediately incapacitated, none continued their actions, and the good guys went home unharmed.

Fast-, light-bullet proponents like limited penetration and temporary wound cavities; heavy-bullet fans think speedy slugs are prone to breaking up.

On the other hand, I know of more than one shooting with .44 Magnums, with plenty of penetration and expansion, where the bad guys wandered from the scene before they could be apprehended.

So where does all this leave the person looking for a good defensive load? Well, in .45 ACP you could go with a Hornady XTP, Winchester PDX-1 or a Speer Gold Dot, each in 230 grains. You'd get full expansion, full penetration and 825 fps to 850 fps from any of them. Or you could go with Cor-Bon 165-grain jacketed hollowpoint, which means you're getting 1,200 fps, and a bullet that won't go a foot deep but will expand to a fare-thee-well.

Which works better? The one you put through a vital organ, an organ your attacker will miss right away. Sixteen inches of penetration through the gut won't cut it, and asteroid-velocity bullet strikes on the upper arm aren't stoppers.

You see, in all the arguments, everyone glosses over placement. Or they concede that placement matters but then proceed to argue about their favorite bullet. Life is a series of learning sessions, and one I have learned lately comes from Henk Iverson, the defensive trainer of Strike Tactical: You get only one shot.

His course calls for all shots onto a target not much larger than a playing card while moving, communicating, reloading and clearing a malfunction. What does he favor? light or heavy, fast or slow. Answer: Hits in the card.

Henk has seen a lot of people shot, and he's more concerned with placement than bullet design. Yes, some are better than others, but arguing the differences between the best of modern designs is like arguing angels dancing on the head of a pin. Who cares? What really matters is placement, so let's get out there and practice. A lot.




GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Recommended Articles

Recent Videos

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Handguns

Smith & Wesson M&P in 5.7 and .22 Mag. Calibers

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Gear

Streamlight Updates Its Wedge Flashlight with Tail Cap Switch

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Gear

Hodgdon Adds Match and HD to Its Winchester StaBALL Powder Line

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Gear

Crossbreed Rogue Holster and System with Mag Carrier

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Handguns

Smith & Wesson Model 350 Hunting Revolver In .350 Legend

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Handguns

First Look: Taurus GX4 XL

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Handguns

A Perfect 10? The S&W M&P 10mm

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Handguns

S&W M&P Shield Plus

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Handguns

A Perfect 10? The S&W M&P 10mm

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Handguns

Beretta A1 Carry

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Handguns

First Look: Federal .30 Super Carry Pistol Cartridge

Scott Rupp and Richard Nance correct some common shooting advice.
Learn

Bad Shooting Advice

Handguns Magazine Covers Print and Tablet Versions

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Digital Now Included!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

Buy Digital Single Issues

Magazine App Logo

Don't miss an issue.
Buy single digital issue for your phone or tablet.

Get the Handguns App apple store google play store

Other Magazines

See All Other Magazines

Special Interest Magazines

See All Special Interest Magazines

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Handguns stories delivered right to your inbox.

Phone Icon

Get Digital Access.

All Handguns subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.

To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.

Get Digital Access

Not a Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Enjoying What You're Reading?

Get a Full Year
of Guns & Ammo
& Digital Access.

Offer only for new subscribers.

Subscribe Now

Never Miss a Thing.

Get the Newsletter

Get the top Handguns stories delivered right to your inbox.

By signing up, I acknowledge that my email address is valid, and have read and accept the Terms of Use