wheelsonthebus
vroom vroom
- Apr 1, 2022
- 65
This is not a guide; I am not asserting anything; this is me spiraling about grain.
I am huffing that copium.
So I've been reading a lot of discussion on SaSu and contributing in my own little way as well to the ongoing discussion around firearms and damage. Most people's goals with using a firearm to CTB, as I understand it, is to die quickly, reliably, and with minimal suffering. The issue is that a lot of literature and reporting online overlooks whether or not the "victim" died immediately or not - did they die before they hit the ground or did they slowly bleed out? Funnily enough, if they were forthcoming about these factors, they would probably contribute to more effectively scaring people off of using guns to commit. This of course isn't my goal, so I'm going to be using this information for the opposite approach.
I'm guilty of it: overlooking grain and velocity. Because I never had to worry about it before because when I worked with guns the ammo was provided. I wasn't stopping by Academy Outdoors like "hi 7.62 x51mm NATO pls :3 do u take cash"
To be fair, angle of entry (where you shoot yourself) is probably the most important thing. But secondary to that, we seem to prioritize bigger calibers over anything and hold shotguns as the gold standard. First, a lot of people are not going to have access to a long barrel weapon. Maybe they have to make do with the firearm they already have. Maybe they will not be able to reliably hide or transport a shotgun or rifle. But also, people "survive" shotgun wounds for minutes even until succumbing.
So let's talk about grain (gr).
The definition: grain is the weight of the projectile. 1 grain = 1/7000 lb = 0.0648 g.
Heavier bullets (higher grain):
- Lower velocity (given same cartridge and powder capacity)
- Higher momentum
- Tend to penetrate more consistently (they push deeper through ballistic gel)
- With JHP (hollow point, which you'd better be using) they expand more slowly because velocity drives the expansion.
Lighter bullets (lower grain):
- Higher velocity
- More sensitive to drag/they slow down faster in the gel
- JHP tends to expand more aggressively and quickly if velocity is high
Two most popular 9mm self defense ammo, compared:
So bigger ≠ better?
Ugh!
So what does this all mean for point-blank shootin'? I'm glad you're asking! I'm asking, too! I don't fucking know! Am I overthinking this? I'd like to think so, but the anecdotes and neurosurgeons I know make me think that most folks that shoot themselves in the head weren't thinking enough!
I would assume that energy and velocity at muzzle (initial position) and on impact (final position) should be considered equal when shooting point blank. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is, after all, why we shoot against the skin. That and the transfer of the gasses themselves.
So, what do we think? If restricted in choice of firearm do we think lower grain might be the answer?
Tbh I'm thinking about going for a 454 Cassull. It's a revolver. For big game. You read that correctly. Point blank I do not expect to have much of a skull left. However, high or low grain? Idk. Shorter or longer barrel? IDK! Does it even matter at that point? lol no not at all haha there won't be a head.
I am huffing that copium.
So I've been reading a lot of discussion on SaSu and contributing in my own little way as well to the ongoing discussion around firearms and damage. Most people's goals with using a firearm to CTB, as I understand it, is to die quickly, reliably, and with minimal suffering. The issue is that a lot of literature and reporting online overlooks whether or not the "victim" died immediately or not - did they die before they hit the ground or did they slowly bleed out? Funnily enough, if they were forthcoming about these factors, they would probably contribute to more effectively scaring people off of using guns to commit. This of course isn't my goal, so I'm going to be using this information for the opposite approach.
I'm guilty of it: overlooking grain and velocity. Because I never had to worry about it before because when I worked with guns the ammo was provided. I wasn't stopping by Academy Outdoors like "hi 7.62 x51mm NATO pls :3 do u take cash"
To be fair, angle of entry (where you shoot yourself) is probably the most important thing. But secondary to that, we seem to prioritize bigger calibers over anything and hold shotguns as the gold standard. First, a lot of people are not going to have access to a long barrel weapon. Maybe they have to make do with the firearm they already have. Maybe they will not be able to reliably hide or transport a shotgun or rifle. But also, people "survive" shotgun wounds for minutes even until succumbing.
So let's talk about grain (gr).
The definition: grain is the weight of the projectile. 1 grain = 1/7000 lb = 0.0648 g.
Heavier bullets (higher grain):
- Lower velocity (given same cartridge and powder capacity)
- Higher momentum
- Tend to penetrate more consistently (they push deeper through ballistic gel)
- With JHP (hollow point, which you'd better be using) they expand more slowly because velocity drives the expansion.
Lighter bullets (lower grain):
- Higher velocity
- More sensitive to drag/they slow down faster in the gel
- JHP tends to expand more aggressively and quickly if velocity is high
Some common ranges:
9mm: ~115-147 gr
.40 S&W: ~155-180 gr
.45 ACP: ~185-230 gr
Let's talk stats:
SaSu may have you believe that the god almighty of SIGSWH (self inflicted gunshot wound to the head, say it 3 times fast) is a shotgun. End of story. Worry about nothing else.
A lot of data suggests otherwise. Here is one example for your consideration:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29855212/
Handguns
In the linked Journal of Neurotrauma study, handguns led to the highest mortality rates (58.7%).
Hunting rifles
48.7%.
Shotguns
They found that shotguns had the lowest mortality rates among firearms (31.9%).
Shotgun patients spent longer time in the ICU, with an average increase of 3.5 days, and in the hospital, with an average increase of 4.2 days.
Rifles
"Rifles were found to be the most lethal weapons of all, and patients of this type of injury are more likely to die before arriving to emergency rooms."
Study context
"For assaultive gunshot wounds to the head, there was a mortality rate of 41%. However, this increases to 74% if the wound is an isolated head wound compared to 52% for non-isolated.
Hmmm. This study, like many, forces us to extrapolate. Are shotguns so weak because all of the patients in the study shot by them were assaulted from some amount of distance? Or is it that there are other factors involved that would better indicate the lethality of different rounds that aren't often discussed?
Some facts:
There is a positive relationship between grain (weight) and muzzle energy. More propellant = bigger boom.
There is an inverse relationship between grain (weight) and velocity.
(This is the simplest part of rocket science. It's all downhill from there.)
http://www.gwicu.com/Assets/Articles/Ballistics.pdf This paper includes additional tables for other types of weapons, including shotguns.
There is a big ol hole in the available published research when it comes to how quickly one dies from a SIGSWH. There is also, however, plenty of anecdotal information available around the net about those who have witnessed such suicides. People do not always die immediately, but survive in agony for minutes.
9mm: ~115-147 gr
.40 S&W: ~155-180 gr
.45 ACP: ~185-230 gr
Let's talk stats:
SaSu may have you believe that the god almighty of SIGSWH (self inflicted gunshot wound to the head, say it 3 times fast) is a shotgun. End of story. Worry about nothing else.
A lot of data suggests otherwise. Here is one example for your consideration:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29855212/
Handguns
In the linked Journal of Neurotrauma study, handguns led to the highest mortality rates (58.7%).
Hunting rifles
48.7%.
Shotguns
They found that shotguns had the lowest mortality rates among firearms (31.9%).
Shotgun patients spent longer time in the ICU, with an average increase of 3.5 days, and in the hospital, with an average increase of 4.2 days.
Rifles
"Rifles were found to be the most lethal weapons of all, and patients of this type of injury are more likely to die before arriving to emergency rooms."
Study context
"For assaultive gunshot wounds to the head, there was a mortality rate of 41%. However, this increases to 74% if the wound is an isolated head wound compared to 52% for non-isolated.
Researchers believe that this can be attributed to the fact that isolated head wounds, which are often a result of suicide/self-inflicted injury, are performed at close-range in comparison to non-isolated head wounds that typically involve being shot multiple times from a farther distance. Furthermore, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 to 8 was found to be associated with the highest risk of death as well as prolonged ICU length of stay."
(I assume we don't want at ICU stay, because ICU stays are for alive people.)
Hmmm. This study, like many, forces us to extrapolate. Are shotguns so weak because all of the patients in the study shot by them were assaulted from some amount of distance? Or is it that there are other factors involved that would better indicate the lethality of different rounds that aren't often discussed?
Some facts:
There is a positive relationship between grain (weight) and muzzle energy. More propellant = bigger boom.
There is an inverse relationship between grain (weight) and velocity.
(This is the simplest part of rocket science. It's all downhill from there.)
http://www.gwicu.com/Assets/Articles/Ballistics.pdf This paper includes additional tables for other types of weapons, including shotguns.
There is a big ol hole in the available published research when it comes to how quickly one dies from a SIGSWH. There is also, however, plenty of anecdotal information available around the net about those who have witnessed such suicides. People do not always die immediately, but survive in agony for minutes.
If the goal is to shoot oneself in the head point blank, get all the hot gasses in there for maximum boiling, have all the expansion from the round for maximum blending, and ultimately turn the brain into porridge over a relatively short period of time of a second, I'm afraid that the weight and the speed of the round may indeed be relevant.Two most popular 9mm self defense ammo, compared:
| Bullet grain | Velocity | Energy on impact |
| 124 | 1150 ft/s | 364 ft/lb |
| 147 | 1000 ft/s | 326 ft/lb |
So bigger ≠ better?
Ugh!
So what does this all mean for point-blank shootin'? I'm glad you're asking! I'm asking, too! I don't fucking know! Am I overthinking this? I'd like to think so, but the anecdotes and neurosurgeons I know make me think that most folks that shoot themselves in the head weren't thinking enough!
I would assume that energy and velocity at muzzle (initial position) and on impact (final position) should be considered equal when shooting point blank. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is, after all, why we shoot against the skin. That and the transfer of the gasses themselves.
So, what do we think? If restricted in choice of firearm do we think lower grain might be the answer?
But, what about barrel length? What about exit holes? Is it better for the bullet not to exit because of potential ricocheting and compounding damage? Better not to exit because of the concentration of energy dispersal being localized inside the brain? Better TO exit because of implied high velocity, maximizing hollow point expansion? What about.....
This is why I hated physics class. Too many variables, too little time. But, hey, something to think about in the meantime if overthinking is your hobby like it is mine! Cheers!Tbh I'm thinking about going for a 454 Cassull. It's a revolver. For big game. You read that correctly. Point blank I do not expect to have much of a skull left. However, high or low grain? Idk. Shorter or longer barrel? IDK! Does it even matter at that point? lol no not at all haha there won't be a head.
Last edited:
