# Could a slower bullet cause more damage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 6, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836 "2014-11-06T01:48:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Artemis\_Tardis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@Artemis\_Tardis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Artemis_Tardis)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/1 "2014-11-06T01:48:15Z")
If you shoot someone in the head the bullet will most likely penetrate the skull and cause damage on the brain on its path. If the bullet is travelling fast enough it will pierce the other side of the skull and keep going, leaving a “tunnel” on the target’s head. This is, sometimes, survivable, as far as I know. But what if the bullet has not enough kinetic energy to pierce the other side of the skull and bounces inside of it? I mean, thhis would create quite a lot of damage. So… could a slower bullet actually be more lethal than a faster one? ---
**Author:** ![CraterLayer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/87869e/32.png) [@CraterLayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CraterLayer)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/2 "2014-11-06T02:42:01Z")
I usually prefer using shotguns to the gut. The shot is much slower than than a bullet and packs a bigger punch at close range, but that is probably due to multiple projectiles. What you are looking for is a hollow-point bullet, which deforms upon entry, causing all kinds of neat internal damage. Let me know how it works out. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/3 "2014-11-06T03:39:49Z")
A slower bullet actually can be more lethal than a faster one. I happen to own (and shoot) old fashioned muskets. One of the interesting things I came across was that for many years, there was a theory that the old fashioned Civil War muskets actually caused worse wounds than much more modern cartridge rifles. For a long time, this was just conjecture, and it kinda goes against basic physics, which says that the kinetic energy in a bullet is 1/2mv[sup]2[/sup], which means that a smaller bullet traveling faster has more energy than a larger, slower bullet. Then they actually did tests on animal carcasses and found that while the faster rounds did have more energy, the old, heavier, slower musket rounds actually made worse wounds in the carcasses. Of course, the inferior ballistic properties of the old musket rounds (slower rounds drop a LOT more with distance) combined with the heavier weight of larger rounds, which has a very significant effect on logistics, means that it would be rather silly to go back to the older, heavier round. But just for wounding properties alone, the old muskets were one of the worst things you could get shot with. Specifically related to the skull, there have been cases where .22 rounds have bounced around inside the skull where a more powerful round would have exited out the other side and done less damage overall. Usually this involves the .22 round penetrating and then hitting the other side of the skull at a shallow angle so that it will deflect more easily. This has led to the urban legend that the .22 is one of the most deadly rounds to get shot with. While there are certain specific cases in which a .22 will cause more damage, in general this isn’t true. There are many more examples where someone was shot with a .22 and survived where under the same circumstances getting shot with a more powerful round would have been fatal. But yes, in some circumstances, slower rounds can be more deadly, even though they have less kinetic energy. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/4 "2014-11-06T03:46:18Z")
Sure. But velocity is not the sole determining factor. There exists a persistent rumor that .22 has been used because it can enter but not exit the skull. I am unaware of any systematic analyses though. Some examples from Wikipedia: 9mm Luger +P+ 115gr = 1400 ft/s. .45 ACP FMJ 230gr = 830 to 900 ft/s. But most argue that the 9mm is the weaker round. The heavier weight bullet (7000 grains = 1 pound/64.8 mg) means more power here. But also a heavier bullet is not always better. Edit: > [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > This has led to the urban legend that the .22 is one of the most deadly rounds to get shot with. I thought it was that the .22 was the most deadly round, but its fangs aren’t big enough to penetrate the skin? Of course there are examples of people dying from one .22 shot. There are also examples of people surviving 10 shots from a larger caliber. But the statistics are that .22 is less deadly than most others (except maybe .25, because most of those guns are more deadly when thrown). ---
**Author:** ![Ignotus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ecc23a/32.png) [@Ignotus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ignotus)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/5 "2014-11-06T03:52:39Z")
'Twas lethal enough to old Abe… ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/6 "2014-11-06T04:46:49Z")
> [@CraterLayer](#): > > I usually prefer using shotguns to the gut. Wait, what!? ---
**Author:** ![Toxylon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f05b48/32.png) [@Toxylon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toxylon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/7 "2014-11-06T09:28:50Z")
At least some small-game hunters feel this is the case. A bullet or pellet that expends all it’s energy going through the animal kills more quickly than a fast bullet that goes through the target without slowing down much. This isn’t necessarily a case of more damage done by the slow bullet, but a case of a better “knock-down” effect. I personally only hunt with bow and arrow, but my experience is that a blunt arrow that penetrates but not completely sure kills a small game animal quicker than a broadhead arrow that zips through, lethal as it is. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/9 "2014-11-06T10:22:22Z")
Reminds me of a case in the UK many years ago, where some robbers tied up a family of two adults and two children and shot each one twice at close range with a .22 - once in the head and once in the chest. Remarkably, three of them survived. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/11 "2014-11-06T11:25:06Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > A slower bullet actually can be more lethal than a faster one. > > I happen to own (and shoot) old fashioned muskets. One of the interesting things I came across was that for many years, there was a theory that the old fashioned Civil War muskets actually caused worse wounds than much more modern cartridge rifles. For a long time, this was just conjecture, and it kinda goes against basic physics, which says that the kinetic energy in a bullet is 1/2mv[sup]2[/sup], which means that a smaller bullet traveling faster has more energy than a larger, slower bullet. Then they actually did tests on animal carcasses and found that while the faster rounds did have more energy, the old, heavier, slower musket rounds actually made worse wounds in the carcasses. Who did the tests? What cartridges were used for comparison? In what way were the musket wounds “worse?” ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4bbf92/32.png) [@Charlie\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/12 "2014-11-06T11:55:44Z")
I’m no expert but I believe the amount of harm done by a bullet depends mostly on the shape of the bullet and its composition. Some bullets are made of lead or steel and some are called “steel jacketed” because they are covered with a steel jacket. Some bullets are called “wad cutters” or “open tip” or “hollow point”. To cause maximum damage, I think the bullet needs to have an open tip or hollow point because it will cause the flesh to be parted as the bullet moves. The entry would will look similar to the size of the bullet. But the exit wound will appear massively large. It will appear as if someone took an ice cream scoop and dug out all the flesh surrounding the exit would. That would seem to me to be the kind of bullet that would inflict the maximum amount of damage. [http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/foghorn/ask-foghorn-whats-up-with-bullets](http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/foghorn/ask-foghorn-whats-up-with-bullets) The above site discusses many different kinds of bullets as well as their shapes and the materials used to make them. Remember the movie “Full metal Jacket”? That kind of bullet is explained on that site. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/13 "2014-11-06T12:57:47Z")
Wadcutters cause maximum damage… to paper, which is their intended purpose - nice clean circle. Semi-Wadcutters are better for practical purposes. There are dozens of bullet types. Many are proprietary/marketing terms. I still have to look some up. Hollowpoints are subject to a lot of false info in pop culture. The fact is that police carry them because they are potentially less lethal to any bystanders, and are designed for soft targets. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/14 "2014-11-06T13:01:37Z")
Not that wadcutters can’t be lethal out aren’t carried though. Their intent is rather shooting. They look weird. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/15 "2014-11-06T13:04:15Z")
What we are talking about here is terminal ballistics. > **[Extensive Field-Tested Rifle & Cartridge Research - BallisticStudies.com](https://www.ballisticstudies.com/)** > > Expert rifle & cartridge research, carefully compiled through extensive field-testing & freely offered to the firearms community. > **[Terminal Ballistics - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc](https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ballistic-calculators/ballistic-resources/terminal-ballistics)** > > Video Library > > > > Energy on Target > Terminal ballistics is in many cases, the least considered aspect of ballistics when determining the kind of bullet to use for a specific purpose. Yet, it's an important process to understand if you want to achiev... [http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html](http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html) ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/16 "2014-11-06T13:51:21Z")
> [@Charlie\_Wayne](#): > > Some bullets are made of lead or steel and some are called “steel jacketed” because they are covered with a steel jacket. There is no such thing as a “steel jacketed” bullet; such a jacket material would damage the rifling of the barrel. There are bullet with steel or tungsten cores which are designed specifically for penetration through ballistic armor or barricades, but it would make absolutely no sense to excessively harden the jacket which functions to deform to and grip the rifling so as to impart the stabilizing spin on the bullet as it travels down the barrel. With regard to the o.p., generally speaking a bullet moving faster as it enters the body will do more damage, but the ideal is that it expands and delivers all energy within the target, hence why hollow point rounds are used by law enforcement in duty sidearms. Most modern hollowpoint rounds have a copper jacket (and thus referred to as “jacketed hollowpoint” or JHP) and are designed for controlled expansion within the thickness of a normal human torso without penetrating through and posing a hazard to someone on the back side. Wadcutters are nice for punching neat holes in paper but won’t feed reliably in service pistols and are ballistically inferior to rounded profiles. Full metal jacket (FMJ), lead round nose (RN), and jacketed or semi-jacketed semi-wadcutters are not desirable as defensive rounds because of their tendency to penetrate through and through, posing the same risk as noted previously. While kinetic energy is often referenced as a metric for the relative effectiveness of different rounds (and why advocates of the. 45 ACP or .357 Magnum tend to prefer those rounds) the real measure of effectiveness is the depth of penetration, which is largely determined by momentum at the entry point and the sectional density, and the depth of penetration. In this way, a slower but heavier bullet can penetrate deeper and potentially do more damage than a faster but lighter bullet, hence why law enforcement agencies tend to prefer heavier bullets (124 and 147 grain 9mmP, 165 grain .40 S&W) over lighter offerings (115 grain 9mmP, 135 grain .40 S&W). However, lighter JHP bullets with lower sectional density will tend to expand faster and more reliably. The oft-repeated claim of the .22 LR being fired into a skull and bouncing around has some modest amount of truth to it, and the .22 LR does have a very high sectional density, but it will rarely penetrate through the frontal area of the skull, and often gets caught and blunted, traveling around the skull just under the skin and stopping or exiting aft of the ear canal. In order to reliably penetrate the skull it would have to be fired from the rear (execution position) or through the almost paper-think section at the temple. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/17 "2014-11-06T14:00:27Z")
There are, indeed, steel jacketed bullets. They use a mild steel jacket that is often copper washed or has a thin gilding metal coating. Tulammo produces such. It is also frequently encountered on the surplus market. A magnet easily tells the tale. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/18 "2014-11-06T14:09:28Z")
Tulammo and Wolf (both produced in the same factory IIRC) sold as having a “bi-metal” jacket use coated steel jackets. Many gun clubs, including mine, forbid its use on the indoor ranges. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/19 "2014-11-06T14:35:17Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > There is no such thing as a “steel jacketed” bullet; such a jacket material would damage the rifling of the barrel. > **[Full metal jacket (ammunition)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet)** > > A full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet is a small-arms projectile consisting of a soft core (often lead) encased in an outer shell ("jacket") of harder metal, such as gilding metal, cupronickel, or, less commonly, a steel alloy. A bullet jacket usually allows higher muzzle velocities than bare lead without depositing significant amounts of metal in the bore. It also prevents damage to bores from hard steel or armor-piercing core materials. > Despite a widespread belief that the full metal jacket bullet... ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/20 "2014-11-06T16:16:46Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Who did the tests? What cartridges were used for comparison? In what way were the musket wounds “worse?” I can’t find a cite for the carcass test, which was done some time in the early 20th century, but here’s a link to a more recent NIH test: > [@](#): > > Wound ballistics: Minié ball vs. full metal jacketed bullets–a comparison of Civil War and Spanish-American War firearms. > > Author information > Dougherty PJ1, Eidt HC. > Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. > > OBJECTIVE: > > The advent of the full metal jacketed bullet in the late nineteenth century was thought to cause less severe battlefield wounds. This study compares the wounding characteristics of a reproduction rifle from the American Civil War to one of the Spanish-American War using the wound profile method. > > METHODS: > > A 0.58 caliber rifled musket using Minié balls and a 0.30 caliber Krag-Jorgenson rifle using full metal jacketed bullets were fired into calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin blocks at a distance of 3 meters. Measured parameters included maximum temporary cavity, muzzle velocity, and the permanent track. > > RESULTS: > > Maximum temporary cavities were significantly larger using the musket, averaging 121 mm (+/- 5.4) vs. 38.6 mm (+/- 8.8) (p \< 0.001). Bullet weights were also significantly larger, totaling 29.7 grams (+/- 1.3) for the musket vs. 14.18 grams (+/- 0.01) for the rifle (p \< 0.01). Using grains, bullet weights were 458.3 grains (+/- 20 grains; range 435.2-486.1) vs. 218.8 grains (+/- 0.15; range 218.7-219). Muzzle velocities of the musket were significantly less when compared with the rifle, averaging 944 fps (+/- 116) vs. 1852 fps (+/- 22.5), respectively (p \< 0.001). > > CONCLUSIONS: > > The rifled musket produced more severe wounds when compared to the Krag-Jorgenson rifle, as was clinically apparent to observers at the time of the Spanish-American War. From here: > **[Wound ballistics: Minié ball vs. full metal jacketed bullets--a comparison of...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19485111/)** > > The rifled musket produced more severe wounds when compared to the Krag-Jorgenson rifle, as was clinically apparent to observers at the time of the Spanish-American War. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/21 "2014-11-06T16:27:11Z")
Thanks for the cite. It is an interesting read and from a legitimate source. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836/22 "2014-11-06T17:36:01Z")
IIRC muskets could also introduce foreign material into the wound like patch cloth and cause infection. > [@Scumpup](#): > > Tulammo and Wolf (both produced in the same factory IIRC) sold as having a “bi-metal” jacket use coated steel jackets. Many gun clubs, including mine, forbid its use on the indoor ranges. Don’t some outdoor ranges also forbid them due to possible fire hazard or am I confusing things? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-slower-bullet-cause-more-damage/703836.md?page=2)